Moving the goalposts after your righteous slapdown? Not surprised. You are a fireman, correct? And you are trying to lecture me on finance? Face it, bud, you were wrong. Had you followed my advice, your 10,000 would now be about $25,000. How can you possibly think that Social Security would have been a better choice? How absurd. I'm surprised you are continuing the agony by still wanting to talk about it. You got freaking owned, son.
heck if you buy on Oct 10., 2008 maybe thats why you are so worried about taxes and capital gains... your not a very good trader are you... it has taken you 6 years to relize a 144% return... where you could have gotten... a 500% return by the end of 2005 or close to a 100% return in 21 days.... from Oct 10, 2008 when the stock was trading 9.85 till Oct 31st, 2008 when it traded $18.45
Me moving the goalposts? Where did the $10k figure come from? This shows how out of touch you really are. How many people have $10k just laying around to invest? You posited this stock as an alternative to SS, meaning most people would have been putting a little money in from each paycheck. They would have done OK the first few years, been stagnant the next few, and lost a lot over the last year. Only a minor percentage of the money invested would have been available for the early run that you misrepresent as being constant and most would have been exposed to the stagnation/downturn. That you fail to grasp (or more likely, acknowledge) this simple point is yet another reason why the people who think like you do have wrecked the country and it is only by tremendous effort that you didn't get a chance to do it to Social Security.
clean coal? it ain't going to happen for many years. if he acts on his plans, **** load of people are going to be out of jobs. coal is essential because is way more abundant than oil. if you **** with coal, get the **** out.
"Clean coal" is a public relations ploy. It approximates the ethical gymnastics of the "Beyond Petroleum" advertising campaign, designed solely to pacify consumers into continuing to ignore the terrible ramifications of coal emissions for the conceivable future. I recommend this video excerpt from Frontline about the infeasibility of capture/storage from a few weeks back: "Heat" Also, from a recent Rolling Stone: "Big Coal's Campaign of Lies"
the comments are reported accurately. the chron is disputing the meaning of the word "hidden", which isn't really what the controversy is about.
You have a nasty habit of mocking people's professions/jobs while concealing your own identity. It is both inappropriate and cowardly.
Obama's also going to cause electricity rates to skyrocket. from the same interview: [rquoter] The problem is not technical, and the problem is not sufficient mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is can you get the American people to say this is really important and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake, and climate change is a great example. When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations. That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers. You can already see what the arguments are going to be during the general election. People will say Obama and Al Gore …these folks...they're going to destroy the economy. This is going to cost us 8 trillion dollars or whatever their number is. If you can’t persuade the American people that, yes, there is going to be some increase on electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage and changing light bulbs and more efficient appliances, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy that the economy will benefit. If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you can be Lyndon Johnson. You can be the master of Washington. You’re not gonna get that done. [/rquoter] http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/2008/11/02/obama-energy-prices-will-skyrocket
^the taste of basso's bitter, bitter pain is far sweeter and well worth any increased costs. Waiter, another bottle of whine to go with my bowl of tears.
yeah he is a chump....he likes to talk down to people on stuff as if he is better than them. he also like to act like he has a lot of money which leads me to believe TJ is actually from dallas.
so basically you are saying you can make a lot of money if you buy the absolute bottom.... in my experience this is extremely easy to do
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wP6iqcrHvsE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wP6iqcrHvsE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
well on October 10th 2008.... the signs were all there... 7 straight trading days down... where the stock was trading solid above 20 bucks... in the weeks before... and the stock trading at or near a 6 year low... or basically where Trader_Jorge recommended it... if your following a stock for 6 years... you watch it almost trade 60 bucks within 3 years....from where you bought it at 10 bucks... then 6 years later you see it touch your original entry point... please tell me you wouldnt be buying... but this is what I do for a living ...so I guess a ignorant southerner wouldnt be abe to see it... and someone needs to make money and someone needs to lose money... better them then me...
I believe they and much of the business community support a cap-and-trade scheme as an intelligent, market-based solution to the emissions problem. However, I expect the philosophies governing what number the cap should settle at each year would differ between candidates. It sounds like Obama doesn't want dirty coal to be cost effective for anyone. Under McCain, maybe maybe no.
