lostfan

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 28, 2010 -> 06:34 PM) Senators are going to play political games no matter what. If they've got power over something they don't care about, they're going to leverage that power to try to influence something they do care about. That's what's going to happen in any system of direct elections. But they still need to be punched in the face.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 28, 2010 -> 06:31 PM) The real answer to this whole issue is that there's no reason why there should be so many people deep within executive committees and departments who need Senate Approval. Cabinet secretaries, sure. People 3 levels underneath the undersecretary of the Treasury, um, no. Hell, that was even one of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission report that Congress ignored. True story. And senators that play political games with confirmation should be punched in the face 8 times for every one nominee.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 28, 2010 -> 01:05 PM) It's only bad when Obama does it. There's been a lot of complaining from the right already even though they had no problem with the last President doing the same thing. Honestly this is one of those things where you really can say "both parties are equally hypocritical" and it's not just some bulls*** false equivalency, which I ordinarily hate doing because it's usually a lame copout. Republicans had a hissy fit and acted like it was the end of democracy when Clinton made recess appointments, then when Bush took office there was a totally seamless reversal and the Democrats yelled about how Bush was abusing his power. This is something that can be easily tuned out and isn't worth talking about.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 28, 2010 -> 10:35 AM) There is an illegal labor joke in there somewhere... If I ever have to do that again, and coincidentally came across an illegal immigrant, i would totally pay them to do it for me. My back is killing me. Oh and thanks guys, nice to have my work appreciated

Didn't Hunter have a big drop-off the last couple of years?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 08:05 PM) ETF is essentially taking something and making it a "stock". You take whatever its underlying is (in this example gold) and translate it to a per share price. It exactly mirrors whatever it follows, but the ETF price is based on shares instead of ounces or bushels or whatever. Honestly it is a supersimple product in general because of its set up. The full term is electronically traded fund. That's kind of what I thought. Is this an ETF? http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GOLD In my Schwab account I can buy "shares" of this and that's sort of what it sounds like you're talking about.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 07:59 PM) Personally, I would stick with an ETF. A friend of mine told me that last night. What's the difference between an ETF and a mutual fund? (Cliff's notes version please, lol)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 07:42 PM) It's worth noting also that gold is being driven up in no small part by some political types who have been encouraging purchasing it as insurance against, um, the upcoming Obamageddon, or whatever you want to call it. Politics aside, if you're getting people to purchase something based on politics, then if the political winds shift, it will affect the price. True, I'm not trying to make money off it right now though so I think it's still a safe buy. QUOTE (knightni @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 07:47 PM) No sorry. I would suggest going to a metals broker and asking questions. Ss2k5 might know more than me, he was at the Chicago Board of Trade, iirc. Yeah, he originally gave me the idea to buy metal.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 07:34 PM) Unless a White Sox wins one. Alexei might win one even though he kind of sucks as a SS, based on the criteria written.

lol... you saw my facebook status, I don't even know what it was but I had made a conscious note to myself not to bother it and put that brick in a spot where the larva can hatch in a few weeks, and then I clumsily picked it up a few minutes later and SPLAT. I don't kill insects unless they sting or bite, so I feel bad

This is the retaining wall I've been building for the past few months - I started last summer and decided to add to it last fall and had to take a break during winter. It's not done but you can see mostly what it's going to look like, just picture more plants.

QUOTE (knightni @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 06:52 PM) http://commoditytradealert.com/blog/?p=5306 http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...IF2GwwD9ELVCI00 http://metals.about.com/od/investing/Inves...ity_Trading.htm Any recommendations on which company to buy?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 06:02 PM) And just imagine the carbon emissions@! lol... well Balta can correct me on this but I think the smoke and whatnot will go above the level of the atmosphere that holds rain, so it won't wash away and will drop the temperature a few dozen degrees

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 04:18 PM) Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depended on the breaks. But, really, we've got enough warheads floating around in the oceans to decimate a good chunk of Russia. And I'm sure they've the same. The "first strike" theory hasn't really been all the applicable since the 60's -- it's always been MAD because you just won't be able to take out enough of the capacity. This. Since the U.S. and Russia both have full nuclear triads (China does too but not as many) it's difficult to impossible to take out the full capability, so many of them can be deployed within a few minutes. Yeah, you'd take some bombers out before they get off the ground, hit a silo before the launch gets off, might get lucky and take out some submarines, but the rest are coming for you and it's going to be devastating. There is a link somewhere I'll post when I find explaining what exactly would happen. The loss of population won't all be directly related to nuclear blasts, it will come from things like starvation, radiation sickness, etc.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 10:54 AM) Hah, your blurb about the Yahoo comments reminds me of the Real Time with Bill Maher that was on last night. I generally don't agree with everything Maher says, but oh man, did he rip into the Republicans during his final little speech he gives each episode. If anyone manages to catch it, it is well-worth the price of admission... Watch at your own risk

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 10:36 AM) Even a "small" regional nuclear war could threaten the whole planet: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....cal-nuclear-war Yeah all that fallout, the effect on climate, and the radiation. An actual full-blown nuclear exchange with Russia though... yeesh. That'd probably reduce the population of both countries by about 90 or 95% within a couple of days (the area around Moscow would get hit harder than anywhere else in the world) and everybody else would be struggling to live. And then there's the rest of the world. I browsed the Yahoo comments (bad habit, almost nothing intelligent ever gets said there) and one of the first comments was "Obama has done nothing but weaken this country." lol... 1) um, no and 2) the U.S. and Russia are obligated to make a good faith effort to reduce their nuclear arsenals, any dumbass knows that.

This kind of makes his Nobel Peace Prize look like less of a joke, though. They gave it to him mostly because of the "world without nuclear weapons" pledge before he'd actually done anything, so now at least he's done something to that end. Still, assuming the treaty actually does get ratified, we'd still have enough nukes on each end to destroy the world a couple of times over. They don't even have any tactical value.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 07:12 PM) and if, for instance, jake peavy WAS just throwing mostly fastballs, what would you call that? it's called practice. whether it's hitting spots, or working on certain pitches, it's practice. Danks was quoted as saying he thew nothing but curveballs to a guy who eventually took him deep the other day - AND said he wouldn't have done that in an actual game. these guys are fine. chill out. We talkin' about practice. Not a game. Not a game, not a game. Practice.

Well it shot up during the recession so I figure it can't go much higher, but if I was to buy it right now it wouldn't be for trying to make money, it'd be to insulate from future losses. I don't know anything about buying commodities though. I look up "GOLD" and I see it on the Nasdaq but that's an actual company, so I guess there are a bunch of companies that trade gold and that is not necessarily the best.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 10:23 PM) I will be making really good money (atleat what I am used to) and so this $500 or so will be money that I can easily set aside for awhile. I have no current debt, I pay all my credit card statements in full and on time. If I put the money aside, I wont be tempted to use it. I can be really stingy I want to be with money, but Im also not afraid to use it if Ive got it. I say try and save another 500 if possible and put it in a CD. At about 1, 2k then I think mutual funds are a good bet. I'm trying to diversify right now. I chatted with 2K5 a few days ago and he suggested I get some metals (e.g. gold) and my other friend says gold has peaked and he's trying to short the euro, but I'm not trying to make fast money (although if I can do that it might be worth a try). I'm basically learning all this s*** as I go. Does anyone here own any gold?

I honestly don't know why someone who is not a complete moron would not vote to ratify this treaty. They would need to give a reaaaaaaaaally good reason.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 06:43 PM) Eh? First, I wasn't talking this year's economy, when the whole world is basically in the s***ter. I'm saying that in the past decade, they've grown a lot, and long term look to continue to do so. Second, I completely agree with you that they don't want a real confrontation with the US. I never said otherwise. Not sure where you are getting that. Most of that was just a long segue into me showing off that I know something about something.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 06:41 PM) I'm an ultra left wing progressive so I'd even prefer an anarchist society and economy. But there's so many subdivisions of that theory that I'm not sure which specific iteration I'd endorse. That sounds pretty much like pure capitalism actually

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews This has probably been the biggest week of Obama's presidency so far - two major priorities within a few days of each other. It still needs 67 votes in the Senate but the vote probably won't be for a while.

Barack Obama's Facebook news feed. Just went up 15 minutes ago. http://www.slate.com/id/2248983/