Your Questions About Paper Trading Futures

Ken asks…

What is the point of School/College if I can’t get a job anyway?

I am 26 yr old, mother. I have never owned anything of real value, I have never been employed. I have no actual job experience. I was told my whole life by parents and teachers if I made good grades in school then I could get a great job and buy a home and lead a happy life. My problem seems to be the getting a job part? I graduated High School then started looking for jobs so I can work my way through college. I applied for fasfa and other scholarships and grants but I have been denied financial aid five times now. I don’t want to get student loans because I have no way to pay them back. My boyfriend has $ 50 thousand dollars in student loans to pay back and has no job. We hate being constantly harassed for owing somebody money that ultimately did nothing for him. He traded $50 K of his so called future income on a piece of paper that basically states he was present and this institute for this amount of time. This piece of paper is suppose to qualify him for specific jobs in technical computing technologies, computer drafting and design, website/video game design, advertising, among other careers. Jobs he has applied for in these fields are not hiring at this time? They have not been hiring for nearly 2 years now? Are they actually not hiring or is he just not qualified? Did he just choose the wrong course of study? What is the point of an Associate or Bachelors Degree? Is it just a piece of paper that says you showed up at this place for this amount of time therefore you are now hereby qualified to work in this field? It seems to me most of the job experience someone gains comes from doing the actual job not studying how the job is supposed to be done. If you have job experience for a job but you don’t have a degree does it matter? For example: Would you hire someone to mow your yard if they have studied for 5+ years how to mow lawns but has never actually used a mower but has a piece of paper that says he is qualified or would you hire the guy whose been mowing lawns since he was 10 yrs old but dropped of of school in 10th grade? I have basically given up of trying to further my education. Instead I want to actually do something. I want to learn a new skill or craft and I don’t think I need a piece of paper that says I’m supposed to be qualified. If I am not meant to EVER have a job or work for someone else, I just want to figure out what the hell it is I am supposed to be doing?
> Things I currently do: I cook, I clean, I take care of kids, animals, and video game playing baby men.
> Things I do in my spare time: Organize everything ( YES organizing is fun ), draw, surf the internet, watch tv / movies.
> Things I want to do: Learn how to get things for free (Extreme Couponing), Plant a garden and not kill it, raise miniature farm animals
> Things I wish I could do but it will never happen: sing, dance, be athletic, become a supermodel. > Things that would make me happy: get married, buy a home, be financially sufficient ( doesn’t everybody want that)
I don’t want a lot out of life I just want what I was told I could have if I did what I was supposed to, I held up my end of the bargain, who am I suppose to see on the other end? Should I be upset that my parents lied to me? Should I be upset at Americas Education System for cheating me?
Why are kids not taught to get jobs? Why are students put into thousands of dollars of debt before they even get out into the real world for a simple piece of paper? Why should I have to depend of the government to pay for my kid to go to school because the education I received was worth nothing? Why can’t my child have a better chance then I did? Who do I have to know to make sure he gets to where he wants to be at my age? What is the point of it all?

I guess I just needed to vent, but maybe someone can enlighten me on some point of view I am not noticing? Thanx

John answers:

“Things I currently do: I cook, I clean, I take care of kids, animals, and video game playing baby men.”
Is the video game playing baby men your unemployed boyfriend with the 50k on non-dischargable student debt? If so, dump the loser and let him take care of himself. Does he apply for jobs out of his field, so he can bring in some income? Or is he only applying for his dream job that his magic piece of paper supposedly shows he is trained for? Seriously, please take a hard look at the situation and make a good choice! (Obviously, no one on the other end of the computer knows what he does or doesn’t do, but please take a hard look for yours and your children’s future.)

“Things I do in my spare time: Organize everything ( YES organizing is fun ), draw, surf the internet, watch tv / movies.”
Things to consider doing in your spare time. Learn something! Research what it would take to start your own organization business. The world is full of unorganized people who could use some help!

“Things I want to do: Learn how to get things for free (Extreme Couponing), Plant a garden and not kill it, raise miniature farm animals.”
Going back to my learn something comment – why haven’t you taken the initiative to learn how to coupon or plant a garden that doesn’t die?

“Things I wish I could do but it will never happen: sing, dance, be athletic, become a supermodel.”
There’s no reason that you can’t do anything you set your mind to do. Maybe not as well as you like since I think some natural talent is needed for many of these, but you can do it with effort.

“Things that would make me happy: get married, buy a home, be financially sufficient ( doesn’t everybody want that)”

YOU can do all of those things. Anyone can, you just have to decide how bad you want to. I purchased my first home at 22. I had a “job”, not a “career” and was paid accordingly. I’m 20 years older now, married, kids, working on having the new house paid off long before we hit retirement age.

The public school system fails many. It does not teach many practical skills. Parents often assume that it teaches everything and don’t think to fill in the gaps. Interviewing, balancing a checkbook, how to budget and many more things are left out of our public education system. There’s a reason I homeschool! As a parent, make sure your kids learn what they need to succeed.

Chris asks…

can you proof read this 4 me?

Paper # 2

The Middle East prior the 1900s was a astonishing region contrast to today’s Middle East which is just a total mess starting with the emergence of Wahhabism and Zionism; and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Prior to these religious and political movements, the Middle East was a much better place to live in. Not how things are today with war and the Middle East being a bloodbath. The Middle East is a place with rich culture and history. You have many wonderful cultures that came to surface from this region. The Assyrians were the first civilized people in the world; their culture goes back many centuries before the Romans and The Greeks. The Persian Empire emerged around 500 B.C. and they are known to be one of the greatest empires from the Ancient World. At the time, the Middle East was known as Mesopotamia. Much of Mesopotamia included Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian and Hittite Empires, Assyrian empires which consisted of large portions of Iraq, much of Syria, and parts of Turkey. They had a superb way of living; from family life to sports, culture, and music. Hunting for instance was a popular sport within the Assyrian kinds, as well as boxing and wrestling. They had their own music which much of it was for their gods rather than personal hearing. Family life was pretty typical of what we see today, women cooked and men went out to work. Some of the foods that we eat today like Baklava come from Assyria. They had their own schools and governments and did trading with neighboring civilizations. The Assyrians, for example had their own house structures, built villages, made pottery, had laws amongst its people and amazing architecture. Many of the things that started in Mesopotamia (The Middle East) were barrowed by future empires like the Egyptians and Persians which the Greeks and Romans barrowed from them. Many things that started in the Middle East millennia ago we still share and use today.
It’s been noted that Africa (North Eastern) is the birthplace of mankind but the birthplace of civilization itself is in Mesopotamia. It was here where man had its first culture, economics, military and political structure. Many archeologist travels to the Middle East because of this, from Palestine to Afghanistan, scientists have found many artifacts of past civilizations. The Middle East is the birthplace of all three monotheistic religions. Therefore when many people argue why the Quran, Bible, Torah is so bias and does not talk about prophets in the Far East, the north, or the new world it is because of this. However, it is noted in both Islam and Christianity that god scattered 124,000 prophets to the world. Some scholars believe that Socrates and Buddha was a prophet. Nevertheless, today the Middle East is not what it was many centuries or even years ago. Today we have disunity, war, corruption, and oppression in The Middle East which takes its root close the turn of the 19th century. Around this time, Egypt broke away from the Ottoman Empire, and many of the Empires regions were decreasing. The Young Turks began to emerge from the Ottomans, a group of ruthless and hungry for power rebels. Arabia was beginning to form a new kingdom and the Caliphate (Islamic Government) was beginning to fall apart. I believe that with the fall of the Caliphate that is when the Middle East began to crumble and I will discuss this later in the paper. The Caliphate kept the Umaah (Muslim World) united and when it fell so did many teachings of Islam within governments. Caliphate was like a democratic nation, they had their own system and voting system. Islam was not spread by the sword during these times of the first few Caliphates. It was spread through missionaries, however some accounts suggests that during the beginning days of the Young Turks Islam was spread through the Sword. Moreover this is when Islam’s traditional ways began to fall under governments. You no longer had Holy Wars, like Saladin and King Richard The Lion heart’s Crusade Wars. At the 18 century you had wars for greed and power, and one Muslim nation vs another. Like the War with Muhammad Ali of Egypt vs. the Turks or the Young Turks vs. the Arabs. Western Influence began to pray upon old Muslim nations and old dynasties began to crumble.
With the fall of the Caliphate many nations took separate political roles. Turkey became a secular nation, as did Egypt and Saudi Arabia became a kingdom. One man in particular was Abdul Wahhab, who was born around 1703 in the desert of yellow sand dunes in Arabia. When Abdul Wahhab was sent to school to Madina, it was there that he met a young local ruler named Mohammad Ibn Saud. The two bonded quickly and soon agreed to partner up to unite and rule Arabia. They began to plan what they wanted, “the two men made a pact. The chieftain agreed to recognize Wahhab as the top religious authority of the Muslim community and do all he could to implement his visions; the preacher, for his part, agreed to recogni

John answers:

The first line should have the word to just before 1900’s and the a before astonishing should be an

NOW DO THE REST OF YOUR SCHOOL WORK YOURSELF!

Thomas asks…

Why can’t Governor Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER of California run for President of the United States?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/28/america/28mccain.php?page=2

McCain’s birthplace prompts queries about whether that rules him out

By Carl Hulse
Published: February 28, 2008

Summary

Why can’t Governor Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER of California run for President of the United States?
“I don’t think he has any problem whatsoever,” said Nickles, a McCain supporter. “But I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if somebody is going to try to make an issue out of it. If it goes to court, I think he will win.”
Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.
In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”
“If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain,” Pryor said in a recent interview. “But it is certainly not a frivolous issue.”

WASHINGTON: The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.
McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.
Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.
“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”
McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.
Today in Americas

Colorado mining town’s past threatens its future

McCain and Obama trade jabs on Iraq

Longtime Clinton aide returns to the fray

But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore Olson, a former solicitor general now advising McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of McCain’s closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.
“He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Graham said of McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.”
The phrase “natural born” was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to “declare expressly” that only a natural-born citizen could be president.
Duggin and others who have explored the arcane subject in depth say legal argument and basic fairness may indeed be on the side of McCain, a longtime member of Congress from Arizona. But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.
Duggin favors a constitutional amendment to settle the matter. Others have called on Congress to guarantee that Americans born outside the national boundaries can legitimately see themselves as potential contenders for the Oval Office.
“They ought to have the same rights,” said Don Nickles, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma who in 2004 introduced legislation that would have established that children born abroad to American citizens could harbor presidential ambitions without a legal cloud over their hopes. “There is some ambiguity because there has never been a court case on what ‘natural-born citizen’ means.”
McCain’s situation is different from those of the current governors of California and Michigan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm, who were born in other countries and were first citizens of those nations, rendering them naturalized Americans ineligible under current interpretations. The conflict that could conceivably ensnare McCain goes more to the interpretation of “natural born” when weighed against intent and decades of immigration law.
McCain is not the first person to find himself in these circumstances. The last Arizona Republican to be a presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, faced the issue. He was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, three years before it became a state. But Goldwater did not win, and the view at the time was that since he was born in a continental territory that later became a state, he probably met the standard.
It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada. The 21st president, Chester Arthur, whose birthplace is Vermont, was rumored to have actually been born in Canada, prompting some to question his eligibility.
McCain’s birthplace prompts queries about whether that rules him out

By Carl Hulse
Published: February 28, 2008

(Page 2 of 2)
Quickly recognizing confusion over the evolving nature of citizenship, the First Congress in 1790 passed a measure that did define children of citizens “born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States to be natural born.” But that law is still seen as potentially unconstitutional and was overtaken by subsequent legislation that omitted the “natural-born” phrase.
McCain’s citizenship was established by statutes covering the offspring of Americans abroad and laws specific to the Canal Zone as Congress realized that Americans would be living and working in the area for extended periods. But whether he qualifies as natural-born has been a topic of Internet buzz for months, with some declaring him ineligible while others assert that he meets all the basic constitutional qualifications — a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence.
“I don’t think he has any problem whatsoever,” said Nickles, a McCain supporter. “But I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if somebody is going to try to make an issue out of it. If it goes to court, I think he will win.”
Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.
In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”
“If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain,” Pryor said in a recent interview. “But it is certainly not a frivolous issue.”

John answers:

He’s was not born a US citizen, you have to be a natural born citizen, naturalized doesnt cut it for president

Paul asks…

Why can’t Governor Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER of California run for President of the United States?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/28/america/28mccain.php?page=2

McCain’s birthplace prompts queries about whether that rules him out

By Carl Hulse
Published: February 28, 2008

Summary

Why can’t Governor Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER of California run for President of the United States?
“I don’t think he has any problem whatsoever,” said Nickles, a McCain supporter. “But I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if somebody is going to try to make an issue out of it. If it goes to court, I think he will win.”
Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.
In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”
“If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain,” Pryor said in a recent interview. “But it is certainly not a frivolous issue.”

WASHINGTON: The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.
McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.
Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.
“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”
McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.
Today in Americas

Colorado mining town’s past threatens its future

McCain and Obama trade jabs on Iraq

Longtime Clinton aide returns to the fray

But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore Olson, a former solicitor general now advising McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of McCain’s closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.
“He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Graham said of McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.”
The phrase “natural born” was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to “declare expressly” that only a natural-born citizen could be president.
Duggin and others who have explored the arcane subject in depth say legal argument and basic fairness may indeed be on the side of McCain, a longtime member of Congress from Arizona. But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.
Duggin favors a constitutional amendment to settle the matter. Others have called on Congress to guarantee that Americans born outside the national boundaries can legitimately see themselves as potential contenders for the Oval Office.
“They ought to have the same rights,” said Don Nickles, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma who in 2004 introduced legislation that would have established that children born abroad to American citizens could harbor presidential ambitions without a legal cloud over their hopes. “There is some ambiguity because there has never been a court case on what ‘natural-born citizen’ means.”
McCain’s situation is different from those of the current governors of California and Michigan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm, who were born in other countries and were first citizens of those nations, rendering them naturalized Americans ineligible under current interpretations. The conflict that could conceivably ensnare McCain goes more to the interpretation of “natural born” when weighed against intent and decades of immigration law.
McCain is not the first person to find himself in these circumstances. The last Arizona Republican to be a presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, faced the issue. He was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, three years before it became a state. But Goldwater did not win, and the view at the time was that since he was born in a continental territory that later became a state, he probably met the standard.
It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada. The 21st president, Chester Arthur, whose birthplace is Vermont, was rumored to have actually been born in Canada, prompting some to question his eligibility.
McCain’s birthplace prompts queries about whether that rules him out

By Carl Hulse
Published: February 28, 2008

(Page 2 of 2)
Quickly recognizing confusion over the evolving nature of citizenship, the First Congress in 1790 passed a measure that did define children of citizens “born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States to be natural born.” But that law is still seen as potentially unconstitutional and was overtaken by subsequent legislation that omitted the “natural-born” phrase.
McCain’s citizenship was established by statutes covering the offspring of Americans abroad and laws specific to the Canal Zone as Congress realized that Americans would be living and working in the area for extended periods. But whether he qualifies as natural-born has been a topic of Internet buzz for months, with some declaring him ineligible while others assert that he meets all the basic constitutional qualifications — a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence.
“I don’t think he has any problem whatsoever,” said Nickles, a McCain supporter. “But I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if somebody is going to try to make an issue out of it. If it goes to court, I think he will win.”
Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.
In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”
“If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain,” Pryor said in a recent interview. “But it is certainly not a frivolous issue.”

John answers:

He’s not a natural born citizen.
He’s Austrian by birth. Constitutionally he can’t.
Though in Demolition Man somehow it all worked out ’cause there was the Schwartzenegger Library in that movie and all the restaurants were Taco Bell.

Lizzie asks…

how much is my wii worth?

I have a like new wii console
1 original controller and nunchuk (not motionplus)
Rock band 2 the whole set (drums, mic, guitar) all like new
Mario galaxy
Mario kart
Lego Star wars
New super mairo bros
ALSO, i have a Nintendo Gamecube
Gamecube console
3 controllers
3 cable extenders for controllers
donkey kong bongos (3 of them)
memory card
acessories (storage box, disc holders)
around 15 games which are:
Super Mario sunshine
mario kart double dash
star fox 64
zelda the windwaker
mario smash bros melee
donkey kong junglebeat and doney konga 2
super money ball 1 and 2
fzero gx
wario ware inc
paper mario the 1000 year door
future tactics
Everything is like new. Nothing is damaged and everything works fine.
Please respond with how much i could get off cragslist (hoping for around $400) or if i trade in to gamestop/amazon/best buy (hoping for around $250)
i also have a limited edition gold ds lite in good condition (has some scratches). includes screen protector and zelda phantom hourglass, and the train zelda. Also has sims 3, harry potter and a donkey kong game. everything but the ds is in like new condition.

John answers:

Sell it on Amazon.com or Ebay.com. You will get whatever you want at top dollar. If you Go to Gamestome you will barley make 100.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.