Crimson847 wrote:In other words, transgender-friendly privacy laws don't molest people, people molest people.
(Presumably, the only way to stop a bad guy with a transgender-friendly privacy law is a good guy with a transgender-friendly privacy law, and thus transgender-friendly privacy law rights need to be enshrined in the Constitution as well)
Crimson847 wrote:In other words, transgender-friendly privacy laws don't molest people, people molest people.
(Presumably, the only way to stop a bad guy with a transgender-friendly privacy law is a good guy with a transgender-friendly privacy law, and thus transgender-friendly privacy law rights need to be enshrined in the Constitution as well)
cmsellers wrote:Meanwhile, my total returns on the non-BrokerageLink part of my 401k are under 10%, even though it's my oldest retirement account by about three months. This is partially because small cap value and international value have done really well since October and I can't hold either of those in the non-BrokerageLink part of my 401k, but it's also because I allocated 5% of my portfolio to my employer's stock. There may or may not be some tax benefits to holding your employer's stock in a 401k, and since I couldn't determine whether there was, I decided to put in 5% of that account as my employer's stock.
That was a bad move, and an abject lesson on why you should never hold individual stocks. That 5% of my holdings in that account lost about 20% of its value.
Crimson847 wrote:In other words, transgender-friendly privacy laws don't molest people, people molest people.
(Presumably, the only way to stop a bad guy with a transgender-friendly privacy law is a good guy with a transgender-friendly privacy law, and thus transgender-friendly privacy law rights need to be enshrined in the Constitution as well)
Crimson847 wrote:In other words, transgender-friendly privacy laws don't molest people, people molest people.
(Presumably, the only way to stop a bad guy with a transgender-friendly privacy law is a good guy with a transgender-friendly privacy law, and thus transgender-friendly privacy law rights need to be enshrined in the Constitution as well)
Crimson847 wrote:In other words, transgender-friendly privacy laws don't molest people, people molest people.
(Presumably, the only way to stop a bad guy with a transgender-friendly privacy law is a good guy with a transgender-friendly privacy law, and thus transgender-friendly privacy law rights need to be enshrined in the Constitution as well)
cmsellers wrote:I want to start a hedge fund which is just a fund to buy literal hedges.
...
I'm not sure what I'm gonna do with a bunch of hedges, but I still wanna do it.
jbobsully11 wrote:The inverse fund I invested in (HDGE) did a reverse split a few days ago, and I went from owning ten shares to only having one worth ten times as much. This interferes with my plan to sell only a little bit the next time the market crashes.
iMURDAu wrote:There's so many things. You can have a garden that looks like famous sculptures, a maze, ok there's like two things.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests