ReeferMadness

Do that and they will put you in jail. Dimon will still be free and rich, though.

An amazing story. Similar story in video. At great personal sacrifice, former JP Morgan employee Alayne Fleischmann has gone public over the disgraceful way that the US Department of Justice has swept the massive, widespread mortgage fraud under the rug. By all accounts, the DOJ never had any intents of going after anyone, even though the mortgage crisis started a financial meltdown that affected much of the world. This is the same organization that went above and beyond to ensure that Mark Emery was extradited and jailed for selling plant seeds. The heroic Fleischmann emerges as a pawn in this narrative, used by the DOJ to increase the size of the settlement. In return for a bigger fine, CEO Jamie Dimon clearly intended to buy her silence. And of the $13 billion fine, $4 billion is in the form of loan extensions and forgiveness (most of which is paid by organizations other than JP Morgan) and a further $7 billion is tax deductible (so US citizens each get to contribute!). The defence, used by Dimon and others, was essentially that they were idiots who didn't understand their own business. Of course, that's not what they say when they justify their billions in bonuses. So, how much of a deterrent was the "historic fine"? Well, it was so bad that the day after it was announced, JP Morgan stock went up by $12 Billion, roughly double the actual amount of the fine. And what of the "disgraced" Jamie Dimon, the mental feeb who didn't know what he was doing? Apparently, incompetence is very lucrative when you're a CEO. He got a 75% pay raise.

Oh, that's rich. Go back and read the title of your thread again. Yes, but there's the rub. It's easy to see what is appreciating, you can't tell what will keep on appreciating. And that's where the risk is. Even the housing market is crazily unpredictable and it's much more tied to fundamentals than most stocks.

That's your experience with tough markets? A few months of uncertainty? The markets went sideways for the entire 70's. Talk to us again when you've lived through a decade of no market growth.

This is nonsense. Again, I ask how long have you been investing? Look at this chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average since 1900. Overall the trend is up but there are lots of opportunities to lose money. If you invested just before the 1929 stock market crash, it would be 1957 before your stocks were worth the same money. If you invested in 1966, you'd be waiting until the early 80's. And it gets worse. Here is the same chart adjusted for inflation. It shows that people who invested just before the 1929 crash didn't really get their money back until about 1966, people who invested in the mid 60's didn't recover until the 90's and people who invested in the 90's still haven't recovered. So, you just might to "invest" in a bit of research before you start calling people idiots. I agree with this. Moreover, once you start investing, you'll quickly find that their level of investing knowledge is quite low. If you manage your own money, you'll quickly be more knowledgeable than the typical bank employee who deals with RRSP's.

How long have you been investing? If your investment experience is based on the last 6 years, all you know is a bull market and you have no basis to criticize anyone. Anyone can make money in a bull market. Talk to us again after you experienced a few major market meltdowns.

ETF's are bought and sold on the stock market. Just like stocks. You can go to your bank and open an investment account (although the organization where you hold your investments is theoretically separate from your bank). All the major banks have affiliates that offer investing. If you are new to investing, my advice would be to start with research. Take a night course at your local community college or find a good book. Throwing you money into in investments will teach you things but that will be a painful way to learn. A few basics: - You can invest for growth (price appreciation), income or both - Over the long haul, growth investments have produced better returns historically, but they are more volatile. You need to be prepared to lose 20% or more, which could take years to recover - In the short term, there is an inverse relationship between the posted interest rates and the price of income investments. So, for example, if interest rates spike, dividend stocks, bond funds and real estate investment trusts will all go down in value - Stock market prices are leading indicators of economic performance. That means if you wait for a strong economy to invest, you've missed the boat. The best returns have already been had My advice: - If you don't have a lot to invest and are new, stay away from individual stocks. Even high quality stocks can tank fairly quickly. ETFs offer fund diversity with low management fees. - If you ignore the above advice, be warned that investing in individual stocks can take a lot of research to do it properly. - The bull market has been going for quite a while so I wouldn't put too much into growth stocks/funds right now. Chances of a downturn grow as time goes on - A good strategy for beginning investors, risk adverse investors and investors who don't want to spend all of their evenings and weekends reading analyst reports is to invest in a balanced portfolio of ETFs. Allocate a percentages of your investment to different categories (e.g. Canadian equities, global equities, bonds) and buy ETF's that represent those categories. Periodically, re-balance by selling some of those that go up and buying some of those that go down. This produces a natural effect of buying low and selling high. - Whatever you do, understand this: there is money to be made but that doesn't mean that the game isn't rigged against you. Insider trading is rampant, executive stock options will dilute your returns and automated trading will make the markets behave in ways that will make your head explode. And markets are fundamentally driven by emotions - fear and greed. You want to see mob behaviour - just watch the next stock market crash.

Depends on what you're paying on your mortgage and whether or not your income would be taxable. Right now, mortgage rates are very low. It might make more sense to put the money in investments. The trouble is investments can go down as well as up. What's your risk tolerance?

Really. Maybe you might want to read a bit more. Huffington Post quotes Reva Seth as claiming this: Seems to me like that would fit a definition of sexual assault but I'm not a lawyer. Which is why I asked you a question you have yet to answer. Are you a lawyer? That's your opinion. And your opinion on this topic might be worth something if you have some relevant experience - say, as a lawyer. Are you a lawyer? If not, than your estimate of what Ghomeshi will get isn't worth much.

Middle class is a political term. Same with terrorism.

Unless TimG is a lawyer, I would take what he is saying with a huge grain of salt. His link dealt with common assault, not sexual assault. Also, it will depend on the number of counts to which the convictions apply.

Really? Have you been paying attention? I'm not an expert but based on my reading of what the experts have said, there are two ways Ghomeshi could find himself convicted. 1. Ghomeshi has admitted to "rough sex" and claimed that it was consensual. However, there are a bunch of women who say it wasn't and it seems like at least several of them are prepared to say that to police. That is illegal. 2. In the unlikely event that Ghomeshi manages to convince judge and jury that the acts were consensual, there is another problem. In Canada, you can't legally consent to anything that causes physical harm. Getting struck in the head with a closed fist strikes me as something that is liable to cause physical harm.

Are you a criminal lawyer?

I think it's a done deal. There have already been 2 trials in the media. In the first, Ghomeshi portrayed himself as the victim and was acquitted due to lack of evidence. In the second, women went public, which made it much more difficult for Ghomeshi's supporters to dismiss the allegations. Ghomeshi quickly went from victim to villain and has become the public face of the "rape culture". We're now witnessing (metaphorically of course) a public hanging. Now that the court of public opinion has rendered a final verdict, there is nothing left for the court of law but to confirm the decision and apply a sentence. The only question remaining is how long Ghomeshi's legal team can draw out the proceedings. Their strategy will be to draw things out as long as possible to allow the public get bored and move on to something else before sentence is passed.

You certainly might. And as objectionable as some of HAL's statements might be, your line of questioning seems naive and highlights the problem with our system of criminal law. Our criminal legal system (euphemistically referred to as a "justice system") seems to be premised on there being a victim and a perpetrator. In real life, sometimes that holds true. However, much of the time, as my mother used to tell me, "it takes two to tango". Consider a practical example. I am out with my brother. I say something he takes offense to and he hits me. Now, I might have a variety of reactions. I could be angry with my brother but not so angry that I want the police to become involved and him to get a criminal record. Or I could shrug it off at the time (rationalizing that maybe I deserved it) and later decide that even if I did say something offensive, it didn't justify him hitting me. Or, I could react immediately in anger, going to the police and reconsider later, thinking my comments were really over the top. Consider another example. I've known people (men, hopped up on alcohol or just testosterone) who made a game out of giving one another a "charley horse" by hitting one in the shoulder or thigh. Now, most of the time, these are fairly harmless but it is possible to cause serious injury. In this case, if someone was injured in this fashion, it would be perfectly reasonable to ask if one person objected when he was hit. In the real world, context is everything. So, how does this apply to the Ghomeshi case? Since I wasn't there, I have no idea. And, realistically, neither do any of the legions of people who've come to the defence of either the accused or the accusers.

Yes, those Conservatives are big believers in law and order - when it's applied to some poor schmo with a few pot plants. Why should they be subject to the law - they just write them!

I won't challenge your statistics directly as I'm sure they're based on fine research. Instead, let's focus on the word consent. Now, you would think that it would be pretty easy for two reasonably intelligent people to interact in such a way that that both would understand whether an act was consensual. But it might not be that simple. Human communication is ridiculously imprecise and ambivalent (often purposely so). When it takes teams of lawyers to hammer out a software agreement or write some legislation, what is the likelihood that a couple of people whose judgement might be impaired by drugs, booze and hormones will always see things the same way? Most people have read statistics about how only 7 percent of communication is verbal (the remainder being tone and body language). Even verbal communication is subject to misinterpretation; body language and tone cannot be objectively measured. Is it reasonable to believe that people will behave differently when it comes to sexual communication? Certainly, much (probably most) of the time, intent is reasonably clear and people are able to understand each others intent. However, between "no means no" and "enthusiastic consent", there are far more than 50 shades of grey. I'm not intending to make excuses for anyone's behaviour or minimize the damage or pain suffered by sexual assault victims. I'm just saying that in the world of human communications the perception of consent may be different from the points of view of the two people involved. And memories are deeply imperfect. So, when I see statistics like these, it seems to me that they depend on a standard of communicative precision that is often sadly lacking. So if only 2 percent to 8 percent of victims lie, does that mean that rape occurs in 92 to 98 percent of the cases? Not necessarily. There may be differences between how the victim saw the event at the time, how the victim saw the event later, how an independent observer might view the event, how the law might see the event and how the other party saw the event.

That's it. Full stop. We'll never know who's lying. Or, more likely, there is a some truth telling and truth bending on all sides. It's already taken its toll on Ghomeshi. Hope everyone manages to heal. And maybe learn something.

So, the question here is not what you personally think is perverted - (in fact I prefer not to think about it). It's about the law. The law allows for a certain degree of rough sex, providing that it is consensual and nobody gets injured. The puppy is unable to give consent. And I'm sorry if what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms offends you - but it's none of your business.

I thought it was the price of a culture of paranoia and gun obsession. The US has a clear lead but our government is working hard for us to close the gap.

Well, that's not even 3 years worth. They're afraid of our Emperor and won't dare risk an attack until they've outnumbered us at least 10 to 1. Or... until that wimp Trudeau is in power.

Why stop there? What if 10,000.... no, wait, a million....no, hang on. What if all 2 billion Muslims all decided to come to Canada to commit terrorism? We KNOW they all want to! Let's see, if they sneaked in through our weak border security 1,000 per day, then in just 5,500 years (give or take), it would be the biggest terrorism attack in history. Aren't you terrified? Why haven't you panicked yet? Doesn't it just want to make you write Harper and insist that he take away all your freedoms and privacy rights immediately???

Speaking of the judge.... what did he say? oh, yes - here it is: Electoral fraud. But surely, the it was just one bad apple OK, so 2 bad apples. 1 got caught. But surely, the Conservative Party did everything in its power to ensure that the guilty parties were brought to justice. Just in case someone is unclear who he is talking about, the applicants that he is praising are a group of voters backed by the Council of Canadians. And the respondent MP's that tried to prevent the case from being heard on its merits? Conservative MP's Kelly Block, John Duncan, Jay Aspin, Joyce Bateman, Lawrence Toet and Ryan Leef. So, it now looks like in addition to people in their ranks committing electoral fraud, those law-and-order Conservatives that get giddy at the thought of jailing someone with a few pot plants pull out every trick in the book to undermine justice when it comes to voter fraud. Nice priorities. But still, the party is above reproach, right? Well, no. Voter fraud. MP's try to derail the process. Conservative Party doesn't help the investigation in spite of the fact that their database was most likely the source of the fraud. Doesn't that make you glad that we have a Conservative Government that came in to bring ethics and accountability to Ottawa?

Unless you're accusing the Tyee of journalistic malfeasance, this isn't the viewpoint of the Tyee, it's the viewpoint of constitutional expert Errol Mendes. Let's get an instant replay of his view of what your hero Harper is doing: Ouch. One of the worst examples of abuse of democratic power. For a guy who came to Ottawa promising integrity and accountability, he's sure sunk a looong way, hasn't he? Reduced to sneaking legislation into an omnibus bill to bolster his chances at re-election. All those Conservatives and their self-righteous indignation at the shit Chretien was pulling and now this. Tell me. Is it tricky to vote when you have to use one hand to hold your nose? What other lawyers? The ones paid for by the Conservative Party? The ones paid for by the media? The only other independent voice that I've heard on this is Michael Geist who is an ardent proponent of a free and open internet. So, of course, he would be against the media on this one. But even he had some serious criticism for Harper. Why are we giving special freedom of expression rights to political parties? That's obscene. Unless, of course, you're blinded because you've got your nose up Harper's butt.

Now Ah know that some of you folks don't unnerstan all that fancy book learnin' n stuff. An' them big words jus plain sail right over yer heads. But I just couldn't help myself when I saw this today. It seems that constitutional expert Errol Mendes is saying almost exactly what I've been saying regarding Harper changing the law to suit his own purposes: Take that.