ChocolateReignRemix
-
Posts
1,040 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by ChocolateReignRemix
-
-
Australia is also an island and not sharing a long, highly porous border with the 2nd most violent country in the world (second only to Syria). Ditto for the UK.
My state's gun laws would be much more effective if the state was surrounded by ocean on all sides.
Where do you think the guns in Mexico come from?
-
5
-
-
What is your personal strategy for (attempting to) protect gains? Do you move money into less volitile funds for the duration? Cash some out?
I have some liquid money that I plan to use for two kids’ tuition for fall; I will access part of it in July. I don’t know where yo put it. I don’t know whether to put it simply in a savings account, meaning I will earn practically no interest, but it will be safe from a crash or severe correction, or distribute it amongst a few safer funds and a savings account, where it will still earn some gains but will be vulnerable in a severe correction. One of my funds is T.Rowe Price’s Blue Chip Growth, which has done very well in the ten year, but which had a severe loss in 2008 (something like -46%). If we have another severe correction like 2008, I will be fully regretting every dollar I put in the fund rather than securing it away in a saving account, but of course, if there is no correction until later than July, I will be annoyed that I captured no gains by tucking it safely in savings instead of a solid fund.
P.S. Forgive me if this is too First World Problem for some.
P.S.S. I am not asking someone to tell me specifically what TO DO; just what are you doing/would you do, do you think, in this case. I know no one has a crystal ball and ultimately, it is a gamble I have to call myself.
1.) 2008 wasn't a correction. That was a crash.
2.) Money you expect to access that quickly does not need to be in the market imo. The gains you possibly miss out on pale in comparison to what you are risking if there is a sharp decline (very possible) between now and July.
3.) Normally I would suggest you could toss that in a bond fund but that is also too risky in this environment.
Summary: savings account is the wisest move.
-
13
-
-
I think we get a huge discount because we get all our other insurance through the same agent. Plus, we chose pretty high liability coverage for home and car insurance already, so chances of needing that policy are low.
No insurance that I know of covers criminal acts, and creating a law requiring specific "gun insurance" still wouldn't make an insurer cover a criminal act. Insurance isn't written that way.
Most umbrella policies require insurance through the same company. $24 sounds insanely low - are you sure that isn't per month?
The bolded is my point. The proposed gun insurance would also cover criminal acts, which if that was the case, would raise the cost of those policies immensely (assuming anyone would even underwrite them). Which is one of the many reasons I don't support those proposals.
-
I've seen this insurance thing as a meme on facebook, but I think it's a red herring. Despite media scares, the actual statistics on gun violence are so low that insurance costs very little. As in, we have a 2 million dollar umbrella liability policy that specifically mentions including guns, and it costs something like $24 per year.
I actually think it would be more effective to ban AR brand rifles, despite the fact that they are not very different from any other semi-automatic rifle, solely because so many mass shooters seem to be fixated on them. Not to mention specific brands of guns have constitutional issues.
Maybe we could simply tax AR's out of the price bracket of young men. In theory. Not that it would pass the current legislature.
I disagree with the gun insurance idea for other reasons, but going out on a limb I am guessing your umbrella policy only covers acts of negligence and not criminal acts.
I have to say $24 sounds really, really low. Most policies I have seen have run between $300-500.
-
DH and I were speaking with another couple about bill paying. No details, just in general. This couple uses their Discover Card to pay for everything all month long. Mortgage, utilities, gas, groceries, incidentals - everything goes on the Discover Card. At the end of the month, they pay off the Discover and begin again. They claim never to carry a balance, not even $1. Neither carry cash nor do they use their debit/check cards. They claim they earn enough in cash back bonuses and rewards to fund their yearly family vacation and Christmas.
Does anyone here do something similar? I'm curious to know how common this is and whether or not it would be worth trying for a few months.
We do this with the exception of our mortgage and our HOA fee. We do use some cash also but don't use our debit cards.
-
Then there was her racist rant, but that might be what you're referring to with "other nonsense".
Actually I had forgotten about that. Just looked up her controversies and, well, there was a lot to forget.
-
1
-
-
These drills take place in all schools that I know of in our area, private as well as public, elementary through high school.
Our kids already *are* getting gun education in schools, whether we'd choose it or not: this is it.
On another thread, a poster raised the point that the currently organizing and protesting kids have been doing such drills their whole school lives; that has informed them and forged a common experience between them that is not really accessible to those of us who didn't conduct such drills back in the day.
I have been thinking about this after someone mentioned it and I think it is spot on. From personal experience I was caught up in a school lock down (robbery at a store across the street on a weekend just as a basketball camp was starting). Seeing a SWAT team come through the gym to clear it was...unnerving. I can't imagine going through this for years and years starting at the age of 6 or 7, and it doesn't surprise some kids are finally fed up.
-
3
-
-
She was talking about her experiences with people who call her show. I listened to a fair amount of her show, and she's right: most calls were about issues regarding the children from a previous marriage not being treated well. Not all blended families are the Brady Bunch.
Which is an obvious selection bias.
-
1
-
-
Unless the courts are taking advice from her, her opinions haven't much practical value.
At one time in the late 90s it would not have surprised me.
-
Dr. Laura thinks that people who have children and get divorced should stay single until their children are grown up. She recommends moving in with the grandparents, if possible. She says that the majority of her phone calls are from people who remarried, and the step parent doesn't treat the spouses children well, and if there are children with the new spouse, those children take precedence over the other children. IOW, she does not say that if people divorce and remarry that they should not have children together; she thinks people should stay single and raise their children. Yes, she recognizes the fact that this is difficult, but she says it's better for the children.
She also called homosexuals "a biological mistake" and has spread a fair amount of other nonsense over her career. Not sure I would take anything she says as fact.
-
9
-
-
And once the victim goes to campus authorities, she is very often discouraged from contacting the actual police. It looks bad for campuses to have students attacked. And if a student athlete is the accused attacker,even the local police urge the victim to drop it and do cursory investigations (Florida State U, I'm looking at you after that quarterback Jamis Winston case.)
In fairness, the TPD claim is that the victim initially refused to cooperate. Not sure that I believe them but that is what they said.
-
I didn’t think my idea was ideal. I’m just trying to think of ways to help if the crime labs can’t get their act together and get the kits processed. Maybe a better approach would be for a non-profit to raise money and give grants for the labs to hire extra people until all backlogs are caught up.
That is a much better idea but I take issue with your "get their acts together" comment. The backlog is due to a lack of funding and staffing.
-
We do this all the time though. People can't agree to sell their organs. They can't agree to sell themselves permanently. They can't agree to a death contract. In some places they can't be pregnancy surrogates or sell blood. They can't agree to be abused.
The US maybe is a little freer than some other western countries about those things, but that's a feature of extreme capitalism rather than freedom for people. But even there many of those things are not allowed and there is heavy regulation, and the reasons are that they are potentially rife for abuse, can cause social damage, and also that they come a little to close to selling the physical body in the same way that slavery does - treating it as an object.
Deciding what is/is not porn and banning it is a line I don't believe we should be crossing. And frankly I think people should be allowed to sell their blood and that some form of compensation should be available for organ donation.
-
In an ideal world they would find a way to remove all porn from they Internet and prosecute people who produce it. I know, I know. Not an easy task. But our children deserve it and the Internet is becoming their world in ways that it is hard for us to truly imagine. Wouldn't it be nice if it were a world that did not objectify and use women?
My ideal world would be a reliable way to block children from porn. It wouldn't involve prosecuting adults for engaging in consensual activities even if I may disagree with what they are doing.
-
3
-
-
Government contracts various tasks all the time. The people that work the contract are supposed to be appropriately vetted in the same manner as a government employee.
Contracting rape kit tests out to an advocacy group is different than most government contracts. Further what the poster is suggesting is that these groups pick up the cost, which is why I would have some ethical concerns. Anytime you are dealing with evidence you have to be very cautious with chain of custody issues.
-
1
-
-
That would be best. But in the mean time, it would be nice if some organization made it part of its mission.
Handing over rape kits to an outside entity opens up some ethical considerations.
-
3
-
-
I once read about a grant that gave a city enough money to process some of the backlog. It enabled them to catch maybe ten guys because their DNA was already on file for other crimes. Imagine how many could be caught if all the kits nationwide were processed in a timely manner.
Maybe it's time for a private non-profit to administer and process rape kits.
Or we could properly fund our crime labs.
-
12
-
-
Twelve pack in an evening? :huh:
ETA: Not trying to be judgy, I just don't know anyone who can do this...and I know people who can consume. Maybe there is more of a closet thing than I was ever aware of.
I know a lot of people who can do it - I know far fewer who actually do.
-
1
-
-
-
And that drop was after the DOW had been up about 350 poinits earlier today, so we have had over a 500 point swing within the first two hours of trading today; the market volatility is high.
I slept in and missed the early bump. I think Wednesday-Thursday we went from up 350 at one point on Wednesday to a small loss and then the cliff jump on Thursday. Of course on Thursday I think the last 500 points of the drop occurred in the last hour.
-
FWIW there is no need to be in any hurry to dive into this market. A continued correction is much more likely than a quick reversal. If you feel this is a buying opportunity and have cash, buying incrementally is probably smarter than unloading your clip all at once.
ETA: And as I typed this the DOW dropped 170 points in just a few minutes. This correction is being pushed by the automatic trading algorithms as much as anything right now, which is why I expect to see more blood in the street for at least a few weeks.
-
5
-
-
Yes recommendations plz, what tho buy..
Index ETFs.
-
2
-
-
That is awful. According to the article, the family of the girl has "accepted" the sentence and didn't want to travel for a trial. Really? They don't think enough of their daughter to make sure justice is served? Is that because the rape took place at a church camp and they don't want to make more waves? Somehow, I jus think that has something to do with their attitude. Does the state not want to foot the bill for prison accommodations? Maybe they don't think they can guarantee his safety as a person who can't see approaching threats and don't want to make the accommodations that would make that possible?
ETA: Not sure about my initial idea that the family doesn't want to make waves, as they have initiated a civil suit.
SaveSave
I read that a bit differently. The article later says:
Bruce Robertson, who is representing the girl in a civil lawsuit against the camp and the church that runs it, told the newspaper the plea agreement came after "the family was told by the district attorney's office that the rapist would not serve any meaningful prison time due to his medical conditions".
The way this reads to me is that the family was told they would be wasting their time/travel as he would not be getting a meaningful sentence even if it went to trial.
-
2
-
-
Well, Victor played Jesus--yeah, he could do Fred Rogers! lol
I think the conflict might be between Fred and people who wanted Fred to do a different kind of TV show for kids, and Fred stood firm in his vision. I don't think there would be acceptance of Fred's "inner turmoil," because I don't think he had any. LOL!
(Yeah, I know, he WAS human--but I do think Hollywood will keep him "good.")
From what I have read the movie is not about Fred so much as it is about a "cynical" writer (the one I mentioned previously) and his relationship with Fred.
Washington Post article about gun control and what it would do
in The Chat Board
Posted
My point was they come from the United States. Mexico's violence problem is in many ways connected to U.S. policies (and not just on guns fwiw).