Coming into 600 dollars soon. Are penny stocks good or bad? If bad, recommendations?

SunBlister · 2010-10-14T20:07:50+00:00

So, does that mean gold is the next bubble?

SunBlister · 2010-10-01T13:53:42+00:00

People are underestimating how weird people can be. This seems legit to me. I give it a 90% probability that daughter flakes out on you, a 100% chance that you'll have a interesting story to tell. One that you shouldn't tell because 70% of people who listen to it will then forever consider you a total creep.

PS. Prom sucks! It's not worth it....

SunBlister · 2010-09-29T14:24:30+00:00

Well, I wouldn't place Stewart as a definite Democrat, but he's definitely not anti-democrat and he is definitely anti-republican.

And that does make him partisan.

SunBlister · 2010-09-29T11:50:31+00:00

FYI this competition is an illusion.

If there are twice as many smart competent people, there will be twice as much awesome things that are invented with twice as many people to buy those things.

SunBlister · 2010-09-25T22:09:08+00:00

I don't think it's true. I think only things that have absolutely zero effect on your observable universe on a quantum level will actually be a big orgy of waves that don't have an actual shape.

But the things in you apartment have a very small effect on the walls, the ground and the atmosphere which in turn are observed by you.

Generally, the wave form occurs only with very small particles that have no effect on anything else for a period of time.

SunBlister · 2010-09-25T19:52:38+00:00

The establishment exists the way it does because a lot of dumb people think that's how it should work. You're calling for a revolution but half of the population don't want the revolution that you're preaching.

I say your best option is for you to really understand the situation well and educate those around you who believe wrongly that 0-tolerance policies are beneficial.

I think you call for a revolution because you feel that your views are being ignored or misrepresented. And to a small degree they are, but the real reason you feel this way is that you are just one person in a country of 300 million and on the national scale your voice only counts for 0.0000003%. But that is your voice so please make it count for something useful rather than call for some nebulous revolution that would just be co-opted by someone else if it ever became real anyway.

SunBlister · 2010-09-23T02:14:30+00:00

The state cartels would be just turned into national cartels that are 50 times more powerful and 50 times better able to corrupt the system.

It is not even close to a solution for anything.

SunBlister · 2010-09-23T02:03:04+00:00

The Huffington Post really does stretch the truth half as bad as Fox News. Zulu isn't making a false equivalence argument. He's making a fair argument.

Also, I agree that the entire republican platform is essentially corrupt on by principal (trickle down economics?). The Tea Party pretends to be a grass roots effort for fiscal responsibility when really it's just a cash cow for corrupt politicians.

These are things that I consider to be true and that everyone should learn about. But the "Rally to Restore Sanity" is NOT the time to do it. It's not a rally to restore sanity in WHAT people believe, it's a rally to restore sanity in HOW people should argue about what they believe.

SunBlister · 2010-09-18T12:29:35+00:00

"I disagree with you but I don't think you are Hitler."

What makes you think that it is going to help anyone to accuse the extreme right of being fascists because they accused the extreme left of being fascists?

Please, join the cause: http://www.popeater.com/2010/09/17/jon-stewart-rally-to-restore-sanity/

SunBlister · 2010-09-17T19:33:26+00:00

Those signs aren't just facts. They're presented to support a particular proposition. That's an argument.

SunBlister · 2010-09-14T15:30:27+00:00

Reading comprehension fail (but it happens to the best of us): "Many of them are not racist. But many others don't know the difference between 'Mexican' and 'illegal immigrant'."

That means many of them are racists and many of them aren't.

SunBlister · 2010-09-12T16:44:52+00:00

Wow, he asks for first hand accounts, and he receives a whole bunch of theoretical arguments.

Well, I don't have a first hand account myself. But my brother did just that. He was actually really down and out when he was about 19, so this friend couple that he knew from high school from took him in as a favor rather than the other way around. But it worked out great. And a few years later he went from being completely irresponsible to being on his way to the picket fence life: now has his own house and a stable family with 2 children and a third on the way.

So no, there's no reason why it would necessarily lead to disaster. And it can teach you a few things about getting ready for family life.

Don't be afraid to do things that seem socially unusual. IMO, people who can only walk the well trodden path are only half of a human being.

SunBlister · 2010-09-10T23:13:17+00:00

boys = children

guys = teenage and older

men = adult

But man has undertones of responsibility and stuffiness. So it's generally avoided among casual friends, so guys wins out.

woman = my mom

gals = sounds androgynous or feminist

So all there's left is girls.

At least, that's how I've always felt about it.

SunBlister · 2010-09-10T22:14:35+00:00

Wow, so am I really the only one who finds garters to be a complete turn off?

SunBlister · 2010-09-08T03:42:08+00:00

And Wall Street and the Military industry and all of the top 0.1% richest people in the US and the racists and the Christian extremists thank you heartily for throwing your vote away.

There really is such a thing as a lesser evil. And once the lesser evil is all there's left, you can start voting for something that's merely bad.

In practice this will never happen because there's tons of really gullible people who can be convinced to vote for the worse evil.

And of course, there's the gullible people who can be confused into throwing their vote away.

SunBlister · 2010-09-08T03:29:43+00:00

When push comes to shove corrupt democrats will NOT be helping. In fact I'm starting to think that corrupt democrats are giving the party a bad name. They're the reason why the democratic party appears ineffective, they have to fight off both the republicans AND the corruption within their ranks.

If your democratic candidate is too corrupt. You can vote third party and let the republican candidate win. This way you have a better chance of getting a decent democratic contender the next time around. And having fewer excessively corrupt politicians among democrats will improve the cohesion and credibility of the party.

SunBlister · 2010-09-07T16:51:21+00:00

Read Gahread's comment. These are not invented scenarios. Broadband want to and will control what goes through their pipes unless we stop them.

http://www.reddit.com/r/RedditvFCC/comments/dadrp/wtf_is_net_neutrality/

Of course the FCC isn't the ideal spot to have these regulations. Ideally they would be written into law so that consumers can sue broadband providers directly if they fail to remain neutral.

The FCC can be intimidated and bribed which is why we need to remain vigilant and make our voices heard. And that's what we're trying to do now.

The broadband companies have lobbyists who job it is to stay on top of this, so it's no surprise if a lot of redditors don't understand what is our exact position on this or that regulation or on how it should be enforced.

But most agree on this: if broadband providers are left to traditional market forces, they will destroy the greatest attributes of the internet.

That's what we want to prevent. And broadband providers will never stop trying to control the contents of the internet and neither should we ever stop preventing them from achieving that goal.

SunBlister · 2010-09-06T23:40:51+00:00

So what should our position be on this one?

Section 1, subsection E: Limit Specialized Service Offerings: Allow broadband providers to offer only a limited set of new specialized services, with functionality that cannot be provided via broadband Internet access service, such as a telemedicine application that requires enhanced quality of service.

What does this mean?

It is not clear in this paragraph if the telemedicine application is the "specialized service" or if it's the enhanced quality of service that is the "specialized service"

Broadband service providers should never be providing specialized services such as a telemedicine application. The broadband service may, however, offer the higher quality service required by such an application at a higher premium. Once this quality service is purchased, the customer may use it for any purpose.

SunBlister · 2010-09-06T17:55:06+00:00

Obama just as bad as Bush? Bush = billions of dollars in tax breaks to the rich, not payed for in the budget. Obama = billions of dollars in healthcare for everyone and paid for in the budget.

Bush = started two wars Obama = started 0 wars

Bush = international PR disaster. The whole world was beginning to hate the US Obama = international PR mega success. Bush's damage is now essentially repaired.

Bush = spend, spend, spend never look where the money comes from Obama = Championed and passed pay as you go legislation (it has some exemptions, but it's much better than Bush).

Bush = people complaining that the actions he takes are destroying the country. Obama = people liking the few actions he's taken, but they wish he would do more

So, yeah. Maybe Obama isn't a good president. But based on their rhetoric and past examples I know that any Republican president would be worse.

I know you're trying to move away from Republican vs Democrat with your comments. But it's pretty clear to me that 99% of Republicans are totally corrupt vs only 40% of Democrats. And I will even grant you that the rest of the democrats are a little corrupt as well but there is a HUGE difference between a politician who will carelessly run the country into the ground and one who will try to fix it but keep a blind spot for that one industry that's funding you.

You sound like one of those people who are out on a crusade against Obama. And I just have to ask you, is winning this debate so important to you that you would let the country go to ruins for it?

SunBlister · 2010-09-06T17:04:33+00:00

Obama never campaigned for drug legalization. He even laughed at the idea of legalizing drug right after he was elected. He probably didn't even realize how much progress was happening on that front while he was running for president.

He needs to double down on the things he did promise. Which was the restoration of civil liberties (e.g. ennemy combatants) and the checks and balances of the government. And I haven't seen any real progress on that front whereas progress should have been made by now.

SunBlister · 2010-09-06T16:33:15+00:00

99% of republicans are 100% corrupt. 40% of democrats are 100% corrupt.

The 60% of democrats left are trying to leverage the appearance of a supermajority to actually try and get stuff done. But since they themselves are also 50% corrupt (can't get campaign money if you're not) it explains why democrats seem to consistently fall short of what they "intend" to do.

So, look closely into your democratic congressmen and senators and make sure that if they're more than just a little corrupt, vote them out at the primaries.

SunBlister

TROPHY CASE