Oprano Adult Industry Forums - Just saw Passion of the Christ

Oprano Adult Industry Forums (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php)

- Legacy Archived Main Board (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/forumdisplay.php?f=25)

- - Just saw Passion of the Christ (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showthread.php?t=34030)

Gee Meni - my mother is a dyed in the wool Southern Baptist who gives most of her money to the church. She writes letters announcing her boycotting of TV show advertisers, she doesn't watch R rated movies, she thinks slavery is OK, gay people should die, and you shouldn't ever chew gum. She is so anti-abortion that she carries a little plastic fetus in her pocketbook. We won't even get into what she thinks about pornography......

Since she is my mother, per your logic, I am exactly like her. :unsure:

Quote:

Hutton Gibson is a notorious Holocaust denier and who claims the the World Trade Center was destroyed by remote control and not by al Queda; that the Second Vatican Council was a Masonic plot backed by the Jews and that all popes going back to John XXIII have been illegitimate "anti-popes".

Damn, no wonder he pisses people off!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/gibson.asp

Quote:

Originally posted by Peaches@Mar 22 2004, 09:25 AM
Gee Meni - my mother is a dyed in the wool Southern Baptist who gives most of her money to the church. She writes letters announcing her boycotting of TV show advertisers, she doesn't watch R rated movies, she thinks slavery is OK, gay people should die, and you shouldn't ever chew gum. She is so anti-abortion that she carries a little plastic fetus in her pocketbook. We won't even get into what she thinks about pornography......

Since she is my mother, per your logic, I am exactly like her. :unsure:

Yes you are

Quote:

Originally posted by Carrie@Mar 22 2004, 01:07 AM
spend money on jobs and education...

I guess you missed it in the other thread you started where Colin stated exactly how much $$ Bush has spent on education and how much he's raised the employment rate.

Missed might = conveniently ignored

how much does the war cost?
that money could go somewhere else

hey colin whats the deficit?

I didn't ignore anything
the employment rate?
only those getting checks are counted
its not accurate
3 million jobs lost
MSNBC

http://xboard.biz/pop01.gif Passion of the Christ= Shmatrix 4
I think

Quote:

Originally posted by Meni@Mar 22 2004, 11:54 PM
how much does the war cost?
that money could go somewhere else

hey colin whats the deficit?

I didn't ignore anything
the employment rate?
only those getting checks are counted
its not accurate
3 million jobs lost
MSNBC

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin+Mar 23 2004, 05:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Mar 23 2004, 05:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Meni@Mar 22 2004, 11:54 PM
how much does the war cost?
that money could go somewhere else

hey colin whats the deficit?

I didn't ignore anything
the employment rate?
only those getting checks are counted
its not accurate
3 million jobs lost
MSNBC

3 million more unemployed. 5 million more employed. To quote one without the other is nothing but politics. I hope you've been watching MSNBC long enough to know politicians only quote the numbers which tell their side of the story and the journalists report the more sensationalistic numbers and the numbers which inspie the most fear in people. Scared people watch the news.

Hell, most Republicans still think that the Clinton economy was a "false economy". That's one of the more amusing attacks I've ever heard. Of course, the Clinton era economy was a great one.

We've had it really good lately. People have forgotten the 1970's and early 80's.[/b][/quote]
Most people who understand anything about economics (be they Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, or politically inactives) know that what happened in the 90s was a false boom created from monetary expansion, followed by a bust which always follows a false boom.

Clinton did oversee a watered-down version of NAFTA, which was great for the economy, and he deserves kudos for that. A full-on free trade version would have even been better.

But Clinton also oversaw the raising of taxes, which is not good for the economy.

But then again, Clinton also oversaw the shutdown of the government for a brief period of time, which was absoultely marvelous and the best possible thing that could be done for the economy save a permanent shutdown of the government.

Whereas the only thing Bush has done positive for the economy is the miniscule tax cut. Everything else from the deficits to the tariffs to the increase in government size and scope is horrific.

Honestly, I'm tempted to say that Clinton was better on the economy than Bush.

Buff,

Nothing happens in a vacuum. If you want to compare economies we have to do that. Compare real economies. How does the Clinton economy stack up historically? Damned good.

Solid GDP growth, historically low unemployment, low inflation and reduced deficits.

If that was a "false boom", where's the bust? If this is it, it was sure as hell worth it. The last recession was years ago. Or maybe you are still predicting The Great Depression II starting .. when .. next month? How about a timeline?

I'm not assigning credit. How much credit does Clinton deserve for the roaring 1990's economy? No one knows. I have no idea. You can't disentangle that. You mentioned NAFTA but left out all of Clinton's trade agreements. He worked all over the globe arranging regional trade agreements. Hundreds of them.

Under Clinton, government spending compared to GDP fell to a 35 year low.
Even the number of people on welfare dropped. I would think you would be a big fan.

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin@Mar 23 2004, 06:29 AM
Buff,

Nothing happens in a vacuum. If you want to compare economies we have to do that. Compare real economies. How does the Clinton economy stack up historically? Damned good.

Solid GDP growth, historically low unemployment, low inflation and reduced deficits.

If that was a "false boom", where's the bust? If this is it, it was sure as hell worth it. The last recession was years ago. Or maybe you are still predicting The Great Depression II starting .. when .. next month? How about a timeline?

I'm not assigning credit. How much credit does Clinton deserve for the roaring 1990's economy? No one knows. I have no idea. You can't disentangle that. You mentioned NAFTA but left out all of Clinton's trade agreements. He worked all over the globe arranging regional trade agreements. Hundreds of them.

Under Clinton, government spending compared to GDP fell to a 35 year low.
Even the number of people on welfare dropped. I would think you would be a big fan.

Hiring millions of new government employees to reduce the welfare ranks is not the mark of an ever-increasingly prosperous economy.

Take a look at the value of the dollar, Colin -- vs other currencies and commodities. Take a look at real purchasing power -- what one dollar buys today vs 10 or 20 years ago.

And if you want to know what an impending disaster looks like, check out the debt statistics for households and factor that in with the national debt.

Americans are not saving. Period. There's a great article about the economic implications of that here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north254.html

Tell me, Buff. When were the good times in America?

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin@Mar 23 2004, 07:11 AM
Tell me, Buff. When were the good times in America?

The bad times in America are still better than the best times anywhere else. A financial meltdown here will still leave the average joe better off than the wealthy in most of Africa.

But to pretend like there is going to be no bill due for a government which has run up over $7 trillion in debt and citizens who are smothered in personal financial debt is lunacy.

What I mean is ...

If the 90's weren't good, what periods were? When was the last time government shrunk in proportion to the total size of the economy, GDP rose at a good clip, the deficit was substantially reduced, inflation was very low and unemployment reached extremely low numbers?

I'd say the late 1960's were pretty good. The late 1990s trump anything in between.

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin@Mar 23 2004, 07:48 AM
What I mean is ...

If the 90's weren't good, what periods were? When was the last time government shrunk in proportion to the total size of the economy, GDP rose at a good clip, the deficit was substantially reduced, inflation was very low and unemployment reached extremely low numbers?

I'd say the late 1960's were pretty good. The late 1990s trump anything in between.

Wait up... are you saying the government shrunk in proportion to the size of the economy in the 90s? You're joking right?

Quote:

Joint Economic Committee Study April 1998 (http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/function/f...ction.htm#title)

Quote:

This paper shows that excessively large government has reduced economic growth. These findings present a compelling case that rather than devising new programs to spend any surplus that may emerge from the current economic expansion, Congress should develop a long-range strategy to reduce the size of government so we will be able to achieve a more rapid rate of economic growth in the future.

The expansion of the U.S. economy has now moved into its eighth year and it has been 15 years since there has been a major recession. Despite this positive performance, the growth of real GDP in the 1990s is less than half the rate achieved during the 1960s. In fact, the average growth rate of real GDP has fallen during each of the last three decades. The economies of other developed nations have followed this same pattern of more stability, but less rapid growth.

Government provision of both (a) a legal and physical infrastructure for the operation of a market economy and (B) a limited set of public goods can provide a framework conducive for economic growth. However, as governments move beyond these core functions, they will adversely affect economic growth because of (a) the disincentive effects of higher taxes, (B) diminishing returns as governments undertake activities for which they are ill-suited, and © an interference with the wealth creation process, because governments are not as good as markets at adjusting to changing circumstances and finding innovative new ways of increasing the value of resources.

In the United States, government expenditures as a share of GDP have grown during the last several decades. At the same time, the investment rate has declined and the growth rates of both productivity and real GDP have fallen. An empirical analysis of the data from 23 OECD countries shows a strong negative relationship between both (a) the size of government and GDP growth and (B) increases in government expenditures and GDP growth. A 10 percentage point increase in government expenditures as a share of GDP is associated with approximately a one percentage point decline in the growth rate of real GDP.

An analysis of a larger data set of 60 countries reinforces the conclusions reached by analyzing OECD countries. After adjustment for cross-country differences in the security of property rights, inflation, education, and investment, higher levels of government spending as a percentage of GDP exert a strong negative impact on GDP growth.

The five fastest-growing economies in the world from 1980 to 1995 had total government expenditures as a percentage of GDP averaging 20.1 percent, which is less than half the average of OECD countries.

If government expenditures as a share of GDP in the United States had remained at their 1960 level, real GDP in 1996 would have been $9.16 trillion instead of $7.64 trillion, and the average income for a family of four would have been $23,440 higher!

The OECD countries currently spend 15 percent of GDP or less on the core functions of government-protection of persons and property, national defense, education, monetary stability, and physical infrastructure. When governments move beyond these core functions, the empirical evidence indicates that they retard economic growth. The reduction in GDP growth rates in the United States and in many nations around the world can be traced directly to their increases in government expenditures far in excess of the growth-maximizing level.

The Size and Functions of Government
And Economic Growth
From the standpoint of economic stability, the U.S. economy has performed very well in recent years. The current expansion is now into its eighth year, and the economy continues to grow. It has been 15 years since the United States has experienced a serious recession. This is the good news. But there is also another story that has been largely ignored: The real growth rate of the United States has persistently declined during the last three decades. Even with the expansion of the 1990s, the average growth rate during the current decade is less than half that of the 1960s, and only about two-thirds of the figure achieved during the instability of the 1970s. The experience of other developed nations has been similar -- their economies have been expanding, but at much slower rates than was previously the case.

The sluggish growth of developed economies is particularly surprising in light of another trend. Following the collapse of central planning and fall of the Berlin Wall, economic liberalism has become much more acceptable. In recent years, the world has moved toward greater economic freedom in several areas. Many countries have reduced their tariff rates, liberalized (or eliminated) interest rate and exchange rate controls, lowered their top marginal tax rates, and followed monetary policies more consistent with price stability.1 Economic theory indicates and a number of studies have shown that these moves toward economic freedom have promoted economic growth.2

Despite these encouraging trends, however, one major component of economic freedom -- size of government expenditures -- has generally been moving in the opposite direction. In recent decades, there has been substantial growth in the size of government as a share of the economy, particularly in high-income industrial nations. This study examines this expansion in the size of government and its impact on economic growth.3

And so forth. It's all there and elsewhere.

Anyway, debts must be paid or forgiven, and either case will be cause enough for economic collapse when the bill comes due.

Last edited by Buff at Mar 23 2004, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buff@Mar 23 2004, 09:04 AM

Anyway, debts must be paid or forgiven, and either case will be cause enough for economic collapse when the bill comes due.

Why wasn't there an economic collapse when the US debt exceeded the GDP during World War II? We're talking over 100% Debt/GDP ratio. Today it is only about 60% or so.

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin+Mar 23 2004, 08:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Mar 23 2004, 08:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Mar 23 2004, 09:04 AM

Anyway, debts must be paid or forgiven, and either case will be cause enough for economic collapse when the bill comes due.

Why wasn't there an economic collapse when the US debt exceeded the GDP during World War II? We're talking over 100% Debt/GDP ratio. Today it is only about 60% or so.[/b][/quote]
I understood the high to be around 98% in about 1947, but it doesn't really matter -- what that ratio does not account for is changes in the entitlement debt e.g. structural changes in social security, etc.

The debt is much greater than is reported and what you think it is. Enlightenment:

How Large Is the Federal Government’s Debt?

Quote:

Estimates of the Entitlement Liabilities

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The conventional measure of the federal government’s outstanding debt is the debt held by the public. This debt includes government bonds held by the Federal Reserve System as well as privately held bonds. Figure I shows this federal debt as a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the years 1940 to 2002. For this period, the debt reached its highest level, 98 percent of GDP in 1946. By 1974 it had fallen to 18.2 percent of GDP. It is often noted that the debt grew substantially during the 1980s, climbing from 21.6 percent of GDP to 36.3 percent between 1980 and 1988. However, these figures do not account for changes in the entitlement debt during this period. The total debt burden, including entitlement debt, actually fell during these years due to structural changes in Social Security. Over the remaining years the government debt held by the public topped out at 44.6 percent of GDP in 1993, and by 2002 it stood at 28.4 percent.

Figure II shows three measures of the Social Security system’s unfunded obligations relative to the federal debt held by the public for the years 1973 to 2002.4 The 75-year open-group and 100-year closed-group estimates show the effects of legislative changes in 1977 and 1983. Prior to 1983, the 75-year open-group unfunded obligation exceeded the government debt held by the public; from 1983 to 1993, it was less than the government debt held by the public; but from 1994 to the present it was again in excess of the government debt held by the public. Since 1994 the 75-year open-group unfunded obligation has been in the range of 41 to 46 percent of GDP. The 100-year closed-group is consistently larger than the 75-year open-group calculation. In the years since the 1983 reforms, the 100-year closed-group obligation has ranged from 103 to 125 percent of GDP. The final measure of Social Security’s obligations depicted in the graph is the accrued benefits measure. Accrued benefits have been calculated since 1996 and have ranged from 118 to 132 percent of GDP. Recall that accrued benefits are based on accruals from the past participation of current workers and beneficiaries and that future payroll tax payments are not subtracted.

Social Security Unfunded Liabilities.
In the 2003 Trustees Report, the present value of the difference between the system’s revenues and expenditures over the next 75 years is projected to be $4.9 trillion.5 Including the $1.4 trillion trust fund as an offsetting asset, or dedicated funding source, lowers this unfunded obligation to $3.5 trillion. New this year is an estimate of the infinite horizon unfunded obligation. That number is a whopping $11.9 trillion without the trust fund or $10.5 with the trust fund offset.6

Table I identifies the relationship among the four measures of Social Security’s unfunded obligations for the year 2002.7 Tax revenues and benefit payments can be divided among three groups: current beneficiaries, current workers, and future participants. Current beneficiaries are individuals 62 years of age and older in 2002, current workers are individuals 15 to 61 years of age in 2002, and future participants are those who in 2002 were under 15 years of age and all those yet to be born. The first row in the table indicates that current beneficiaries have already earned (accrued) the right to collect $4.1 trillion in benefits over and above the taxes they will pay on those benefits. This amounts to $111,286 per beneficiary.

The next row shows that current participants have also already earned the right to $10.1 trillion. Offsetting this figure is $800 billion in taxes that will be paid as the accrued benefits are received, for a net accrued benefit of $9.3 trillion. Summing over those amounts results in net accrued benefits of $13.4 trillion. This is also referred to as the maximum transition cost measure.8

The fourth line shows that current workers will in the future pay additional taxes of $12.3 trillion and earn additional benefits of $10.2 trillion. The combination of the current beneficiaries and current participants form the 100-year closed group. The difference between their taxes and benefits is -$11.4 trillion (line 5).

"Viewed in perpetuity, Social Security has an unfunded liability of $11.4 trillion"Line 6 shows the present value of tax revenues from and benefit payments for future participants who are not in the system today. As the table shows, taxes and benefits are both equal to $21.6 trillion.9 Thus future workers could pay their own way at the current tax rate and if the taxes were invested. All of the unfunded liability for the Social Security system is associated with the current participants. We should point out that a pay-as-you-go entitlement system that is solvent will always have a significant debt for its closed group. However, in a solvent system, taxes scheduled to be raised from future participants would have a surplus exactly equal to the debt owed to the current participants. With current tax rates and scheduled benefits, future participants’ net contribution to paying off the debt of the current generations is essentially zero, and thus they will not provide the needed surplus of $11.4 trillion. Thus, the long-run unfunded liability (the perpetuity calculation) is almost identical to the unfunded liability for current participants (the 100-year closed-group liability).

Medicare Unfunded Liabilities.
Table II shows similar calculations for Medicare. The 100-year closed-group Medicare unfunded liability is $13 trillion, the accrued debt is $16.9 trillion, and the perpetuity unfunded obligation is $38.3 trillion.10 Because of the expectation of rising medical care spending, future participants are a significant net burden on Medicare.11 Their benefits will exceed their tax payments by more than $25 trillion. Summing over current and future participants, Medicare debt exceeds the accrued Social Security debt by more than three to one.

Accrued Benefits for Seniors.
Although Congress is poised to enact a prescription drug benefit for seniors on the theory that they need relief from the financial burdens of out-of-pocket medical expenses, the reality is that seniors are much wealthier than most people realize. The right to draw Social Security benefits for the rest of their lives is analogous to a private pension. It is an "asset" whose value can be calculated. Similarly, the right to participate in Medicare is analogous to ownership of a private health insurance plan. The value of this "asset" can also be calculated. In general we estimate that:

For the average senior citizen, the right to continue collecting Social Security benefits for the rest of life is worth about $111,286 in today’s dollars.
The right to participate in Medicare for the rest of life is worth $70,701 for each senior, on the average.
This means that, in addition to all other assets, the average senior’s combined Social Security and Medicare benefits are worth about $181,987.
Total Entitlement Liabilities.
Table III combines Medicare’s and Social Security’s unfunded obligation measures. If we include only payments to current beneficiaries, the debt is $4.1 trillion for Social Security and $2.5 trillion for Medicare. The total of $6.6 trillion is still more than double the size of outstanding government bonds. Including liabilities owed to both current workers and current beneficiaries, on the other hand, the entitlement debt measures are significantly larger:

The combined unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years are $17.9 trillion.
Using the 100-year closed-group measures produces debts of $11.4 and $13.0 for Social Security and Medicare, respectively, for a total of $24.4 trillion.
Using the accrued liabilities measure produces a $13.4 trillion debt for Social Security and a $16.9 trillion debt for Medicare, for a total of $30.3 trillion.
Finally, the combined perpetuity unfunded obligation is $49.6 trillion, with Medicare accounting for more than three-fourths.
While these estimates may appear startling, other authors have estimated perpetuity shortfalls of similar magnitude. Recently, Gokhale and Smetters12 estimated that Medicare and Social Security combined produced a shortfall of $43.6 trillion dollars in 2002, when all future dedicated revenues and benefit payments are considered. Including the rest of the federal government, they estimate the total federal fiscal imbalance at $44.2 trillion.13 In a similar vein, Auerbach, Gale and Orszag (2003) have calculated a long-term fiscal gap of $59.7 trillion.14 [See Figure III.]

And more...

more

Buff, are you still short the 10 year?

My point is that economics are poor in predicting how markets and economies will turn out.

After the fact, it is easy to assign reasons to an outcome.

You are probably correct that the excesses of the past will one day be wrung out, but pointing to economic data in an attempt to time it is useless.

Witchcraft, baby!

Quote:

Originally posted by wig@Mar 23 2004, 08:41 AM
Buff, are you still short the 10 year?

My point is that economics are poor in predicting how markets and economies will turn out.

After the fact, it is easy to assign reasons to an outcome.

You are probably correct that the excesses of the past will one day be wrung out, but pointing to economic data in an attempt to time it is useless.

Witchcraft, baby!

Absolutely short the 10 year.

Quote:

Originally posted by wig@Mar 23 2004, 09:41 AM
Witchcraft, baby!

Another fallacy of economics as they apply to markets.

The same fundamental information that got you in the trade has not changed all the while the market has moved strongly against you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin+Mar 23 2004, 09:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Mar 23 2004, 09:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Mar 23 2004, 09:41 AM
Witchcraft, baby!

Witchcraft. Haha. Can't wait to see you again. You coming to Miami in August?

I'll agree with you guys that it is quite possible we'll have a nasty fall at some point. I just wouldn't put the odds any higher of that happening in 2014 than 2064 or even 3004. I'm long on humankind.[/b][/quote]
Yeah, I'll be there. We should do dinner again!

Anything is possible but when it comes to taking risk I am not a big fan of trying to predict economic collapses. Been there, done that and it only costs money!

All I know is that I was long bond futures from 112.00 and got out at 115.12.

I am short Nasdaq futures from 1537 and am still short half my position (got out at 1376 yesterday).

Still have this week as cycle low (maybe stretching into next week).

Quote:

Originally posted by wig@Mar 23 2004, 08:54 AM
Another fallacy of economics as they apply to markets.

The same fundamental information that got you in the trade has not changed all the while the market has moved strongly against you.

Moved what? Huh? It's pretty close to where it was a year ago.

Short the 10 year. You will make money.

Quote:

Originally posted by wig+Mar 23 2004, 09:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wig @ Mar 23 2004, 09:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

Originally posted by -Colin@Mar 23 2004, 09:48 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--wig

Quote:

@Mar 23 2004, 09:41 AM
Witchcraft, baby!

Yeah, I'll be there. We should do dinner again!

Anything is possible but when it comes to taking risk I am not a big fan of trying to predict economic collapses. Been there, done that and it only costs money!

All I know is that I was long bond futures from 112.00 and got out at 115.12.

I am short Nasdaq futures from 1537 and am still short half my position (got out at 1376 yesterday).

Still have this week as cycle low (maybe stretching into next week).[/b][/quote]
And my gold prediction... Ha!

I said buy in the 200s and it's in the 400s. And it will be in the 800s by 2008.

Quote:

Originally posted by Buff+Mar 23 2004, 10:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Mar 23 2004, 10:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Mar 23 2004, 08:54 AM
Another fallacy of economics as they apply to markets.

The same fundamental information that got you in the trade has not changed all the while the market has moved strongly against you.

Moved what? Huh? It's pretty close to where it was a year ago.

Short the 10 year. You will make money.[/b][/quote]
Buff,

Maybe you have not been paying attention, but I trade a lot and I take it very serious because I have a lot of money at stake.

You came out a month or two ago and said sell it. It is up from there. In fact, it is up enough that being long bonds made me mid 5 figures on the trade.

Now, I don't know what you trade or what your idea of shorting the 10 year is, but if it is in the futures market it has been rammed up your ass.

Quote:

Originally posted by Buff+Mar 23 2004, 10:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Mar 23 2004, 10:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

Originally posted by -wig@Mar 23 2004, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by -Colin@Mar 23 2004, 09:48 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--wig

Quote:

Quote:

@Mar 23 2004, 09:41 AM
Witchcraft, baby!

Witchcraft. Haha. Can't wait to see you again. You coming to Miami in August?

I'll agree with you guys that it is quite possible we'll have a nasty fall at some point. I just wouldn't put the odds any higher of that happening in 2014 than 2064 or even 3004. I'm long on humankind.

And my gold prediction... Ha!

I said buy in the 200s and it's in the 400s. And it will be in the 800s by 2008.[/b][/quote]
Buff,

Not to knock you. I'm sure that you are smart and have convictions.

I am on record long before you about Gold and the US Dollar.

Would you buy Gold right here?

Got to love how a thread about the Passion of the Christ morphed into trading

:okthumb:

The Passion of the Markets!

:rokk:

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin@Mar 23 2004, 10:48 AM
Witchcraft. Haha. Can't wait to see you again. You coming to Miami in August?

You could come to Atlanta........ :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally posted by Vick@Mar 23 2004, 10:20 AM
Got to love how a thread about the Passion of the Christ morphed into trading

:okthumb:

My thoughts exactly! The two pages of this look like two completely different threads! Had to keep checking the header to make sure this was the right place.
:P

Phun for everyone :)

http://www.jesusdressup.com