Aw, did you get offended because some people are commenting about your beloved god's daughter? No-one really even said anything bad, just made fun of the names and mentioned her sorded past. If you want to see when people are really "veering off from mere insults into quasi-criminal territory" go check out the kinds of things Limbaugh and his ilk said about Chelsea Clinton. And those aren't just random people on the internet, they are the face of Conservatism.

As always, Conservatives can dish it out, but can't take it, even when what comes back is far, far less than what they dish out.

Some here have said, as did bladdy kirsh, that "investing implies that regardless of the outcome, the investor will own something tangible".

This may be true in theory, but except for very large investors or very small stock issues, this isn't really true. Once you've made your purchase what you really own is a representation of a fraction of what other people think a company is worth. I suppose you own something "tangible" if you consider the paper your stocks are printed on, but you don't actually own anything tangible. Why do I say this? Lets say you wanted to get your "tangible" asset out of that piece of paper. Ignoring the fact that you're not going to be able to go to the company and claim anything physical, you want the worth of this supposedly tangible thing, if you can't someone to pay you for it, you have nothing. If you can find someone to pay you for it, you get what they think it is worth, nothing more and often less after fees for making the trade.

Lets say you buy 1,000 shares of a stock worth $100 a share. The company you're investing in at the time is actually worth $100,000,000. If this is "tangible," you now own 1/1,000th of the stock in this company. Lets say the company over time grows to $200,000,000 but because of some bad news or competition the stock is now worth $80 a share. They haven't issues new shares, so if this were truly something tangible you own, you should be able to go to the company and get $200 a share for it. That's equal to the 1/1,000th of the company and you own that many shares. Sadly for you, they'll laugh you out of the offices. You'll get $80,000 on the market (less fees) instead of your $200,000. Now that supposedly tangible thing is only 1/2500th of the company. It was tangible like ice under the hot sun.

Stocks are betting. They're not even betting on the performance of a company, they're betting on the perceptions of large groups of how the company is doing. Hell, there are countless times Amazon or some other stock will announce an increase in profits, but their stock will fall because it didn't rise by as much as the large crowd thought it would.

Where do you think your money goes when you are "Buying a stock you know nothing about based on a tip from a friend? ... Day trading? ... [using] Junk bonds? ... [using] Hedge funds"

When you do any of those things you are "Putting your money in the market" yet you label that last one "investing" and the others "betting". Investing IS betting, how safe the bet is is the only distinction there. You call the safest bet "Investing" and the riskier ones "betting". They're all just different points on the same scale.

I would say that you're "investing" when you research a company, believe it can use your money well and wisely and buy its stock (or bonds or make use of another transaction). That's still betting, but at least there the intention is slightly different than a mere weighing of risk. Anything else is a bet through and through.

Ooh, a DARE from Anonymous! How very mature, adult and scientific.

Actually, anonymous, rejecting a study based on questionable methodology and lack of supporting studies is indeed scientific. If there are more studies done, peer reviewed and that use varying methodology and they all still show the same thing, then you'd have a better case for your derision. However, those studies and theories should also make an effort to determine the origins of the group's preferences or you just have a result set with unsupported hypotheses attempting to explain it.

No wonder you're "anonymous."

It is a book about what's wrong with the Democrats by yet another lying republican.

Lack of big ideas is the problem? Yeah, universal healthcare, higher minimum wages, better regulation of business and maintenance of our national infrastructure are tiny, tiny ideas. Unlike those big ideas the republicans had in the 90s like. Lower taxes and ... um... hating Clinton and ... and... More corruption and treason? Was that the last one? Had to be, they sure followed through on it!

Hatred of Bush will keep the Democrats out of power? I suppose he's right there. After all, look at how the Republicans obsessive hatred of Clinton kept them out of power from 2001 to 2006. Heck, it cost them congress back in 1994 right? right?

Oh, wait...

Oh you are so right. 'cause kids never grow up to rebel. And young people aren't more progressive than their elders. Nope! They all just become exactly like their parents. After all, that's why Hoover got his second term and Goldwater was elected over and over.

Sure, and then I can go listen to Ann Coulter tell me how Joe McCarthy was a great patriot and hero.

I'm sure you can find 100 sources telling you exactly what you want to year. I'm just sorry I won't get to see your face the day your kids start talking about the liberal values they stand for.