Y2HH

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Mar 11, 2014 -> 01:03 PM) Feels good, but at the same time, I find myself trying to push myself "wait 1 more day" on both the selling and buying end. I was waiting for the stock HEMP to fall to 0.10 flat before I bought. It got down to about 0.105 and I decided to "wait 1 more day". That was on Friday, and since then, it's rallied back up to 0.135 at some point today. Could have made a 30% gain in 2 days. Just put in a couple buy orders for NTRR and FITX if they drop a few more pennies. Why are you day trading in penny stock trash? You realize these are the exact types of worthless stocks that Jordan Belfort (The Wolf of Wall Street) pitched the people he was scamming, right? With computers doing day trading these days, it's impossible for a regular person to be successful at this long term. By the time you hear the news, or login to sell your stock, it's already been dumped by the computers running these elaborate schemes for traders, and there is no possible way for you to match that speed. Unfortunately, the worst thing that can happen to you is happening to you right now -- you're getting away with a few easy "wins", and it's going to convince you that you can't lose -- I assure you, in day trading you can and WILL, it's just a matter of time. And worse, you've already shown the first sign of invincibility in that you called something a "quick profit", but included the dreaded "...but I only invested 90$ in it"...meaning you're already thinking, "man, if I had only invested 1000$, instead". Don't get into this sort of trading, it's a fools game.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2014 -> 01:05 PM) Day trading at the top of a five-year bull market sounds like a great, can't-fail idea... In OTC penny stocks, no less.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Mar 11, 2014 -> 01:20 AM) Got myself in to the stock game with my own money. I own stock that my dad bought for me when I was a kid, but this is my own money and my own account and doing it all myself. Bought stock on Tuesday. Sold it all on Friday. Make a 70% profit. Unfortunately I only invested $97. And after commissions and fees, I only ended up with a $31 gain. Blah. You will also owe short term cap gains on that profit at the end of the year.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Mar 11, 2014 -> 01:25 AM) Got home from work last night a little after 11 and was motivated to hit the gym. I was in there for about 2 hours and absolutely crushed it with the place all to myself. It was so weird as to how intense and focused my workout was at that time of day. I never work out that late or I wouldn't be able to sleep.

QUOTE (Jake @ Mar 10, 2014 -> 01:19 PM) Sorry about the symbol confusion, that's how we all express that idea on another message board I go to. There's just an objective difference between Rachel Maddow (not as much the rest of the MSNBC lineup) and the O'Reilly/Hannity/whoever the hell crew. Maddow's show is quite obviously partisan, but actually employs journalistic rigor in terms of evidence-backed arguments, etc. She is going to push left-liberal ideas, but she also deals in fact. There is also a huge tonal difference on Maddow than pretty much any of the other shows, with the possible exception of Chris Wallace's programs. She occasionally gets a little animated, but she doesn't yell at guests, doesn't loser her temper and say crazy things, and generally goes for the "make a point by understating it" tone than the opposite. O'Reilly and even moreso Hannity play very loose and fast with the facts and often see their shows devolve into a bunch of gut-based inference and anger. Chris Matthews and sometimes Lawrence O'Donnell and Ed Schultz would be better comparisons here. I really don't think that Maddow has any good comparisons across the aisle or on the left in terms of partisan programming. Her appears-to-be-but-actually-isn't-brother Chris Hayes is probably the closest, but he is even more wonk-ish, even less emotional, and structures his show to be so more policy and research-oriented than Maddow's that I don't even like comparing them. On the FOX slate, as I mentioned, Chris Wallace is the one that seems most interested in his own integrity and at least appears to make some efforts to say things that are true and to treat his guests with respect. And let's give Al Sharpton some credit here, he is truly unmatched Yea, I don't agree with you on Maddow, she's just like the rest of them, maybe not to the extent of Hannity or Limbaugh, but she's the left's version of Bill O'Reilly, but IMO, that's not really a bad thing. You only see everything she reports as fact because you want it to all be true. It's still an opinion show, and opinions aren't about facts, they're about interpreting them.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 10, 2014 -> 11:01 AM) Olbermann? That's him. I find all of these types the exact same, and depending on where you stand on issues, you may or may not agree with what they say. There have probably been times that I've agreed with something they've said at some point, including Limbaugh, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with every single thing they say.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 10, 2014 -> 10:56 AM) So how the heck do you actually make that symbol? I have no idea how. I don't know how to do it on a PC, but on a Mac, you hold alt and hit the +/= key. ≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 10, 2014 -> 10:44 AM) if you were writing "does not equal" out on paper, you'd draw an equal sign with a slash through it that would look like "=/=" You'd draw this ≠, not =/=

QUOTE (Jake @ Mar 6, 2014 -> 05:36 PM) Being a liberal news commentator =/= Limbaugh or even O'Reilly-esque trolling What exactly does =/= mean, not even a Google search returns anything on this. If you were looking for "does not equal", that's != in Internets vernacular, and mathematically, I think you were searching for ≠. What you wrote is "equal divided by equal", which means nothing. And as for your point, that depends on which side of the isle you stand on. Limbaugh fans probably don't see him as a troll, they see him as telling the truth no matter how much we agree they're misguided. And for the record, I've never once listened to Limbaugh, and I find them all bad, including the likes of Maddow and that other idiot that was fired 50 times.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 7, 2014 -> 06:10 PM) Isn't there a legit concern that come time to enroll in class the fund won't have the money to pay for it? Since, you know, it's basically a legal ponzi scheme? That's not really what a ponzi scheme is.

I'd like to add that seeing these posts, Reddy fired off a succession of rapid fire and passionately worded posts, that he could have worded in a cleaner fashion but because of his direct involvement in something near and dear to him. I'm not an admin or anything, but I don't think he should be banned, he should have his moment to state his case and clean up his posts/clear the air... Technically, this wasn't in the Buster, and based on that technicality, I think Reddy should be released from prison immediately! ATTICA, ATTICA.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 7, 2014 -> 10:27 AM) An non-lead-core round (e.g. an AP round with a steel core) can cause a spark, and obviously an incendiary round could. The only thing they could get to ignite the fuel was by using tracers at long range so they'd have time to fire up.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 7, 2014 -> 10:18 AM) Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems like at least several of the posters in this thread had some or all of their tuition, room and board covered by the parents but that they worked a part-time job for spending money. This girl is suing for her parents to pay for tuition. I was fortunate to have choices, but the choices were still left to me to squander or make something of. 1) I could move out and do whatever I wanted, on my own dime. 2) They would pay for college so long as I kept my grades B's or higher. 3) Join the military. I chose option 2, my brother chose option 3.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 7, 2014 -> 10:09 AM) I honestly didnt know that. They even tried it on mythbusters and couldn't get it to explode. Lead doesn't spark, regardless of what it strikes which is something Hollywood repeatedly gets wrong. Though, in the movie Heat, one of the more realistic gunfights in film, you'll note nothing they shot caused sparks. They use sparks so the viewer knows where they were firing, but in reality, that never occurs. And of course, related to gasoline...no spark = no flame = no explosions.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 7, 2014 -> 10:07 AM) I love this thread. We've learned: -Yes this is the only lawsuit of it's kind but it is DEFINITELY indicative of an entire generation of laziness that no soxtalker can relate to because they all bootstrapped themselves up and worked a food job in their life. -No, we definitely need to keep things in perspective about occupy's contributions to Sandy relief. Though they may have helped a little, it was nowhere near the work done by larger organizations like red cross. I don't think we all bootstrapped ourselves up because we worked a food job, but I do feel that working that food job made up want something more/better.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Mar 7, 2014 -> 10:02 AM) Your right. I never really thought I would have a discussion about whether or not to shoot at people. Most of us opted to shoot high and try to keep the others down while we got away. Luckily no one was ever hit severely hit. Driving in the back of a pickup with 200 gallons of fuel behind you while people were shooting was terrifying. We've still never told our wives. They would not have been happy about us going multiple times. You can shoot a fuel can with a gun all you want, it will not explode from that. Lead does not sparks like in the movies. It'll make it all leak out, though. heh

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 7, 2014 -> 09:50 AM) FWIW you can find Reddy's posts from late 2012 and early 2013 in some filibuster threads talking about how red cross etc. were taking time for photo ops while the Occupy groups were actually helping people. ...and I think we all know Reddy means well, and is obviously passionate about helping, but I think he's failing to see the forest for the trees here. I'm sure they helped, but they did not help nearly as much as large organizations, EVEN if those organizations have their fair share of corruption/theft and/or are busy doing photo ops. Who would you rather help you? A) Group of young go-getters that mean well, but have little to no resources who will NOT stop to photo-op or blog about their helpfulness? B) Group of trained volunteers with massive backing and resources, including heavy machinery, but want to stop once in a while to take a picture for the NYT? I'll take B, thanks.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 7, 2014 -> 09:28 AM) You must be the only person who lives in that area. We couldnt possibly have relatives or co-workers that went through hardships after the storm. After you get off your crazy train, how about SOME EVIDENCE of "the movement" doing MOST of the cleanup. Anything. A quote, a figure, anything. Because I know FOR A FACT, not a single Occupy person helped my brother in law find his belongings and help him with clothes on his kids backs or help him get the funds needed not only to take care of his family during the time of rebuild or actually help him rebuild his house. They didnt move tons and tons of sand out of habitable areas to they could clean and rebuild housing and local business. They had nothing to do with making sure there was adequate health care and medication for those with needs who lost everything. So tell me, in the 1.4 million dollars they put towards the cause, how much did it actually help? Those thousands of people they claim to have thrown at the issue, what did they actually do? Forward to 2:26 for the point of this...but if you haven't already seen it, watch the whole thing. That's 2:26 is what this reminds me of.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 7, 2014 -> 09:22 AM) Raising money isnt a bunch of entitled people throwing money at an issue, far from it. These groups helped rebuild the area, fund the actual repair of resources, business and homes. They also helped bring the equipment needed to bring the area back to what it is supposed to be ecologically. Reddy's group of kids could have moved as much sand in 3 months as one truck did in an hour. It's LAUGHABLE to think that anything related to Occupy cleaned up "most" of the Sandy damage. It's completely false and crazy. They simply didn't have the machinery necessary, as you stated, to do anything in that short amount of time. Had this been done by people without huge machines, it would still be in the beginnings of it's rebuild phase.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 7, 2014 -> 09:03 AM) Just blame Bush. He'd be more than happy too.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 6, 2014 -> 03:25 PM) Hell they couldn't clean up the parks they took over. There were several towns that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix them after they left. QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 6, 2014 -> 10:37 PM) and f*** you. f*** him for what, telling the truth? Take your blinders off. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=occupy+cleanup+costs Since you obviously never bothered and are blind to reality, I Googled it for you. I'm sure NBClosangeles is anti Occupy when they're one of those reporting on the costs of cleaning up after they didn't bother. NBCNEWS.com must be a bunch of Republicans trying to smear the movement, too.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 6, 2014 -> 10:36 PM) Wow. f*** you guys. f*** you guys hard. I LIVE HERE, you don't. I WAS THERE the days after the storm - YOU WEREN'T. You all have no f***ing clue what you're f***ing talking about. The red cross was doing PHOTO OPS while there were people huddled around generators with NO FOOD and NO WATER and no SHELTER. But FEMA and the red cross were taking pictures of their "workers" in front of their trucks! Honestly I don't even feel like explaining myself to you midwest f***ers who have no idea what this place was like. The MAJORITY of the emergency relief in the weeks following the storm was provided and orchestrated by Occupy. I was f***ing THERE. Sorry Reddy, but whether they're still around or not, the Occupy movement was stupid from the get go. It's complete lack of organization allowed it to be instantly hijacked by the wrong people. Maybe the one small subsection of that entire movement did something good, and maybe it happened to be the one you were involved with, but overall, it was a failure of epic proportions, and it solved nothing before fizzling out. IF that movements is still around, nobody that's not directly involved in it knows. So it may as well be gone.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 11:44 AM) B.itch plz. I'm kicking all sorts of ass again. So you say...

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 11:04 AM) so much whining. just watch everyone not named Stephanie then. lol At least I work out, Mr. BeachBody member that eats pizza and sulks around.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 11:03 AM) lol if you'd said that right off the bat I could've told you Stephanie Saunders has worked for Beachbody for like 10 years. She was a pro long before Beach Body, she has like 90 fitness certifications and was a dancer.