Catwhoshatinthehat

As low as they may be I'm guessing they pay more than most savings accounts. You can ladder CD's so you get your money back over the next 3-5 years at various interest rates. That won't outpace inflation but you also won't lose a lot of your principal like you can if we end up in a bear market which is likely. You kept 50% in cash which means you at least didn't risk it all so for now I'd keep the rest invested unless as mentioned you want to lock in losses.

I wouldn't be putting money for a down payment on a place that I'll need in 3-5 years into any equity type investment, i.e. stocks, mutual funds, index funds, etc. I consider anything I'll need in 5 years or less to be short term and not something I want subject to market fluctuations.

Yeah it doesn't seem so hindsight until you think about when to actually sell and buy back in. You know, the most important parts of timing the market so you don't buy high and sell low.

How many people do you think actually did that? Saying it was a no-brainer is hindsight at it's finest because there's way more people who were in tech before the crash who ended up out of jobs and in some cases went from multi-millionaires to being broke than there were people who got out at the right time. When it's good it seems like nothing can go wrong and when it's bad it seems like nothing can go right. Think about the stories you hear of people who shorted the market before the 2008 crash because there aren't that many. You hear a few where large investors makes a ton but there's way more stories of people who lost their asses doubling down buying high.

Whatever asset allocation you're comfortable with you shouldn't be selling on fear because in the long run you're going to sell low and buy high by trying to time the market. The markets are getting hammered due to an overdue correction and there could be more declines yet the S&P 500 is still higher than it was at the end of January 2014. How many people who sold then do you think got back in for the run up while receiving dividends over the last 2 years? The short answer is people who sold then missed out on returns. Take a deep breath, stop thinking about it in the short term and continue to invest. If you're young or even have 10+ years until retirement the biggest thing you have on your side is time. The closer you get to retirement the more conservative you should get. The most important thing is unless you're day trading you shouldn't be thinking or worrying about what the market does day to day or even over the course of a year. You'll end up driving yourself nuts if you check your balances at the end of each day.

You do but you've got to be an even bigger douche to jump into a fight you have no business in to throw a few punches at a guy who is getting jumped.

Even without Brown Ben threw for over 300 yards again and was the only QB so far this year to do that against Denver's D. Having Brown out definitely changed their game plan but I still couldn't figure out how they got some of the long plays that they did. I credit Pitt for making those plays but there was a lot of space on some of those throws and a few times Denver put on 'how not to tackle' clinics that turned into bigger plays. Another week and NFL fans remind me why I rarely attend games and won't likely see the Rams or whoever else ends up in SoCal play: http://news.yahoo.com/brutality-nfl-fandom-full-display-144057669.html I know it's mob mentality but I still laugh at the tough guys who jump in and throw punches when one guy is getting beat on.

Affluenza boy didn't really have any penalty at all because his family had money and they had a ridiculous defense that some judge or jury bought. In cases like his I don't care if you're 16, 17 or 70 you should be serving serious time with no need to waste taxpayer money on a court case.

The first time already is harsh and does sting, trust me it's not just a slap on the wrist. You pay at least $10K between fines, alcohol school costs and increased car insurance rates and there's a time commitment in order to get everything completed which is necessary to keep your provisional license. If you miss two alcohol classes (you have to go once or twice a week for 3-9 months depending on the circumstances of your case), don't pay your fines, don't attend required AA meetings, don't do community service if assigned or get caught driving with your provisional license when you're not supposed to be you end up back in court, most likely in jail and will lose your license. Edit - all of the above were the major requirements over 10 years ago. At that time the DUI was on your record for 10 years and if anything it's probably only been extended. Some time after I believe they started requiring people to attend a MADD meeting where they get blasted for being idiots.

I'd rather they stick with the provisional license on an initial misdemeanor DUI that allows people to drive to and from school/work/alcohol school. Without that ability many people aren't going to be able to get an education and in many cases pay the court fines, go to alcohol school, and so on. To be honest I wouldn't have been able to and it would have changed my career and life path drastically.

Good in theory but terrible in practice when law enforcement and/or cities start going harder after wealthy individuals. All that would lead to is those wealthy individuals fighting it in court and if they win taxpayers are footing a large bill for some prosecutor who goes up against a well paid for legal team. I'll be honest I'm skeptical of cops as is because some do some scandalous shit and I sure as hell don't want to give them a reason to do more. I know the vast majority don't but it's not like I have the option of ignoring or not dealing with cops like I do most businesses if they do something I don't like.

Playing it safe is better than playing it loose but if you've been playing it safe for 20+ years you didn't do yourself any favors when you had time on your side and could afford to go higher risk. That said everyone has a different risk appetite and what works for one person doesn't always work for another. If you're 10 years from retirement you should have a good chunk in bonds.

Might depend when he got some of those 9 DUI's as after so many years they more or less fall off as far as the courts are concerned but over time they've stayed on your record longer and longer and last I heard it was 10 years. In alcohol school there was an older guy who had 7 but hadn't had one in 10+ years and this was 11 years ago. He said at one point when you got a DUI the cops would just have you leave your car and drop you off at home. I know in CA so many years ago a second DUI got most people 30 days while a 3rd was supposed to get you 180 in jail and I believe you could lose your license for good. Of course if you have enough money those rules don't necessarily apply and admittedly I have no idea how the laws have changed in the last 10 years or so but I'd assume they've only gotten stricter.

F*ck cancer. Great actor and like Bowie 69 is too young to go.

Anyone who invested shortly before the 87 crash and stayed in it for the long haul did fine and you can say the same thing about any 30 year period in the history of the S&P500 which has returned 10% annually since it's creation in 1928. From 1966-1981 the markets were flat once adjusted for inflation yet anyone invested from 66-96 saw 12% annual returns and 7% after adjusting for inflation. That 10% annualized return doesn't mean you're getting 10% each year it means some years you're getting 20, some years you're getting 0 and others you're getting negative returns. Past results aren't indicative of future results but I'll take history over chicken little's.

If you're in it for the long haul today, this week, this month and even this year are just blips on the radar. Unfortunately that fact won't keep a lot of average Joe investors from panicking and selling stocks or actively managed equity mutual funds.

With that much money you could afford a full time hitman to take care of people who bother you while buying your freedom if you're ever charged. I was thinking about buying like $5 worth of tickets but then on the news they showed people standing in line buying tickets and I remembered my English last name pretty much rules me out.

I think you can also say nothing will stop a high percentage of first time offenders from getting a second one as they teach you in alcohol school over 50% of people who get one DUI will end up with more than one. The guy who killed Adenhart had a suspended license and wasn't supposed to be driving but he still was and I believe it was his cousin's car as his cousin was too drunk to drive. May be wrong on who the car belonged to but if it wasn't one of their cars with a breathalyzer they would have had someone else's car without one. I've made it no secret that in my younger dumber days I got a DUI. Definitely not my proudest moment and I realize that I'm very lucky I didn't hurt anyone else or I wouldn't be where I am today. I definitely don't make excuses and completed alcohol school, paid my fines, high insurance rates and so on but in misdemeanor DUI cases I'm not in favor or taking away someone's license like I've seen some people mention. A lot of DUI's are dumbass kids in their early 20's like me and while it's something I'll never forget if it cost me my driver's license or was a felony I wouldn't be where I am today. edit - gotbeer during the uber thread I think red or someone else mentioned how DUI rates have dropped with the use of uber in some areas.

For me the games attended for the last 25 years or so, going on the field as a kid in the late 80's and meeting players, the 2002 WS run and other playoff experiences are what I associate with it and not the architecture. As various other people pointed out it isn't the prettiest and may seem generic but it gets the job done and most importantly getting in/out is about as easy can be. For me there's few things worse than leaving a sporting event/game and sitting in traffic for hours just trying to get out of the parking lot which I've experience at the Latrine, at Chargers games and so on.

Ozzie Smith had a career OBP of 0.337 while Simmons has one of 0.304 but that should hopefully improve as Smith's OBP got better over time. During his age 29-33 seasons Smith posted an OBP of 0.364. If Simmons comes anywhere close to what Smith did it's a great trade and even if he doesn't it's not a bad trade but for a team that needs offense I think that's why some fans are confused or don't like the trade. I'll take the proven commodity over the prospects 99% of the time but for a team with a weak farm system if they aren't going to sign a FA bat then you'd like to see trades address the biggest needs of the team. I'm fine with how the off season has played out so far because I didn't expect much. If they sign Upton/Cespedes or someone else great and if they don't so be it. I don't think the franchise is screwed but I'd like to see the owner take a step back and let his GM/Front Office work without his intervention. Right now I don't expect much in the next few years but as they say that's why they play the game because what's good/bad/average on paper doesn't always correlate onto the field. Ultimately I'll probably go to the same amount of games I do every year but if the team is bad I'm less likely to tune in from home.

If it wasn't for how last years super bowl ended I would swear Pete sold his soul to the devil.

I think it's more about people wanting to see two old angry white guys go at it. Kind of like stumbling upon a fight outside the senior center.

I was curious to compare Vlad's stats with Montreal vs. the Angels so using baseball reference (nerd bored on lunch break) I came up with the following: Per game averages: Runs - Angels Hits - Angels but almost identical at 1.22 vs. 1.21 per game 2B's - .229 with Angels .225 with Montreal 3B's - Montreal HR's - Montreal RBI's - Angels SB - Montreal BB - Montreal Simple average using final number for each season (excluding his first season where he played 9 games) with both teams: BA - Montreal OBP - Montreal SLG - Montreal OPS - Montreal OPS + - Montreal Runs and RBI's are more a function of the lineups he played with. Some of it's closer than I thought and from a totals perspective Montreal wins but that's skewed by the fact he played more games there. Anyways I don't think the fact that the Angels don't have someone in the HOF and Montreal does should mean anything as far as what cap he would go in with. The HOF isn't a "every team gets someone in" as that's like the overly PC "everyone gets a trophy" mantra too many people were raised on.

Yk's neighbors will think he's on vacation until they see him come out one day to get the mail