Pet peeves
- Thread starter mattdchef
- Start date
M
MsTexas
Guest
koalabear said:hehehehe...I knew you would perk on that.
tease
M
MsTexas
Guest
koalabear said:and a good one.One of my videos is in Texas.lol
Oh to say the least.
So lets see it then
Yanno, we're gonna get in trouble cause we're not peevein
M
MsTexas
Guest
koalabear said:I hate peeve theads.....there I did.
Little Town north of Dallas, just ask for my video.....lol
LOL
Didnt I already?
Oooooooooooooo
One more to go, are you gonna flash me for my 10,000th post?
M
MsTexas
Guest
koalabear said:I thought I was...lol
congrats on the cumming 10,000.....
LOL ... well yea but but but ....
YaY!
Ok, I'm going to bed now
~thank you teaserbear~
M
MsTexas
Guest
koalabear said:Texans and their Bushes.....
I got yer bush right here mister
M
MsTexas
Guest
People who spam my pm telling me to go look at their pics ... dont they know that if I wanted too I would have already?
M
MsTexas
Guest
supahspaz said:OK I'll stop....
You never have to do that silly ... I live in your thread
M
MsTexas
Guest
LexiCon said:
Or the ones that post thread after thread after thread with ONE pic
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway, PetroChina, and Sudan
A measure of Warren Edward Buffett's sheer intelligence and power of logic is his ability to express himself in writing that even a child could understand. Regretfully, those powers of logic and intellectual integrity do not extend to most of the public, the pundits, the critics, the media, or the financial services industry.
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/sudan.pdf
Commentary as to Berkshire’s holdings in PetroChina Company Limited
We have received several communications from the media, shareholders, and others questioning Berkshire’s investment in PetroChina because of the atrocities that are occurring in Sudan. Berkshire agrees that conditions in that country are deplorable and sympathizes with people who want to remedy them. We believe, however, that they are wrong in both their analyses of PetroChina’s connection to these conditions and their belief that our divesting our PetroChina holdings would in any way have a beneficial effect on Sudanese behavior.
To begin with, we have seen no records, including the various materials we have received from pro-divestment groups, that indicate PetroChina has operations in Sudan. The controlling shareholder of PetroChina, CNPC, does do business in Sudan. CNPC is 100% owned by the Chinese government, and its activities may logically be attributed to the government of China itself. But the Chinese government’s activities can neither be attributed to PetroChina nor the other major Chinese companies the government controls (also through 100%-owned entities), such as China Mobile, China Life and China Telecom. Subsidiaries have no ability to control the policies of their parent.
To understand that truth, simply look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Both are creations of the U.S. Government and indeed are commonly labeled Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE). Five directors of each company are appointed by the President, and both are overseen by a special governmental entity, OFHEO.
Does the United States government shape and in certain matters control the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Unquestionably. Are Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae responsible for the activities of the U.S. government? Absolutely not.
Furthermore, if a shareholder such as Berkshire disagrees with the activities of an investee – and we emphasize again that PetroChina, to our knowledge, has no operations in Sudan – is divesting the proper course for Berkshire? We do not believe that Berkshire should automatically divest shares of an investee because it disagrees with a specific activity of that investee.
Finally, in the proposition that China should "withdraw" its investment from Sudan, there is the "be careful what you wish for" problem. As we understand the matter, the Chinese government, through its 100% ownership of CNPC, owns a 40% interest in a Sudan venture whose primary assets consist of oil in the ground as well as fixed assets that transport and refine the oil. These are not assets that can be taken out of Sudan. In other words, China cannot take its share of the oil, the refinery or the pipeline and go home.
Rather, the only feasible divestment plan for CNPC would be to sell its 40% interest in the venture, almost certainly at a bargain price and almost certainly to the Sudanese government. After such a transaction, the Sudanese government would be better off financially, with its oil revenue substantially increased. Since oil is a fungible product, Sudanese output would be sold in world markets just as oil from Iraq was sold under Saddam Hussein, and just as oil is now sold by Iran. Proponents of the Chinese government’s divesting should ask the most important question in economics, "And then what?"
A measure of Warren Edward Buffett's sheer intelligence and power of logic is his ability to express himself in writing that even a child could understand. Regretfully, those powers of logic and intellectual integrity do not extend to most of the public, the pundits, the critics, the media, or the financial services industry.
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/sudan.pdf
Commentary as to Berkshire’s holdings in PetroChina Company Limited
We have received several communications from the media, shareholders, and others questioning Berkshire’s investment in PetroChina because of the atrocities that are occurring in Sudan. Berkshire agrees that conditions in that country are deplorable and sympathizes with people who want to remedy them. We believe, however, that they are wrong in both their analyses of PetroChina’s connection to these conditions and their belief that our divesting our PetroChina holdings would in any way have a beneficial effect on Sudanese behavior.
To begin with, we have seen no records, including the various materials we have received from pro-divestment groups, that indicate PetroChina has operations in Sudan. The controlling shareholder of PetroChina, CNPC, does do business in Sudan. CNPC is 100% owned by the Chinese government, and its activities may logically be attributed to the government of China itself. But the Chinese government’s activities can neither be attributed to PetroChina nor the other major Chinese companies the government controls (also through 100%-owned entities), such as China Mobile, China Life and China Telecom. Subsidiaries have no ability to control the policies of their parent.
To understand that truth, simply look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Both are creations of the U.S. Government and indeed are commonly labeled Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE). Five directors of each company are appointed by the President, and both are overseen by a special governmental entity, OFHEO.
Does the United States government shape and in certain matters control the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Unquestionably. Are Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae responsible for the activities of the U.S. government? Absolutely not.
Furthermore, if a shareholder such as Berkshire disagrees with the activities of an investee – and we emphasize again that PetroChina, to our knowledge, has no operations in Sudan – is divesting the proper course for Berkshire? We do not believe that Berkshire should automatically divest shares of an investee because it disagrees with a specific activity of that investee.
Finally, in the proposition that China should "withdraw" its investment from Sudan, there is the "be careful what you wish for" problem. As we understand the matter, the Chinese government, through its 100% ownership of CNPC, owns a 40% interest in a Sudan venture whose primary assets consist of oil in the ground as well as fixed assets that transport and refine the oil. These are not assets that can be taken out of Sudan. In other words, China cannot take its share of the oil, the refinery or the pipeline and go home.
Rather, the only feasible divestment plan for CNPC would be to sell its 40% interest in the venture, almost certainly at a bargain price and almost certainly to the Sudanese government. After such a transaction, the Sudanese government would be better off financially, with its oil revenue substantially increased. Since oil is a fungible product, Sudanese output would be sold in world markets just as oil from Iraq was sold under Saddam Hussein, and just as oil is now sold by Iran. Proponents of the Chinese government’s divesting should ask the most important question in economics, "And then what?"
ShinigamiSama
piecemaker
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Posts
- 7,339
didn't she just die?
bluebell
brownie-hearted meanie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Posts
- 4,558
I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Oops, wrong guy.
I watched five minutes of that trial today and it knocked ten points off my IQ.
Who the hell is that judge?
He's like someone's dirty Uncle Ralph who watches little girls run through the sprinkler while he puffs a cigar and scratches himself.
If men were cloth, he'd be the cheapest polyester Goodwill had to offer.
Naw. She's just in a drug-induced coma...forever.ShinigamiSama said:
I watched five minutes of that trial today and it knocked ten points off my IQ.
Who the hell is that judge?
He's like someone's dirty Uncle Ralph who watches little girls run through the sprinkler while he puffs a cigar and scratches himself.
If men were cloth, he'd be the cheapest polyester Goodwill had to offer.
Ekserb
You really hate me.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2002
- Posts
- 4,226
bluebell7 said:
This is so much better than what I was going to say.
I can't bring myself to be near a television when anything Anna is on. When she first came on the scene as Playboy's Playmate of the Year, I thought she was way hot. I thought it was great that Playboy was finally choosing a girl with a curvy body instead of the Barbie-doll mannequins they normally pick.
Then I heard an interview with her on Howard Stern.
In those few short minutes her quote went through the floor. What an out-and-out ignoramus. Nothing I have seen or heard since has managed to change my opinion that she is the dumbest person to walk the earth. How she was able to stay alive for as long as she did will go down as one of the great mysteries of the modern era.
Similar threads
