Your Questions About E Trade Paper Trading

David asks…

Question for AP US History Students?

My school starts in 2 days, and I’ve been reading the REA Review Book for APUSH (to get a head start). I looked at AP Exam questions in the book after reading the section, and they require you to remember a lot, some stuff I don’t even think the review book mentioned. How do I memorize so much and know what to memorize?

Example question:
“All of the following were main principles of the Navigation Acts EXCEPT:”

A) Trade in the colonies was limited to only British or colonial merchants
B) It prohibited the colonies from issuing their own paper currencies, greatly limiting their trade capabilities
C) All foreign goods bound for the colonies had to be shipped through England where they were taxed with British import duties
D) The colonists could not build or export products that directly competed with British export products
E) Colonial enumerated goods could only be sold in England

John answers:

If you get a Princeton Review for APUSH, it’ll have a very quick (relatively speaking) but very effective review of material likely to be covered on the exam. Make sure you get either the new one or the one for the last test, because the AP gods add more recent history every year.

Ken asks…

my global history teacher gave us a paper with a letter from some girl in texas saying:?

shes from texas and she visited NYC and got to take the E train to lower manhattan and it still had the world trade center as its final stop even though the buildings arent there she wants to know why keep the name world trade center even though they arent there isnt it insensitive to the victims families to keep the name as the last stop. im not sure how to respong because i dont know why so im asking for ideas for why they would still have it thank you

John answers:

Matbe it’s part of the “Never Forget” movement.
We don’t want to obliterate all the reminders of 9/11.
In fact, it’s the opposite — we want to remember.


Chris asks…

Why did the Founding Fathers want an electoral college?

I have to write a paper about why the Founding Fathers wanted an electoral college. I was given four bad things that they might have seen and disliked that might have caused them to create an electoral college. These are the four things: river transportation, poor education, gentlemen should not campaign, and the states at odds. Here are the four things in more detail:
I. River transportation
A. Time
B. Expenses
C. Location
D. Weather
E. Danger
II. Little education
A. Most would be worried about jobs
B. Lack of social skills
C. Limited decision-making would be made
III. Gentlemen should not campaign
A. Unqualified
B. Lack of candidates
C. many candidates would be unknown
IV. States at odds
A. Open fighting
B. Poor communication
C. Little trade/currency
D. Regional slang
E. At risk/poor defense

I’m really confused about all of this, and I have no clue what I should do. If you could just help me get started or give me a few ideas, that would be great. Thank you.

John answers:

Regardless of the ignorant palaver you’re hearing, the Electoral College prevents the big states from controlling all elections. If we didn’t have the Electoral College, a candidate would only have to campaign in the most populated states (Calif, Texas, NY, FL Pennsylvania, Illinois) to control the vote.

Now, granted, if the states would split their electoral votes it would be a more effective balance.

But you must also remember that PEOPLE DO NOT ELECT THE PRESIDENT… Nor have they EVER! The President is the representative of the STATES, and the STATES vote for him. This is a trait of Federalism that is rarely taught, and even more rarely understood.

It used to go hand-in-hand with the Senate being elected by the STATES, and the House was elected by the People. This created a wonderful system of checks-and-balances that has been discarded. Each State choose their Senators, the people chose their House members and the States as a whole the President. Unfortunately, the Amendments of the Progressive era threw all that out. (and we now wonder why it isn’t working as it should)

Helen asks…


Assignment #1
The purpose of this assignment is to allow you to test the explanatory power of the theoretical frameworks introduced in the first part of the course.

Answer the following question in a well-thought out essay of approximately 1500 words. Worth 25% of the overall grade.
Due February 20

STEP 1: Choose a current issue in the cultural industries in Canada (e.g. regulation of foreign ownership; controversies over content; multiplication of delivery platforms; labour issues; intellectual property).

STEP 2: Using reports from trade magazines (e.g. Playback, Variety) or the popular press from the past six months, outline the issue.

STEP 3: Then, applying theoretical ideas from course readings, such as labour issues related to convergence, neo-liberalization of media industries, the culture industry, technological nationalism, gender, and multiculturalism, provide analysis of the issue.

STEP 4: You may wish to discuss how the case you have chosen challenges the theoretical frameworks you have been given. Please refer to course readings; additional academic research materials are encouraged but not required.

i just need an idea! I can’t think of a current issue that relates to this 🙁

John answers:

I don’t think much goes on in canada. Srry but I’m stumped on this just as you r. I wanted to answer so you know that someone actually tried to help.

Sandy asks…

What specific parts of the Constitution make it “just a G-damned piece of paper” in Bush’s eyes?

I thought of a few. Does anyone have examples or philosophy to add?

1.)Right to peacable assembely is gone if they aren’t in the mood that day.(Seattle)

2.)Right to bear arms, gone when they feel like it.(New Orleans)

3.)Right to a speedy trial by jury gone if they apply subjective enemy combatant tag.

4.)Freedom of press gone, they aren’t allowed to photograph or cover 600 FEMA concentration camps across the country.

5.)Seperation of powers gone. Bush signed secret unsovereign trade deals with Mexico and Canada vs. Constitutional requirement for Senate approval.

6.)Throw the 4th Amendment prohibiting illegal searches out the window with checkpoint searches, wiretaps, library oversight, e-mail oversight. Yes they have access to ALL your e-mails at the click of a button, phone records, and internet history all without probable cause.
7.)5th Amendment due process clause is finished with (they say *cough*) 900,000+ Americans on the terrorist watch list which restricts travel and brings more 4th Amendment destroying illegal searches at whim from the fascists. They refuse to disclose criteria for addition to the list. Obviously main criteria is any of the numerous socialists not liking your pro-Constitution views.
battle-axe I am no Liberal. I am far more conservative than you and GWB will ever be. All those GWB anti-Constitutional views are pure Marxism I don’t care what label he slaps on himself. He has done squat for conservatives and if you had half a brain you would know it. His tax cuts are puny, done nothing to stop abortion, loves our open borders, had made the trade deficit far worse, started the no child left behind socialist scheme and spends like Carter and Clinton combined. If you got any more conservative you would be a centrist.
Most of you are a bunch of fake conservatives blindly supporting Stalin-Bush.
Ok RACEFISH, I will tell you what is happening. I am sorry to say that your response is 100% wrong.
#1 Protestors at the WTO illegal conference were sent to prison camps for days.
#2 They went house to house in the middle class non flooded neigborhoods confiscating guns from home owners on their own property. Your words border on treason as do their actions.
#3 The language included in the illegal secretive legislation provides very clearly that ANY person can be considered a threat for any reason. The idea that it only applies to Islamofascists is ludacrist and it has not at all been applied in the manner you speak of either.
#4 Bush has increased it substanitially and the power absolutely does not rest with the President but with the Senate. I assume you are not a bold faced liar but just sorrowfully ignorant. Under Constitutional law all presidential treaties must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. NAFTA hardly describes the extent of recent meetings with Canada and Mexico.
#6 Not at all true. The Patriot Act provides an open warrant and thousands if not millions of people inside the US have been tapped who are well known to have nothing at all to do with Islamofascism.

John answers:

I wonder if im on the list after all I speak out about the fact that bush has set us up for a dictatorship , be sad when the greatest country on earth will be brought down due to a dictatorship .
As long as I have a mouth and can speak , I will do just that , Now I know why God gave me a big mouth ..turns out its a talent and not just an annoyance heheheheheh

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.