100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
How to choose a mutual fund?
|
|
P.S. by "fees" above I mean to include the expense ratio which is the
aggregate costs of owning a fund. This is distinct from the costs of buying a fund, which are the sales loads. see http://www.fool.com/school/mutualfunds/costs/ratios.htm The nifty thing about the expense ratio is that it wraps all these various costs and expenses into one number so that you don't have to do a lot of math. Currently the typical expense ratio for an actively managed mutual fund is about 1.5%, and that number has been going up lately. With an expense ratio of 1.5%, a mutual fund is cutting itself in on 1.5% of the total money in the fund every year. That's whether there's a good year or a bad year for the fund. Helpful stuff to know. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Women in Advertising
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Sun 02/03/13 03:18 AM
|
|
"one for the girls"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
How to choose a mutual fund?
|
|
This was a very interesting thread. Leigh has given you excellent advice. I expect that you will wish to participate in the plan and max it out.
As far as investment is concerned you will still want to check the fees. The benefits coordinator at work or the funds liason can assist with that. To choose which funds to invest in is also an important decision. At this time in the economic cycle and with the world economic situation, you would be wise to consider that interest rates are likely to rise in the next few years and that the bond markets will be adversely affected and bond funds will get dragged out and shot. I would expect that a mix of equity funds might be your best bet. The investment climate in the US may be improving and you may find even better growth possibilities within small cap and midcap growth or funds investing abroad in areas where economic development is likely to be best. Speak with any friends and family you trust and gather opinions, speak with your benefits coordinator - they're free and likely have your best interest in mind. Educate your self on investment at the library. I can recommend Jeremy Siegel's books: "Stocks for the long run" and "The future for investors" as places to start but there are many others. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Women in Advertising
|
|
This is what happens when women write commercials for women.
Happy Superbowl Sunday Everyone. Especially the Survivors!! http://www.upworthy.com/this-is-what-happens-when-advertising-is-done-for-women-by-women |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three black-masked men stood on either side of a blind-folded, bearded man and held him as they guided his right hand towards what looks like a saw blade on the side of a large machine. A bloody finger flops off.
The man, a convicted thief and adulterer, suffered the grisly punishment in public in Iran late last week, according a report and graphic pictures posted by Iran's official Student News Agency Friday. The ISNA published four photographs of the incident, one of which appears to shows a masked member of the Iranian authorities showing the crowd the bloody aftermath of the 29-year-old's hand. The man does not appear to show pain in any of the pictures, leading the French outlet France 24 to speculate he may have been drugged. Immediately following the amputation, a local prosecutor reportedly issued a warning to all would-be criminals: the punishment for such crimes would be getting more severe. The amputation comes just days after about 300 people reportedly gathered to witness a public execution by hanging in a Tehran park, as reported by The New York Times. The Times said that the public hanging was part of a "heavy-handed offensive by Iranian authorities, who say they are trying to prevent rising crime rates from getting out of hand by setting harsh examples." According to Norway-based Iran Human Rights, monitoring of Iran's media shows there have been eight public hangings, one public amputation and four public lashings in Iran in the past 10 days alone. http://news.yahoo.com/iran-uses-machine-amputate-finger-161323571--abc-news-topstories.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
stiffness
|
|
If it is just restarting an exercise regimen after a long layoff then it is likely that you simply need to start slower with lower level of activity and stretching after the muscles are all warmed up by light weights and 5-10 mins of light aerobic exercise. Take it all slower and you should find that you will be able to stretch the muscles and improve flexibility.
Flexibility is gained as muscles become accustomed to more regular use and as they get used. Flexibility is lost the longer you go without exercise. See links below about loss of flexibility and general flexibility. http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/symptom/loss-of-flexibility.htm http://web.mit.edu/tkd/stretch/stretching_3.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Susan Gratia-Hupp - Survivor of the 1991 Kileen TX Lubys Shooting Massacre
Interesting testimony and strong arguments regarding the 2nd Amendment http://youtu.be/6sEYGcXSmpQ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
freestyle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
visually impaired
|
 Well I like your writing. Just makes me curious about the rest of you...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I must say that is certainly a fair point. Quotes can definitely
be taken out of context. Was just going off the media report myself as I have not seen the full speech. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Tue 01/22/13 05:11 PM
|
|
There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover. A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[81][82] Noah Webster similarly argued: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[82][83] George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[82][84] The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[82][85] Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression: Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[86] While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."[82][87] =-=-=-=-= There was no discussion of slaves or slavery with respect to the 2nd Amendment at the time of its drafting but there are numerous discussions concerning the need to be able to forcibly protect citizens and states against potential federal tyranny. I think this pretty much discredits the viewpoint exhorted by Glover. Consideration of slaves and Indians had little or nothing to do with the creation 2nd amendment and it is intellectually dishonest to try to inject these considerations a couple of centuries after the fact as a matter of weapon baiting incitement. I am disappointed in Glover for this lapse in critical thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_amendment it was not 'created' because of slaves, at least not by Madison,,,, but it certainly APPEALED to those who wanted to protect against a slave revolt Well I'm sure that the Southern slave owners wanted their guns. And arming African Americans was soon to become a wild and contentious subject about 50 years later... But it bothers me that Glover and Hartmann can be so ignorant in their comments! Glover said “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts and from uprisings by Native Americans.” “A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the Second Amendment is,” he added. I mean that is just ignorant. This was NOT the genesis of the Amendment and protection from slave uprisings or Indian uprisings was NOT where the 2nd Amendment came from. According to later reports, Texas A&M campus officials have already begun to distance themselves from Glover’s comments. There is never any good excuse for poor scholarship and false commentary regarding the Constitution and Amendments.... Sorry about the multiple posts (Site Gag) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Tue 01/22/13 05:13 PM
|
|
multiple posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Tue 01/22/13 05:12 PM
|
|
multiple posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover. A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[81][82] Noah Webster similarly argued: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[82][83] George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[82][84] The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[82][85] Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression: Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[86] While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."[82][87] =-=-=-=-= There was no discussion of slaves or slavery with respect to the 2nd Amendment at the time of its drafting but there are numerous discussions concerning the need to be able to forcibly protect citizens and states against potential federal tyranny. I think this pretty much discredits the viewpoint exhorted by Glover. Consideration of slaves and Indians had little or nothing to do with the creation 2nd amendment and it is intellectually dishonest to try to inject these considerations a couple of centuries after the fact as a matter of weapon baiting incitement. I am disappointed in Glover for this lapse in critical thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_amendment it was not 'created' because of slaves, at least not by Madison,,,, but it certainly APPEALED to those who wanted to protect against a slave revolt Well I'm sure that the Southern slave owners wanted their guns. And arming African Americans was soon to become a wild and contentious subject about 50 years later... But it bothers me that Glover and Hartmann can be so ignorant in their comments! Glover said “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts and from uprisings by Native Americans.” “A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the Second Amendment is,” he added. I mean that is just ignorant. This was NOT the genesis of the Amendment and protection from slave uprisings or Indian uprisings was NOT where the 2nd Amendment came from. According to later reports, Texas A&M campus officials have already begun to distance themselves from Glover’s comments. There is never any good excuse for poor scholarship and false commentary regarding the Constitution and Amendments.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover.
A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[81][82] Noah Webster similarly argued: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[82][83] George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[82][84] The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[82][85] Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression: Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[86] While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."[82][87] =-=-=-=-= There was no discussion of slaves or slavery with respect to the 2nd Amendment at the time of its drafting but there are numerous discussions concerning the need to be able to forcibly protect citizens and states against potential federal tyranny. I think this pretty much discredits the viewpoint exhorted by Glover. Consideration of slaves and Indians had little or nothing to do with the creation 2nd amendment and it is intellectually dishonest to try to inject these considerations a couple of centuries after the fact as a matter of weapon baiting incitement. I am disappointed in Glover for this lapse in critical thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_amendment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actor and progressive political activist Danny Glover informed a group of students at a Texas A&M University-sponsored event that the Second Amendment was created to put down slave rebellions and subjugate Native Americans.
“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” Glover said on Thursday. “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts and from uprisings by Native Americans.” “A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the Second Amendment is,” he added. That theory that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to put down slave rebellions was recently resurrected by bestselling author and radio host Thom Hartmann, who said Virginia wouldn’t ratify the Constitution without a guarantee that it would have some way to keep slaves in check. http://news.yahoo.com/lethal-weapon-actor-tells-students-second-amendment-intended-051717897.html What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Lance Armstrong
|
|
he should first resign from the charity he started and then just go away. the simple fact here is that he obtained both his fame and fortune (said to top 100 million) by being a liar and cheat! to me, this makes him a fraud, nothing more. he cannot go back now and “help” clean up a sport that he himself tainted, though acting hypocritical is certainly a part of his make-up, to do such a thing now would be just another way to cash in on something he never deserved in the first place. you see, he can’t preach about fairness in sport, or character, working hard to obtain a goal, integrity, sportsmanship or any of the like, because he knows nothing about any of these virtues. right. i think he should be FIRED from the charity, be forced to surrender any prize money (with interest) to the sponsoring agencies for future clean competitions, and then he should be ignored. he has done horrible damage to sports and should be banned from professional and amateur sports competition and should find a job in community service. And then beaten have to death with a stiff rod. nah...community service job, revocation of all his awards and funds should be good enough. don't doubt that there are quite a few who'd like to string him up tho... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Lance Armstrong
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Fri 01/18/13 08:07 PM
|
|
he should first resign from the charity he started and then just go away. the simple fact here is that he obtained both his fame and fortune (said to top 100 million) by being a liar and cheat! to me, this makes him a fraud, nothing more. he cannot go back now and “help” clean up a sport that he himself tainted, though acting hypocritical is certainly a part of his make-up, to do such a thing now would be just another way to cash in on something he never deserved in the first place. you see, he can’t preach about fairness in sport, or character, working hard to obtain a goal, integrity, sportsmanship or any of the like, because he knows nothing about any of these virtues. right. i think he should be FIRED from the charity, be forced to surrender any prize money (with interest) to the sponsoring agencies for future clean competitions, and then he should be ignored. he has done horrible damage to sports and should be banned from professional and amateur sports competition and should find a job in community service. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
