Parsad

Thanks very much Dcollon! Much appreciated. Cheers!

Chanticleer released an 8-K saying that they fired their South African CFO, as the financials for the properties had not been audited as the company was led to believe. Preliminary reviews show revenues were accurate and there was no misappropriation. A detailed review and audit is being conducted. They need to learn from this, tighten and implement better accounting controls for all of their properties. Cheers! http://biz.yahoo.com/e/120910/hotr8-k.html

I might want to quote some of my favorite authors,... Richard Dawkins: “Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.” http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1194.Richard_Dawkins That's another thing. If religious zealots believe that God will protect them and punish those that trespass against them, then why the hell do they need to set off nuclear weapons or dirty bombs on civilian populations...or even crash planes into civilian buildings? Maybe these religious zealots just don't have enough faith in their own Gods! ;D Cheers!

The other side of that, and equally important to me, is what if that deity is a merciless deity. One who plays with our lives at will, allows children to be murdered or sexually abused, women to be raped and throws down earthquakes on the poorest of people simply to garner their devotion so that they may not be the next victim. Would you want to go to a heaven ruled by a God like that? I can't help laughing hysterically every time I hear a winning athlete or award winner thanking God in their interview. According to this logic, their God actually spends time deciding football or basketball games, and who is going to win an Emmy or Academy Award! Maybe God is a bookie in Vegas! ;D Cheers! Yes the merciless deity isn't one that I'd fancy spending any amount of eternity with. Which leads to a question: Why, I suppose, have the religious texts chosen a deity with a personality that effectively demands church membership and 100% devotion? Eh? I wonder what the membership would be like for the version where the deity let you believe what you want and he'd accept you unconditionally anyhow because he values diversity? What are you saying Eric? That writers of religious texts purposefully chose a merciless and ambivalent God, simply to scare the crap out of people to gain long-term, devoted parishioners. You can rebel against a tyrant, but how do you revolt against an omniscient, invisible and immortal tyrant? ;D Cheers!

Bloomberg article on Hooters, including a very brief mention of Chanticleer. Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-10/hooters-looks-to-catch-wife-s-eye-as-tight-shorts-rule.html

The other side of that, and equally important to me, is what if that deity is a merciless deity. One who plays with our lives at will, allows children to be murdered or sexually abused, women to be raped and throws down earthquakes on the poorest of people simply to garner their devotion so that they may not be the next victim. Would you want to go to a heaven ruled by a God like that? I can't help laughing hysterically every time I hear a winning athlete or award winner thanking God in their interview. According to this logic, their God actually spends time deciding football or basketball games, and who is going to win an Emmy or Academy Award! Maybe God is a bookie in Vegas! ;D Cheers!

Dual citizen Aussie (by descent) /US (born and raised)... check. Actually soon it will be tri-citizen (UK). My father was born in London and I can get citizenship by descent if I just apply (I'm in the process of doing that but it will take a few months). Eric are you searching for the perfect money? US, Aussie and now the pound? Cheers!

The key word here is "unnecessary". That's not the same as claiming to have proven a negative. It just means that the models of reality work just fine without having to postulate for a god. This is worth emphasizing because the same miscommunications about logical reasoning keep reappearing throughout the thread. Sorry but saying that god is unnecessary is extremely arrogant for someone who simply built a model which essentially reverse engineers an existence without reconciling that existence. I would be more impressed if the academics were more humble and admitted that their research confirms how little we know about our existence. Moore, it depends on what your definition of God is. Did you ask any scientist you've spoken to how they define it? Do they define it is something specific such as Christ, Shiva, Mohammed, what have you; an omniscient being responsible for the creation of the entire universe; or something as simple as a higher intelligence that created us? There are as many interpretations of God as you can think of. But if you tie it down to a specific religious text, I have a hard time seeing any scientist putting their faith in a book written by predominantly men with no supporting evidence. If all we have to base our faith upon is a book or words from a spiritual figurehead, then how does the Bible, Koran or Gita deserve greater significance than a scientific textbook detailing evolution, the structure of DNA or theories about the Big Bang? I would think that many scientists could not exclude the possibility of intelligent life outside of our universe. If so, how can they exclude the possibility that higher intelligence had some part in creating us...be it accidental or deliberate. The word "necessary" meant that you didn't need the word "God" to explain the universe. Science will eventually answer many of the questions we previously assigned to the word "God", when we simply could not comprehend how something occurred. Cheers!

As for your bashing of gold I can now count several years of you bashing gold (as with Ericopoly) meanwhile in those years gold continues to set new highs and act as the perfect money. Eventually people like you will catch on about gold and at that point I will be selling it to you! Gold is up 200% since the start of my fund. Did you have at least 25% gold exposure in your fund? If yes, then kudos to you...but I will never ever buy gold...unless it goes back down to $330/oz, which is where I did buy it once before and put it in my safety deposit box. But I sold it all when between $700-900...hey that was a 200% return in about 6 years...what do you know? By the way, there is no such thing as "the perfect money". Cheers!

I'm 30. Is this an attempt to pull rank on me or something? An appeal to authority or some other logical fallacy that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of my reasoning? A way to put me in the "young" bucket so you can more easily dismiss anything I say? Not that it matters; if I happened to be 50, you'd probably find some other way... Next you'll say: "Oh, I was just like you when I was your age, but I grew out of it..." *sigh* It's ok Liberty. As you get older, it will get much easier to be cynical, introverted, dismissive and stubborn in your ideas. You'll realize that liberal values and capitalism cannot co-exist...Buffett and Steve Jobs were a figment of capitalism's imagination. ;D Cheers!

Age doesn't change facts, being old or young doesn't have anything to do with it. But being older and having grown up during a time in which it was more common to indoctrinate children before they were old enough to think critically probably has something to do with more older people believing certain things... Go ahead and tell Hawkings and all the other physicists that they don't know what they're doing... Next you can tell Andrew Wiles that his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was flawed :o Our brains haven't evolved to intuitively grasp thinks like quantum mechanics or general relativity, and that's why they seem so weird and nonsensical to us (same reason why we can't think in 7 dimensions or about objects moving at relativistic speeds or whatever). But the math provides predictions that are testable with instruments and experiments, and at very very very very high levels of precision. This isn't just made up sh*t, we know a lot about how the universe works even if it doesn't make sense to you. And how old are you Liberty? I say 35 or less.. He's young enough to know that investing in gold is probably not a good idea. While the guys over 35 think the world is going to hell in a hand basket as a black president socializes the United States of America. But even those guys are too young to remember what the world going to hell really looked like...when it wasn't even possible for a black president to sit in the Oval Office and have the opportunity to socialize the country! Hey but back to the future! ;D Cheers!

Same happened to me. Maybe it's because we feel invincible and immortal when we are young, and then we realize as we get older we are most definitely mortal. Usually the aching joints after playing sports, as well as the tinge of arthritis that may be starting, give us the hard truth we never expected. ;D Cheers!

Actually, I could never go up a fraction that height...as I've gotten older, I've started suffering from a bit of vertigo. It's funny, from when I was a little boy right up to my early 20's, heights did not bother me at all. I used to rock climb, bungy jump, downhill ski on high, steep slopes and there wasn't a tree or rooftop in our neighbourhood that I had not scaled to the top. But probably about 8-9 years ago, I started to get a bit of vertigo from heights and it was even difficult to look straight down from our old office's 16th floor balcony. Cheers!

...collects 2 million percent return. Cheers! http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2012/09/07/suntrust-dumps-93-year-old-stake-in-coca-cola-collects-a-tidy-two-million-percent-return/?partner=yahootix

Actually what was a devolving political thread eventually turned into a very enlightening thread. I would recommend that boardmembers read from thread page 9 and on. StahleyP and Liberty were having one hell of an interesting discussion. We're fortunate to have such a broad-minded group of members. Cheers!

Ahhh... the slippery slope defense. Very clever! Let me ask you this. How can we justify the legality of marriage between two consenting heterosexual persons? For that logic would... support the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, euthanasia, gambling, drug use, drug sales, drunk driving (as long as no one gets hurt), public drunkenness, indecent exposure (or public nudity), the right to bear arms, duels, elimination of all zoning laws, speeding (as long as no non-consenting adult or his/her property is impacted), etc. Yet how can you reconcile this basic fact. We have in fact legalized heterosexual marriage between two consenting adults and yet we haven't fallen down that slippery path. Eh? That was brilliant Eric...be careful, you may be asked to a duel now! ;D Cheers!

So forcing someone who is against say abortion or birthcontrol to pay for it for someone else, is not using the state to enforce their morals upon others. There are plenty of people who disagree with social security, the military and even the utility of public education...should we stop paying for these things if a minority within a party (rhymes with pea) force the majority to cowtow the party line and they win the election? There are plenty of things we all pay for in a shared manner that we may not fully agree with...that's why we live in the countries and society that we live in...where people can speak their minds, have choices, and are given the opportunity to succeed. Cheers!

It's not simply a mere disagreement over morals as you portray it to be. Those people are all about using the power of the state to enforce their own morals upon others! That's tyranny. Yes Eric, you would think that rational people would grasp this! One is restricting the other from civil rights already available to one of them. Yet, somehow granting those rights to people whose sexual preferences differ is infringing on their rights. No one in my immediate family is openly gay that I know of, but I do have several friends who are gay and in my extended family. I can't see how they can make any more of a mess of marriage than everyone else out there. Over fifty percent of marriages already end in divorce, and I would say 1 in 4 have a hard time making it to even 7 years, where apparently plenty of itching begins...and apparently alot of conservatives do a lot of itching too! Denying one individual their freedom of rights is an affront to the constitution, yet here we are denying probably 1 in 10 people. Go figure! Cheers!

When you are hiding your children under the floorboards, something probably isn't right. I don't need God, Hitler or Mother Theresa to tell me that. Cheers!

I can't remember who it was but one comedian a few months ago described it best when Romney pretty much wrapped up the GOP nomination he said "And there you have it, it looks like it's going to be Mitt Romney, a man who has pursued this nomination with the single minded viciousness of an autistic Rottweiler" That's pretty damn funny! But at the end of the day I have to side with Ericopoly on this, the GOP will get my attention when they stop espousing agendas that openly discriminate against people. My conscience wouldn't allow it, basic civil and human rights like equality are not something I can compromise on. You would think they would have grasped this by now. So many who are conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues would easily switch their allegiances if the Republicans stopped alienating and building walls. But this is the "forget you" party...literally, they tell you to f**k off and then forget about you. Cheers!

++1 parsed comes off as a left wing extremist moreover his infatuation with Clinton is naive and typical of the younger generation clinging to sentimentality driven logic - ie times were good when I was 23 and Clinton was president. The guy got a freaking blow job in the oval office, he not only disrespected the presidency he set a sexual tone that has since metastasized. Finally I am so disappointed in how nobody on this board can see through the political bs and how clean and straight Romney is. Nobody has been able to find any dirt on Romney he's exactly what the world needs right now. Better a blowjob in the Oval Office than coming out of the closet after cheating on your wife during trysts with your gay lover. Everytime I hear of a politician who voted against same sex marriage, but then got caught cheating with his gay lover, it's always been a Republican! Not saying that Romney is going to get caught. ;D It's funny how sex in the oval office is deemed to be more offensive than 100,000+ people getting blown up over a war that never should have happened...I'm glad you've got your priorities straight Moore! Cheers!

I second that. On the other hand, W had ethics but made many poor decisions. I believe O's ethics are on par with Clinton's, but unlike Clinton, his only talent is drumming up the masses. He is not a policy guy, just a community organizer writ large. Between the three, I'll go with Clinton. W nearly took down the entire financial system...he can stick his ethics where the sun don't shine. The U.S. also was the most hated country in the world for the better part of his tenure, and there was probably more crony capitalism under his watch then the previous 100 years combined. You can dislike Obama all you want for his policies, but the U.S.' global stature is back where it was under Clinton or Reagan. And the biggest problem for the last 40 years has been U.S. dependence on foreign oil...whether anyone likes it or not, and you can debate all you want around the exact reasons (economic, innovation), that dependence is decreasing under Obama's watch. W couldn't even do it after invading Iraq and taking over the oil infrastructure there. You guys were all still driving 9 mpg Hummers then! I've heard five speeches now from the conventions...Ryan, Romney, Romney's wife, Michelle Obama and Clinton. Only one, Clinton, had a speech that talked about respect for members of the other party and trying to work with them. I hope Obama takes that turn, because that's what he needs to do. Cheers! I obviously disagree strongly with your political views. I also disagree with your understanding of the facts. W did not nearly take down the financial system. Did the system get near the brink of collapse? In many ways, Yes. Was it W's fault? If so, how? What did he specifically do, or not do, that nearly took down the financial system? Tax cuts? Obama supported renewing all of them and still supports renewing 80+% of them. Medicare Part D? I have not heard anyone call for its repeal? Two expensive wars? While unwise, and budget busters, they didn't cause the recession. Budget deficits did not cause the recession. Crony capitalism? Your statement that it was worse under him than the last 100 years combined shows you do not have even a basic grasp of US history. How is this W's fault any more than Congresses? In fact Congress is the one that writes the laws. (Which is what I find ironic about Harry Reid criticizing what Romney paid in taxes. It is not Romney's fault, he followed the law, it is more Reid's fault). Even the phrase "crony capitalism" is interesting in that it ignores crony governmentism (public sector unions, grants, etc). It is a congressional problem and ultimately a voter problem since we continue to let it happen. Fannie and Freddie? The blame there is more (but not exclusively) on the Democrats in Congress who resisted changes. How is a President to prevent a housing bubble? Greed blinded the buyers, originators, and lenders. Was the crisis due to lack of oversight on banks? Not solely, but it certainly contributed. Did W repeal Glass Steagall? Nope, that was Clinton and the Republican Congress. Democrats are running around saying that the crisis was caused by failed policies of the past? And therefore we need a new course. Of course they don't mention many specific policies. Interesting. Well those basic policies (lower taxes and smaller government) were started under Reagan and continued through Clinton. They worked fine for quite a while, and can in the future. US global stature is not the best barometer. Wars will lower your support. That Europe likes Democrats who share their views is not surprising. As for oil production increasing. Come on. Do you actually think Obama is that focused on it? What specific policies did he push for in order to increase production? How is he helping unlock reserves in the Bakken? How is he helping offshore drilling? It was the private sector that did it in spite of the obstacles. By the way, Iraqi oil is Iraqi oil. Iraqi production does not reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Lastly, what did Obama do that saved us from the crisis? He stabilized the financial system. That was done through implementing TARP which was passed at the end of the Bush presidency. Of course we still have a too big to fail problem which neither party has done anything about. He "saved" the auto industry. That too was funded under TARP. Of course he also did it through screwing bond holders and non-union pensioners. He passed a stimulus bill. Most recognize it for what it was. A handout to his constituencies, which greatly reduced its effectiveness. That you would like to see Obama talk about working with Republicans is nice. He has had four years. He chose not to. Look at Woodward's new book that reveals that the White House did not even have Boehner's phone number. He was the House Minority Leader. Obama doesn't even do a good job working with his own party leaders. Clinton and Reagan worked with the other party. When roadblocks occurred they went to the people and swayed them. Obama has done neither and shows no inclination to change. Time for change. Gee Tim, tell me what you really think! It's about what I expected. It's funny how it's always about Obama and the Democrats not working with the Republicans. Who got almost everything they wanted in the last budget session? The Republicans pretty much bullied their way through. What exactly on the Democrat's agenda was appeased? Obama has a hard time with his own party, because he's pretty much towed the line from previous administrations (both Democrat and Republican) on budget issues, tax cuts, foreign policy (except Dubya) and state issues. Most of you Republicans characterize him as some left-wing, Marxist activist who is going to destroy the country, yet he's actually been more centre-right than anything else in the last four years. You talk about Reagan and Clinton, yet it was Bush who started the country on this road down deficits and doubling debt. If the finances were in better shape under Bush, do you think the country would have been in better or worse shape to handle the recesson? Oh that little budget buster war in Iraq...one that should not have been fought in the first place. What about all of the money and lives lost on a war that never should have been. What about all of the fraudulent and inflated bills paid to companies associated with Bush & Cheney? Back in February 2003, Bush changed the watchdog over Fannie and Freddie because of fears there, yet he went on to pour more gasoline on the fire with lax regulation on banks, lenders, easy monetary policy and loose credit for consumers for another four years. This was a guy who bankrupted several companies, and now he was in charge of the United States of America...what the heck did you think was going to happen! In September 2003, there was further inquiry into FNM and FRE, yet no changes in legislation or regulation. And what was stopping Bush from enacting tougher lending standards on banks and other financial institutions, or especially mortgage backed securities? How about hedge funds? I was writing about hedge funds back in 2006 and early 2007, yet nothing happened. No tighter regulation or transparency. I was criticizing his policies way back on the Motley Fool board and also on the old MSN board. Some people saw the blowup coming a mile away, most saw it coming much closer, yet his administration just kept on pouring gasoline on the whole damn thing. We all saw Angelo Mozillo on CNBC talking about 110% financed mortgages...did Bush or his administration do anything? No! The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission stated that this crisis was avoidable...so who the heck was responsible for avoiding it for the seven years before it happened...Bush! Honestly, I don't think Bush was solely responsible for the problems. I do that to wind you guys up. There were alot of people responsible and it goes back to Reagan, then Clinton, but Bush was a significant part of the problem and his cronies were even more of a problem. You guys complain that Obama hasn't done much to fix the problems...it was one hell of a problem to deal with...yet he's dealing with the problem the same way Republicans would have dealt with it...since many of them are still in charge of fiscal and monetary policy. You want change because you're impatient...but the change you are going to get is worse for the entire system. I don't want to see the dark days of the Bush administration repeated. I don't think any administration could have done a worse job with foreign policy than Dubya & Chaingang Cheney, so Romney & Ryan are a step up from that. But it's your country, and you will have to decide where you go from here. I think Clinton said it best...is it on your own or are you in this together? Cheers!

Yeah, I thought about that, but then the spammers may start inundating my mailbox, instead of the registration box on the website. I get enought crap already! ;D Cheers!

In fairness, there is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crisis, including democrats and the private sector. Regarding crony capitalism - which is a huge problem - I wish it was diminished under President Obama. Unfortunately, I think it continues unabated. Yes, of course, but it happened on his watch. Isn't that what the Republicans are pounding on regarding Obama...that he hasn't been able to fix the economy on his watch? Well, if all of the recovery hinges on Obama, then all of the Great Recession really falls on the shoulders of Dubya based on that logic. I'm being facetious. Of course, not all the blame is Dubya's, but I don't think you can expect full recovery in four years from Obama or anyone else after what we went through. Cheers!

You're missing out on the Eastwood speech then! Oh that was brutal! That's why I didn't include it...it wasn't even a speech. It was a cranky old guy doing vaudeville! ;D If you've ever seen Bill Hader doing Clint Eastwood on SNL, that was exactly it. I used to think Hader was just doing an exaggerated caricature of Eastwood...I was wrong, no exaggeration. Cheers!