ou may have hoped for a massive TL;DR response, but I read some of it. Several other lines were untrue: Al-Qaida in Iraq (it came during the war to support the insurgents, was not there to begin with), the fact that 9/11,
Wrong. Members of Al Qeada injured in Afghanistan were being medically treated in Iraq and harbored during their recovery. You are confusing the insurgent groups who did come after the war but Al Qeada was certainly in the country prior to it. We went into Afghanistan not because the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11 but because they refused to turn over Al Qaeda in the country and were giving them safe harbor. The war resolution makes no accusations of Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperating or anything.
I quote, "underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations" (a few knives are hardly a WMD; if anything, 9/11 underscored how easy it is to pull off a terrorist plot with simple tools and some out-of-the-box thinking),
I'm seriously sorry your mental process when to the knives used to overtake the jets that were essentially turned into missiles. The gravity of the situation was large scale attacks on the civilian population instead of the previous attacks on mostly military and governmental facilities.
if anything, 9/11 underscored how easy it is to pull off a terrorist plot with simple tools and some out-of-the-box thinking), the possibility that Iraq would use WMDs in a surprise attack against the US or pass them to terrorists.
What would happen if it was so easy to pull off a terrorist attack and Iraq were to give these terrorist some of those WMDs? Iraq's purpose for keeping them or appearing as they had was completely to defend the country against a superior force (Iran). Do you seriously think Iraq, when it is lobbing scuds at US military bases in the area of shooting at our patrols in the no fly zones would never employ that same strategy?
I asked myself, and I answered myself that the sheeple would not care if no WMDs were not found after the war was started. Who started the war needed an excuse to get it started, not to justify himself afterwards. No WMDs were found, yet I don't see Bush, Rumsfeld and all other war criminals (because that's what they technically are) being brought to court and sentenced to death by hanging (which is what was normally dished out for the crime of war of aggression at Nuremberg).
regardless of what your third grade education has taught you, the original Iraq war had never ended. It was put on hold per UN resolution that Iraq conceded to but never honored the terms of it. The Iraq war was not a war of aggression as it was legitimately a continuation of a previous war when it was realized that the terms of the armistice was not being honored. WMDs did not need to be found as the burden of proving their disposal was not met. Combine that with the UNSCOM and UNMOVIC teams being expelled from the country, forbidden or delayed on site inspections, undeclared dual use materials entering the country, and weapon systems altered to surpass UN limits, any sane person who is capable of thinking would presume the WMDs should have been there. Hans Blix, before the war made this case very strongly. After the war started, he became one of the loudest voices claiming there was no WMDs there. It's all in the UN quarterly reports that are still available online for anyone who has half an interest to download and view.
But I doubt rational thinking and reason would persuade you so I will leave you with something to think about. Nuremberg as you pointed out was ex post facto law prosecuted primarily by someone who never went to law school and was scoffed at by the US supreme court and eventually even the Justice who did the prosecutions as being Ex Post Facto. Nuremberg as well as the far east tribunals were victo
Ask yourself this, if Martin were a white woman who and Zimmerman a black man, then do you think Martin would be justified in putting up a defense.
Not once the woman entered their house locked the doors and was safe and secure. Of course most women, if being followed, would have the intelligence to stop talking to a friend on the phone and call the cops then wait for the cops at the house instead of going back out to confront the stalker.
You can drop the white and black too. I think about all women would do the same if the situation was as similar. Remember, Travon made it home and then left in pursuit of Zimmerman. This in known because of testimony given by Travon's friend whom he was talking to during the entire mess.
The racist BS was started on a lie in the first place. One of the news outlets (ABC News) edited the 911 recordings to make it appear racist when it wasn't (Well, we don't know the intentions but we know the results).
IS someone following a black kid cause enough for the black kid to justify assaulting them? I know it isn't for a white kid or a Hispanic kid or a foreigner in the country.
When a kid or anyone is being followed, they have options including telling the person not to follow them, verbally speaking with them, moving to a safe area, calling the cops themselves and so on. They don't have to say yes sir or sit there, but if they attack the person following them, it can be misconstrued by anyone.
Let's revise your statement to illustrate how silly it sounds. When a black kid is being beaten by someone like you they are just supposed to say yes sir massa sir or you feel entitled to kill them for not knowing their place? That's essentially what you imply someone was supposed to do.
Let's drop the black and white bullshit here. Someone who looked out of place was in a neighborhood that had a recent rash of break ins. This person was out of place because he didn't live there regularly even though he had every right to be there. That person who looked out of place was followed while being informed on to the cops. It wouldn't matter if he was black, white, yellow, had wings, or carrying a bong and wearing a tshirt saying wanna mellow out. That person who was followed took it further and assaulted the person following them. That would have been enough if the kid thought it was necessary in order to escape harm from the guy following him. But he didn't escape harm and as far as we know attacked the follower to the point he feared for his life. At that point, the follower who is now a victim (the tide had turned) took measures to protect his life which ended the followed person's life (the tide turned yet again). That is what we know to be fact. This is what we can assume from those facts. A: the follower made a mistake thinking the person being followed had something to do with the crimes being committed in the neighborhood. B: the followed made a mistake in thinking he was in danger or that attacking someone simply for following them was a good idea. C: the sum total of these mistakes ended up with the person who thinks he was following a criminal being attacked and beaten by the presumed criminal and the innocent person who was being followed ended up being shot and killed for that attack. The follower never thought this is a little kid, lets shoot him. He thought here is possibly a criminal, he's attacking me, he's banging my head into the concrete, I have to do something or I'm dead.
Stand your ground never came into play. Travon had no stand your ground defense for the attack as he was not being attacked himself (no one who was in a position to know had laid claim that Zimmerman did anything other then follow). The stand your ground law requires you to be assaulted first (at least in Florida) in order to return an assault. Zimmerman had no stand your ground defense either. When Zimmerman was on the ground getting his head bashed into the concrete, he had no possible way of escaping so there was no option to stand his ground. It was a clear textbook case of self defense. The media and race mongers have misled people on that.
Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan and Syria have not signed on to the chemical weapons convention or any other treaty concerning them. We are imposing a condition and calling it an international law (although Obama was correctly calling it an international norm when he tried to wiggle out of his red line and changed calculus comments) and suggesting that if enough countries sign something, your country looses it's sovereignty and is subjected to it too regardless of your country's wishes.
What makes the 1400 civilians killed by the use of chemical weapons that are banned worse then the 100,000 civilians killed by bombs, buildings, mortars, and missiles exploding around them or the bullets whizzing through crowded neighborhoods?
Also, we have known since the 1993 UN convention on chemical weapons that Syria was not going to submit to the convention. It is not illegal for Syria to use them as they has signed absolutely no treaties abolishing them or making them or their use illegal. Don't get me wrong, using chemical weapons is immoral, callous, and reprehensible, but that in and of itself doesn't make them illegal- even if it should.
This might be academic but Russia has submitted a 100 page report to the UN claiming that the chemicals used and delivery mechanism is not the type that a military would posses and shows that one of the rebel groups is most likely behind the chemical weapons attack not the Syrian government.
His troll was the comment that said "However, I think the US fully deserves it if they do carry out this attack on Syria."
Few service members would claim their country deserves to be attacked by terrorist funded by a long standing enemy for doing what is considered righteous for the most part. Attacking a country that is using chemical weapons on it's citizens in an attempt to stop that direct and callous loss of innocent life and prevent it from doing it again is noble if anything (even if foolish to attempt). A service member finding it deserving to be attacked in return for that is either confused, trolling, or a member of the enemies armed services.
Since no one seems to care about the actual citizens being killed I will go the same route and say the US should at least destroy any airstrips being used by the Syrian air force, neutralize a section of their air defense systems, and destroy any jets or helicopters that happen to be in the air or sitting on the ground.
No one really does care. That's the problem. A Fourteen hundred civilians die because of a chemical weapon, a hundred thousand have died because there is a civil war going on and building, bombs and bullets are exploding all around them. What is so special about the few thousand people who got gassed that wasn't special about the hundred thousand of people who got caught in between the battle lines? I mean they are all (mostly) civilians, woman and children too.
The formatting on your post makes it a little difficult to read but you should know that Russia has sent a team of investigators in to inspect the site. They have tendered a 100 page report to the UN claiming the grade of the chemicals used and the delivery device is not military grade and doesn't match what it knows about Syria's chemical weapons programs. They instead link the gassing to one of the rebel groups and posit the theory that it was used to coax the US into taking action which would end up helping them. That being said, I don't really disagree with what you mentioned, it's just that we are assuming the Syrian government is behind the chemical weapons when it may be something different.
Here is a fun fact. Syria has not signed on to the UN chemical weapons convention which is what is usually referenced when the "international norms" is trotted out. This means that since 1993, we have known that Syria was not going to follow "international norms" but didn't care until chemical weapons were claimed to have been used. But that also goes back to the hundred thousand innocent civilians dieing and not caring enough to do anything until chemical weapons became involved too.
They'd find more value in HIDING this capability, then by showing the hole poker-hand. Instead, they release this as a PR move to push a war agenda.
I don't think so. I think this is more of an attempt to cause an uprising in those opposed to us going to war because it will not be all neat and clean like they are portraying it. I don't think Obama ever had an intention of doing a significant military strike on Syria and more or less thought the threat would be enough to prevent chemical weapons from being used.
Russia has done an investigation and claims the chemicals were prepared and released by one of the rebel groups attempting to provoke the US into responding because it aids them. There is a 100 page report that was delivered to the UN with their findings on the matter. So I'm thinking this is all more or less a trying to find a way out of the red line and consequences stand. Russia is pretty set on us not going in.
Iraq bait-n-switch? You need to spend less time getting third hand information and more time finding it yourself.
Here is the Iraq war resolution. Pay special attention to the whereas lines. They lay out the official reasons we went to war and to the best of my knowledge, the only one that has turned out to be untrue was the continuing WMD programs and stockpiles. Those reasons were the ones argued going into the war by Bush and Company.
The problem with the WMDs was that Iraq was trying to make it appear that they had them when they didn't and purposely thwarted efforts to verify their destruction per the UN security council resolution 686 (march 2 1991) and 687 (March 3 1991) that Iraq conceded to March 5th. If you think the WMDs were made up, then ask yourself why the government would lie to get us into a war and not put WMDs in the sand somewhere to keep it's citizens trusting of it. The bottom line was that Saddam feared Iran would find it a weakness if they verified they had no WMDs so he refused to allow that to happen.
The whole story is an outright lie - to set up a desired chain of events, where striking Syria illegally will create an incident that can be trumped up as Iranian in origin, thus justifying an attack on the actual desired target.
I don't dispute this could all be a ruse. But the orders from Iran was a so called order if the US acted not something that would cause the US to act. We already know Iran feeds terrorist organizations and we already know who those organizations are. We have been able to piece the puzzles together since the mid 1980's.
In all seriousness, and I will likely be modded down for this because it's a negative on Obama. But he is a rank amateur in office who was attempting to gloat in some glory and made a statement that he is trying to wiggle out of. He drew a red line, he made a statement trying to act like the kid in class who wants to be more special or important then they are willing to be. He is the arm chair quarterback who thinks they can play the game better then those playing but when push comes to shove, refuses to suit up and get hit. So he made a statement, he is finding all sorts of opposition on it. England wants nothing to do with us on it as well as most of Europe. Russia warns us about getting involved (they are still pissed we ignored them on Libya). Russia claims the chemicals used were not weapons grade and the delivery mechanism was not military grade. They published that report with the UN. This could very well be a defining moment that restarts the cold war.
This release equivalence of "all hell will break loose if we bomb Syria because Iran is making sure of it" is most likely an attempt to persuade congress to deny authorization. I don't think Obama had any intent of changing his calculus in the first place and either made the statement to feel powerful at the time or in the hopes that it would completely deter any usage of the chemical weapons. Now he is backed into a corner and I think he is strongly attempting to find a way out. If congress denies his use of force, he can blame them. The so called war weary citizens will be even more vocal now that it is known that we (not just our ally Israel) will be attacked by known terrorist organizations backed and funded by Iran.
Some people look at a pile of lemons and decide to make lemonade. Would you be gratefull if you could live from age nine until eighty something with a disability or would you prefere death?
You need to move to another area. I rent a 3 bedroom home on 2.5 acres of land for $600 a month. I would spit in the fact of any landlord who attempted to charge $700 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment. One bedroom apartments around here go for between $200 and $350 a month.
Good god, where you people getting your numbers? A soda is more like a quarter. Even if you get it out of a machine, it's still not likely not going to be as much as $1.50.
I just purchased a 20 oz Coke at the local gas station and it cost me $1.49 our the door.
You simply don't get it. You have absolutely no clue what working stiffs (or the poor) have to deal with or how to relate to them or their challenges.
Oh, I get it. What you don't get is how to get out of that situation. Crying that everyone else is stupid will not help either.
My sister is a junior in high school and lives with our mother and her father in the country, and I'm trying to figure out how she can attend college without having to rent a room. But I would agree that this is easier for students whose parents live in the city than for students whose parents live in the country.
Most large universities only require you to live on campus the first year if you are full time. If you are part time or after that, you generally can live anywhere. Going to community colleges and knocking the essentials out first tend to forgo the need to live on campus too.
Do colleges tend to offer services to match non-driver students with carpool drivers who live nearby?
I don't know if colleges themselves off them, but there are several different organizations that cover college campuses that do. Craigslist and other online communities are a place to look also. Every year I see adds with people wanting to find someone either going to school for a ride or already has a car and looking to share the costs. The problem is that resources in New York will not be very helpful in Columbus Ohio so this is more of a local thing then a one size just go here thing. The universities themselves also have message boards and stuff that make finding ride shares easier too. However. chances are that someone from your graduating high-school class will be going to the same university and there is a good opportunity just by talking to some of them.
That and somehow figuring out how to afford to pay another licensed driver over 25 to sit in the car. Some parents are willing to do this for free; other parents aren't.
If your parents are not willing to ride with you in a car, if you have no other family members willing to ride with you in a car, then give up on driving altogether. You are either completely lousy at it and scare them to death, or you have some trait that they cannot stand and don't want to be around you. There are plenty of 30 year old versions of yourself who need rides, just walk around the neighborhood and look into the basement windows.
If the S&P 500 loses 10% in a year, an ETF that tracks the S&P 500 will lose 10%. I don't see what sort of ETF would have lost only 5% when the S&P lost 20% (from ~1200 to ~960) in the 2008 correction. Besides, doesn't one already have to have a few thousand dollars to start buying shares in an ETF without having most of the investment eaten up in trading fees?
I'm not sure why you would buy an EFT for an index fund. EFTs are day traded which means that while they follow or track an index, they are not bound to it. What happens is if something starts slipping in price, they sell it and when the some clears, they buy back. This happens per minute. What you are thinking of is an exchange fund which buys a number of shares of everything on a market index. It is then bound to the performance of the index. The difference is that EFTs are managed and traded.
As for trading fees, it depends on where you purchase your investments at. IF you put the cash in a ESA, there are some avenues available that discount and even eliminate most fees. You will have to shop around and determine what is best for you.
A more fun fact, someone who makes minimum wage a career strategy needs to rethink their strategy. That is after all, what this thread is about, making choices and illustrating the faults of those choices compared to other choices that could be made.
You do understand that any acts of congress that allow us to prosper will allow them to prosper too right?
Most people who complain about the 1% and make statements like you have tend to be asking government to do things it was never intended to do. Perhaps your issues is not getting the government to do what it was never intended to do.
Listen, I know people who can manage on $400 a week a lot more comfortably then I was at $600 a week when I had medical problems. Our fixed expenses were about the same (rent was the same, cars are paid for), they just made better decisions then I did. This isn't about moral decisions, it is about prudent decisions that can improve the financial quality of life. I have a good portion of my income that I had no idea where it was being spent. I went joyriding in the car when gas was at $5 a gallon, I hit the bars and partied it up, I spent money on fast food and junk food, cigarettes and snuff, and the occasional woman. When I decided to cut a lot of that out, I ended up with about $250 a week extra. Granted I make more then minimum wage but I was wasting a lot more too.
You're asking somebody who's life already sucks---and is filled with "no" this and "no" that--to subject themselves to ever more "no". And not only to do that, but to save an amount of money over 20 years that would be unable to change their station in life anyhow.
IF the person whose life already sucks refuses to do anything (or at least simple things) to improve it, then I shouldn't have to hear them complain and demand more. It will never end if they will not do anything to stop the hemorrhaging of money and end up getting more because they will lose with poor decisions too.
They don't have to follow any advice given to them. Just don't expect me to have much empathy for someone stuck in a hole who refuses to stop digging.
Wow.. Nothing can be easy enough for you it would seem.
Easily, but how quickly? Quickly enough to catch the second semester?
Who knows, your work performance and the relationship you enjoy with your employer will determine that. I do know people who work full time in the summer and live at home and make enough money to pay their tuition. Some of them went to school part time and stretched their degrees out an extra 2 years in order to make it happen without going into debt.
Like a bus, a bicycle or carpool isn't so convenient for someone whose parents happen to live 50 miles (80 km) away from college.
Then maybe you should sit on the couch and wait for the unicorn to walk by and crap $100 bills. Car pool or ride a bike to the bus. Do anything you can. check out community colleges and get the majority of your courses out of the way before being forced into the trek. If it is something the person wants to do, it might be difficult, but I'm confident that they could find a way to make it happen.
The state of Indiana requires 50 hours of supervised driving practice on a valid learner's permit, at least 10 of those hours at night, before issuing a driver's license. How much does 50 hours of a driving instructor's time cost?
It costs nothing but expenses of the car. The state of Indiana requires supervised driving by either and instructor, another licensed driver over 25 or a licensed spouse 21 and older. You do not need to hire a driving instructor for 50 hours. You do not even need to take a drivers education course (although I would recommend one)
I thought ETFs were likely to lose a substantial portion of their principal in a recession.
Not likely ETFs are day traded so sudden drops in value is mitigated. Quite a few of them remained over 5% in the 2008 crash. I suppose you can not do your homework and pick one of the more poorly run ETFs. People do this all the time else they wouldn't be available still. Then again, other people have different needs and perhaps a slight loss or not as much gain is something they prefer at the moment.
At times. Like I said, you can earn more. Its academic though as I picked a low number that is below what I was seeing in relatively safe investment vehicles only to point out the power of compound interests.
I can't tell if you are trolling me or if you are young and inexperienced. Some of your comments seemed like you wanted someone else to do the work for you while some of them appeared to be genuine ignorance. Ignorance is good though because it can be remedied. There is a relatively cheap program that can shed a lot of light on these issues. Primarily it will show what we are talking about where small decisions can have large impacts. Watch this youtube clip of it. I don't endorse this or anything, just heard a lot about it and it mirrors a lot of what we already know but presents it in sort of a "now I get it" way. This clip is in 3 parts and is more of an advertisement for the program he sells (which seems reasonably cheap BTW) then informative but it conveys the same types of message. If you were not trolling, this might be something beneficial to you.
BTW, I've listened to his radio program. He won't coddle people. If they aren't making enough money, his response is to get a second job, get a different job and so on. It's more of a do what it takes tough love approach which I think you might benefit from a little.
No, but a part-time minimum-wage job isn't always enough for tuition, fees, textbooks, room, and board either.
I haven't worked for minimum wage in 25 years. In my day, it was a stepping stone and if you were halfway competent, showed up and was ready on time, you easily got raises out of minimum wage rates. College towns always have jobs available that pay more then minimum wage which cater to college students. I'm sorry to put it to you like this, but if all you can aspire to is minimum wage, the college probably isn't doing to do you much good.
So you propose to eliminate the "room" and part of the "board" (meals). But this would require the parents to move within bus range of college.
Or it would require you to find friends who are going to the same school and can give you a lift (even if only to the bus stop), or you could walk a bit. I hear riding a bike is the new "cool" thing to do. Getting a used car and driving yourself probably isn't out of the question either. I was driving for 10 years before I purchased any car that cost more then $500. My first car was put into my parents name in order to get the discount insurance while I was in school.
I see what you are getting at though. There are so many hurdles to you getting what you want that you don't think your parents will do it for you. I'm not sure college is going to be very helpful to you but by all means, give it a try.
When I discovered that JPMorgan Chase was paying 0.01% on savings accounts and 0.35% on a 5-year certificate of deposit, I looked into other banks. As of right now, for example, Ally is paying 1.50% for a 5-year CD. Where are you finding this 3%?
You should be able to get around 3% in ETFs. There are finds currently posting 14% for the 5 year.
This is the kind of idiocy that keeps poor people poor. Wise decisions with money can move someone out of the poor house just as easily as they can keep them in.
In the soda example, at 3 soda's a day per $1.50 a piece or $4.50 a day, if you were to open an account stating with $4.50 then add a equivalent of $4.50 per day for the duration of a month (about $135 a month)- every month, earning just 3% interest would give you about $38,457.00 in 18 years. That certainly is not a small number. But how many other choices are made that could equate to similar savings? Suppose that you could save the same amount per month by packing a lunch instead of eating at fast food joints and skipping a movie from time to time (135+135). This new savings gives you a total of about $76,907.00 in those same 18 years.
So while you will not be driving around in a Bently due to this savings, thanks to compounding interest, you certainly could be sending your first born to college or perhaps placing a down payment on a retirement home or any number of things that would make life much more enjoyable than a soda and BigMac might.
You do not really have to pay all your costs of the degree up front the first year in India do you? If not, the money saved already should be enough to start college while working your way through it would be enough to finish it.
Here in the US, unless it is a family run business, you need to be 16 in most areas to have a job with a minor work permit. the school can also over ride the work permit as well as your doctor and/or parents. There are or used to be some jobs you could do at younger ages like mowing people's yard or working around the house for them and crap like that which doesn't require more then a gentleman's agreement to initiate.
If your parents put the equivilent of $10 a week (40 a month) back and earned just 3% interest over 18 years, you would have close to $11k ($11,409.66) saved for college to start with. If you are not too picky, that should get you a year or two of college while you are working your way through it. Finding work that pays enough to save and live off of might be difficult so living at home during those years might be a necessity. Shifting from full time college to part time and taking an extra year or two to get a degree (lower costs per year) might be another possibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. Members of Al Qeada injured in Afghanistan were being medically treated in Iraq and harbored during their recovery. You are confusing the insurgent groups who did come after the war but Al Qeada was certainly in the country prior to it. We went into Afghanistan not because the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11 but because they refused to turn over Al Qaeda in the country and were giving them safe harbor. The war resolution makes no accusations of Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperating or anything.
I'm seriously sorry your mental process when to the knives used to overtake the jets that were essentially turned into missiles. The gravity of the situation was large scale attacks on the civilian population instead of the previous attacks on mostly military and governmental facilities.
What would happen if it was so easy to pull off a terrorist attack and Iraq were to give these terrorist some of those WMDs? Iraq's purpose for keeping them or appearing as they had was completely to defend the country against a superior force (Iran). Do you seriously think Iraq, when it is lobbing scuds at US military bases in the area of shooting at our patrols in the no fly zones would never employ that same strategy?
regardless of what your third grade education has taught you, the original Iraq war had never ended. It was put on hold per UN resolution that Iraq conceded to but never honored the terms of it. The Iraq war was not a war of aggression as it was legitimately a continuation of a previous war when it was realized that the terms of the armistice was not being honored. WMDs did not need to be found as the burden of proving their disposal was not met. Combine that with the UNSCOM and UNMOVIC teams being expelled from the country, forbidden or delayed on site inspections, undeclared dual use materials entering the country, and weapon systems altered to surpass UN limits, any sane person who is capable of thinking would presume the WMDs should have been there. Hans Blix, before the war made this case very strongly. After the war started, he became one of the loudest voices claiming there was no WMDs there. It's all in the UN quarterly reports that are still available online for anyone who has half an interest to download and view.
But I doubt rational thinking and reason would persuade you so I will leave you with something to think about. Nuremberg as you pointed out was ex post facto law prosecuted primarily by someone who never went to law school and was scoffed at by the US supreme court and eventually even the Justice who did the prosecutions as being Ex Post Facto. Nuremberg as well as the far east tribunals were victo
Not once the woman entered their house locked the doors and was safe and secure. Of course most women, if being followed, would have the intelligence to stop talking to a friend on the phone and call the cops then wait for the cops at the house instead of going back out to confront the stalker.
You can drop the white and black too. I think about all women would do the same if the situation was as similar. Remember, Travon made it home and then left in pursuit of Zimmerman. This in known because of testimony given by Travon's friend whom he was talking to during the entire mess.
The racist BS was started on a lie in the first place. One of the news outlets (ABC News) edited the 911 recordings to make it appear racist when it wasn't (Well, we don't know the intentions but we know the results).
IS someone following a black kid cause enough for the black kid to justify assaulting them? I know it isn't for a white kid or a Hispanic kid or a foreigner in the country.
When a kid or anyone is being followed, they have options including telling the person not to follow them, verbally speaking with them, moving to a safe area, calling the cops themselves and so on. They don't have to say yes sir or sit there, but if they attack the person following them, it can be misconstrued by anyone.
Let's revise your statement to illustrate how silly it sounds.
When a black kid is being beaten by someone like you they are just supposed to say yes sir massa sir or you feel entitled to kill them for not knowing their place? That's essentially what you imply someone was supposed to do.
Let's drop the black and white bullshit here. Someone who looked out of place was in a neighborhood that had a recent rash of break ins. This person was out of place because he didn't live there regularly even though he had every right to be there. That person who looked out of place was followed while being informed on to the cops. It wouldn't matter if he was black, white, yellow, had wings, or carrying a bong and wearing a tshirt saying wanna mellow out. That person who was followed took it further and assaulted the person following them. That would have been enough if the kid thought it was necessary in order to escape harm from the guy following him. But he didn't escape harm and as far as we know attacked the follower to the point he feared for his life. At that point, the follower who is now a victim (the tide had turned) took measures to protect his life which ended the followed person's life (the tide turned yet again). That is what we know to be fact. This is what we can assume from those facts. A: the follower made a mistake thinking the person being followed had something to do with the crimes being committed in the neighborhood. B: the followed made a mistake in thinking he was in danger or that attacking someone simply for following them was a good idea. C: the sum total of these mistakes ended up with the person who thinks he was following a criminal being attacked and beaten by the presumed criminal and the innocent person who was being followed ended up being shot and killed for that attack. The follower never thought this is a little kid, lets shoot him. He thought here is possibly a criminal, he's attacking me, he's banging my head into the concrete, I have to do something or I'm dead.
Stand your ground never came into play. Travon had no stand your ground defense for the attack as he was not being attacked himself (no one who was in a position to know had laid claim that Zimmerman did anything other then follow). The stand your ground law requires you to be assaulted first (at least in Florida) in order to return an assault. Zimmerman had no stand your ground defense either. When Zimmerman was on the ground getting his head bashed into the concrete, he had no possible way of escaping so there was no option to stand his ground. It was a clear textbook case of self defense. The media and race mongers have misled people on that.
That's the concept.
Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan and Syria have not signed on to the chemical weapons convention or any other treaty concerning them. We are imposing a condition and calling it an international law (although Obama was correctly calling it an international norm when he tried to wiggle out of his red line and changed calculus comments) and suggesting that if enough countries sign something, your country looses it's sovereignty and is subjected to it too regardless of your country's wishes.
What makes the 1400 civilians killed by the use of chemical weapons that are banned worse then the 100,000 civilians killed by bombs, buildings, mortars, and missiles exploding around them or the bullets whizzing through crowded neighborhoods?
Also, we have known since the 1993 UN convention on chemical weapons that Syria was not going to submit to the convention. It is not illegal for Syria to use them as they has signed absolutely no treaties abolishing them or making them or their use illegal. Don't get me wrong, using chemical weapons is immoral, callous, and reprehensible, but that in and of itself doesn't make them illegal- even if it should.
This might be academic but Russia has submitted a 100 page report to the UN claiming that the chemicals used and delivery mechanism is not the type that a military would posses and shows that one of the rebel groups is most likely behind the chemical weapons attack not the Syrian government.
His troll was the comment that said "However, I think the US fully deserves it if they do carry out this attack on Syria."
Few service members would claim their country deserves to be attacked by terrorist funded by a long standing enemy for doing what is considered righteous for the most part. Attacking a country that is using chemical weapons on it's citizens in an attempt to stop that direct and callous loss of innocent life and prevent it from doing it again is noble if anything (even if foolish to attempt). A service member finding it deserving to be attacked in return for that is either confused, trolling, or a member of the enemies armed services.
No one really does care. That's the problem. A Fourteen hundred civilians die because of a chemical weapon, a hundred thousand have died because there is a civil war going on and building, bombs and bullets are exploding all around them. What is so special about the few thousand people who got gassed that wasn't special about the hundred thousand of people who got caught in between the battle lines? I mean they are all (mostly) civilians, woman and children too.
The formatting on your post makes it a little difficult to read but you should know that Russia has sent a team of investigators in to inspect the site. They have tendered a 100 page report to the UN claiming the grade of the chemicals used and the delivery device is not military grade and doesn't match what it knows about Syria's chemical weapons programs. They instead link the gassing to one of the rebel groups and posit the theory that it was used to coax the US into taking action which would end up helping them. That being said, I don't really disagree with what you mentioned, it's just that we are assuming the Syrian government is behind the chemical weapons when it may be something different.
Here is a fun fact. Syria has not signed on to the UN chemical weapons convention which is what is usually referenced when the "international norms" is trotted out. This means that since 1993, we have known that Syria was not going to follow "international norms" but didn't care until chemical weapons were claimed to have been used. But that also goes back to the hundred thousand innocent civilians dieing and not caring enough to do anything until chemical weapons became involved too.
I don't think so. I think this is more of an attempt to cause an uprising in those opposed to us going to war because it will not be all neat and clean like they are portraying it. I don't think Obama ever had an intention of doing a significant military strike on Syria and more or less thought the threat would be enough to prevent chemical weapons from being used.
Russia has done an investigation and claims the chemicals were prepared and released by one of the rebel groups attempting to provoke the US into responding because it aids them. There is a 100 page report that was delivered to the UN with their findings on the matter. So I'm thinking this is all more or less a trying to find a way out of the red line and consequences stand. Russia is pretty set on us not going in.
Iraq bait-n-switch? You need to spend less time getting third hand information and more time finding it yourself.
Here is the Iraq war resolution. Pay special attention to the whereas lines. They lay out the official reasons we went to war and to the best of my knowledge, the only one that has turned out to be untrue was the continuing WMD programs and stockpiles. Those reasons were the ones argued going into the war by Bush and Company.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
The problem with the WMDs was that Iraq was trying to make it appear that they had them when they didn't and purposely thwarted efforts to verify their destruction per the UN security council resolution 686 (march 2 1991) and 687 (March 3 1991) that Iraq conceded to March 5th. If you think the WMDs were made up, then ask yourself why the government would lie to get us into a war and not put WMDs in the sand somewhere to keep it's citizens trusting of it. The bottom line was that Saddam feared Iran would find it a weakness if they verified they had no WMDs so he refused to allow that to happen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/world/middleeast/03saddam.html?ref=world&_r=0
You likely would have had better results if you used the Gulf of Tonkin as your example of being played REALLY badly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin
I don't dispute this could all be a ruse. But the orders from Iran was a so called order if the US acted not something that would cause the US to act. We already know Iran feeds terrorist organizations and we already know who those organizations are. We have been able to piece the puzzles together since the mid 1980's.
In all seriousness, and I will likely be modded down for this because it's a negative on Obama. But he is a rank amateur in office who was attempting to gloat in some glory and made a statement that he is trying to wiggle out of. He drew a red line, he made a statement trying to act like the kid in class who wants to be more special or important then they are willing to be. He is the arm chair quarterback who thinks they can play the game better then those playing but when push comes to shove, refuses to suit up and get hit. So he made a statement, he is finding all sorts of opposition on it. England wants nothing to do with us on it as well as most of Europe. Russia warns us about getting involved (they are still pissed we ignored them on Libya). Russia claims the chemicals used were not weapons grade and the delivery mechanism was not military grade. They published that report with the UN. This could very well be a defining moment that restarts the cold war.
http://www.heraldonline.com/2013/09/05/5178949/russia-says-it-has-compiled-a.html
This release equivalence of "all hell will break loose if we bomb Syria because Iran is making sure of it" is most likely an attempt to persuade congress to deny authorization. I don't think Obama had any intent of changing his calculus in the first place and either made the statement to feel powerful at the time or in the hopes that it would completely deter any usage of the chemical weapons. Now he is backed into a corner and I think he is strongly attempting to find a way out. If congress denies his use of force, he can blame them. The so called war weary citizens will be even more vocal now that it is known that we (not just our ally Israel) will be attacked by known terrorist organizations backed and funded by Iran.
Any disability. You can't have emotion when you are dead.
Some people look at a pile of lemons and decide to make lemonade. Would you be gratefull if you could live from age nine until eighty something with a disability or would you prefere death?
You aren't anthropomorphanizing nature in that. Nature doesn't have feelings so it litterally doesn't care. Other then that, i agree
You need to move to another area. I rent a 3 bedroom home on 2.5 acres of land for $600 a month. I would spit in the fact of any landlord who attempted to charge $700 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment. One bedroom apartments around here go for between $200 and $350 a month.
Good god, where you people getting your numbers? A soda is more like a quarter. Even if you get it out of a machine, it's still not likely not going to be as much as $1.50.
I just purchased a 20 oz Coke at the local gas station and it cost me $1.49 our the door.
Oh, I get it. What you don't get is how to get out of that situation. Crying that everyone else is stupid will not help either.
Most large universities only require you to live on campus the first year if you are full time. If you are part time or after that, you generally can live anywhere. Going to community colleges and knocking the essentials out first tend to forgo the need to live on campus too.
I don't know if colleges themselves off them, but there are several different organizations that cover college campuses that do. Craigslist and other online communities are a place to look also. Every year I see adds with people wanting to find someone either going to school for a ride or already has a car and looking to share the costs. The problem is that resources in New York will not be very helpful in Columbus Ohio so this is more of a local thing then a one size just go here thing. The universities themselves also have message boards and stuff that make finding ride shares easier too. However. chances are that someone from your graduating high-school class will be going to the same university and there is a good opportunity just by talking to some of them.
If your parents are not willing to ride with you in a car, if you have no other family members willing to ride with you in a car, then give up on driving altogether. You are either completely lousy at it and scare them to death, or you have some trait that they cannot stand and don't want to be around you. There are plenty of 30 year old versions of yourself who need rides, just walk around the neighborhood and look into the basement windows.
I'm not sure why you would buy an EFT for an index fund. EFTs are day traded which means that while they follow or track an index, they are not bound to it. What happens is if something starts slipping in price, they sell it and when the some clears, they buy back. This happens per minute. What you are thinking of is an exchange fund which buys a number of shares of everything on a market index. It is then bound to the performance of the index. The difference is that EFTs are managed and traded.
As for trading fees, it depends on where you purchase your investments at. IF you put the cash in a ESA, there are some avenues available that discount and even eliminate most fees. You will have to shop around and determine what is best for you.
A more fun fact, someone who makes minimum wage a career strategy needs to rethink their strategy. That is after all, what this thread is about, making choices and illustrating the faults of those choices compared to other choices that could be made.
You do understand that any acts of congress that allow us to prosper will allow them to prosper too right?
Most people who complain about the 1% and make statements like you have tend to be asking government to do things it was never intended to do. Perhaps your issues is not getting the government to do what it was never intended to do.
Listen, I know people who can manage on $400 a week a lot more comfortably then I was at $600 a week when I had medical problems. Our fixed expenses were about the same (rent was the same, cars are paid for), they just made better decisions then I did. This isn't about moral decisions, it is about prudent decisions that can improve the financial quality of life. I have a good portion of my income that I had no idea where it was being spent. I went joyriding in the car when gas was at $5 a gallon, I hit the bars and partied it up, I spent money on fast food and junk food, cigarettes and snuff, and the occasional woman. When I decided to cut a lot of that out, I ended up with about $250 a week extra. Granted I make more then minimum wage but I was wasting a lot more too.
IF the person whose life already sucks refuses to do anything (or at least simple things) to improve it, then I shouldn't have to hear them complain and demand more. It will never end if they will not do anything to stop the hemorrhaging of money and end up getting more because they will lose with poor decisions too.
They don't have to follow any advice given to them. Just don't expect me to have much empathy for someone stuck in a hole who refuses to stop digging.
Wow.. Nothing can be easy enough for you it would seem.
Who knows, your work performance and the relationship you enjoy with your employer will determine that. I do know people who work full time in the summer and live at home and make enough money to pay their tuition. Some of them went to school part time and stretched their degrees out an extra 2 years in order to make it happen without going into debt.
Then maybe you should sit on the couch and wait for the unicorn to walk by and crap $100 bills. Car pool or ride a bike to the bus. Do anything you can. check out community colleges and get the majority of your courses out of the way before being forced into the trek. If it is something the person wants to do, it might be difficult, but I'm confident that they could find a way to make it happen.
It costs nothing but expenses of the car. The state of Indiana requires supervised driving by either and instructor, another licensed driver over 25 or a licensed spouse 21 and older. You do not need to hire a driving instructor for 50 hours. You do not even need to take a drivers education course (although I would recommend one)
http://www.in.gov/bmv/2672.htm
Not likely ETFs are day traded so sudden drops in value is mitigated. Quite a few of them remained over 5% in the 2008 crash. I suppose you can not do your homework and pick one of the more poorly run ETFs. People do this all the time else they wouldn't be available still. Then again, other people have different needs and perhaps a slight loss or not as much gain is something they prefer at the moment.
My apologies. I mistook you for someone else I was commenting with. Please ignore the comments I made about trolling and ignorance in this post.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4152237&cid=44727463
It was inappropriate of me to assign them to you.
At times. Like I said, you can earn more. Its academic though as I picked a low number that is below what I was seeing in relatively safe investment vehicles only to point out the power of compound interests.
I can't tell if you are trolling me or if you are young and inexperienced. Some of your comments seemed like you wanted someone else to do the work for you while some of them appeared to be genuine ignorance. Ignorance is good though because it can be remedied. There is a relatively cheap program that can shed a lot of light on these issues. Primarily it will show what we are talking about where small decisions can have large impacts. Watch this youtube clip of it. I don't endorse this or anything, just heard a lot about it and it mirrors a lot of what we already know but presents it in sort of a "now I get it" way. This clip is in 3 parts and is more of an advertisement for the program he sells (which seems reasonably cheap BTW) then informative but it conveys the same types of message. If you were not trolling, this might be something beneficial to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLX3wUY1xGg
BTW, I've listened to his radio program. He won't coddle people. If they aren't making enough money, his response is to get a second job, get a different job and so on. It's more of a do what it takes tough love approach which I think you might benefit from a little.
I haven't worked for minimum wage in 25 years. In my day, it was a stepping stone and if you were halfway competent, showed up and was ready on time, you easily got raises out of minimum wage rates. College towns always have jobs available that pay more then minimum wage which cater to college students. I'm sorry to put it to you like this, but if all you can aspire to is minimum wage, the college probably isn't doing to do you much good.
Or it would require you to find friends who are going to the same school and can give you a lift (even if only to the bus stop), or you could walk a bit. I hear riding a bike is the new "cool" thing to do. Getting a used car and driving yourself probably isn't out of the question either. I was driving for 10 years before I purchased any car that cost more then $500. My first car was put into my parents name in order to get the discount insurance while I was in school.
I see what you are getting at though. There are so many hurdles to you getting what you want that you don't think your parents will do it for you. I'm not sure college is going to be very helpful to you but by all means, give it a try.
You should be able to get around 3% in ETFs. There are finds currently posting 14% for the 5 year.
This is the kind of idiocy that keeps poor people poor. Wise decisions with money can move someone out of the poor house just as easily as they can keep them in.
In the soda example, at 3 soda's a day per $1.50 a piece or $4.50 a day, if you were to open an account stating with $4.50 then add a equivalent of $4.50 per day for the duration of a month (about $135 a month)- every month, earning just 3% interest would give you about $38,457.00 in 18 years. That certainly is not a small number. But how many other choices are made that could equate to similar savings? Suppose that you could save the same amount per month by packing a lunch instead of eating at fast food joints and skipping a movie from time to time (135+135). This new savings gives you a total of about $76,907.00 in those same 18 years.
So while you will not be driving around in a Bently due to this savings, thanks to compounding interest, you certainly could be sending your first born to college or perhaps placing a down payment on a retirement home or any number of things that would make life much more enjoyable than a soda and BigMac might.
You do not really have to pay all your costs of the degree up front the first year in India do you? If not, the money saved already should be enough to start college while working your way through it would be enough to finish it.
Here in the US, unless it is a family run business, you need to be 16 in most areas to have a job with a minor work permit. the school can also over ride the work permit as well as your doctor and/or parents. There are or used to be some jobs you could do at younger ages like mowing people's yard or working around the house for them and crap like that which doesn't require more then a gentleman's agreement to initiate.
If your parents put the equivilent of $10 a week (40 a month) back and earned just 3% interest over 18 years, you would have close to $11k ($11,409.66) saved for college to start with. If you are not too picky, that should get you a year or two of college while you are working your way through it. Finding work that pays enough to save and live off of might be difficult so living at home during those years might be a necessity. Shifting from full time college to part time and taking an extra year or two to get a degree (lower costs per year) might be another possibility.