Lurker > reruns_revenge

Depends on whether the intoxication is voluntary and what the guy actually does.

Werewolves. The only thing that might be worse than 'Zona.

Where do you live that makes the fines so high?

I regularly see cops speeding past people on the freeway going at least 10 to 15 mph above the speed limit and often higher without anyone getting pulled over.

This is more of an incident with a thin skinned, entitled and victim mentality person grossly overreacting to mild disagreement and criticism that was in direct response to something she posted for public review and comment.

Basically, she's just an asshole that reacted like an asshole and got fired for being an asshole because it made her employer look bad. Incredible that she apparently not only continues to be unable to recognize as much, but think ls she is the victim of some sort of sexism. Quite hypocritically, I bet she's the type of person that cheers when reading a story about someone else acting like an asshole gets fired, even when it had nothing to do with their job.

And the proposition that there was some "condescension" or other derogatory tone in the other person's comments to her is plain fucking nonsense. They were beyond polite. Even if that were not the case, she shouldn't have acted like an asshole and then thrown out of the most ridiculous post hoc gender attack defenses I have ever seen. Honestly, you could only come up with that if you've already got a bias to support this type of bullshit regardless of the facts. Idiotic.

Don't want to get fired? Don't be an asshole that alienates your employer's customers.

There are very few people in this thread that have even a vague comprehension of how this part of the judicial process works. I think that's largely the fault of the popular media, which has turned all reporting about the Supreme Court into some type of liberal vs. conservative or republican vs. democrat extra-legislative body.

That's bullshit and not how it works. The justices aren't "republican" or "democrat" and they don't just randomly pick up issues on which to render a decision. So to think that there will be a scenario where they simply "vote" on "partisan" lines to overturn a prior decision is utterly fucking stupid.

Needless to say, for the experts opining on how having a new "conservative" justice replace Kennedy who was the "swing vote," which will supposedly ensure a one way voting block that will ultimately lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, can you please explain why the only "swing votes" on the Supreme Court over the last 40+ years have come from justices appointed by republican presidents?

O'Connor, Kennedy and Roberts. All republican appointed justices. Even Stevens, a reliably "liberal" justice, was appointed by a republican.

In contrast, it's the democrat appointed justices tend to never deviate from a predictable "left wing" position. In other words, if there are "partisans" on the Supreme Court, they are typically coming from the left and not the right.

That's probably due to the fact that "conservative" justices typically apply a strict analytical framework when deciding cases that leads to a result while in contrast "liberal" justices tend to start with their preferred outcome and then backfill it with post hoc analysis and reasoning.

Understood. Sounds reasonable. I just remember my dad buying and holding silver for more than twenty years with basically no appreciation or gain after adjusting for inflation. That's a long time to just break even.

Metals aren't really a good investment and are best used as a simple hedge against inflation. Mostly because they don't generate any economic growth or income.

Also, about your thesis that you will get more value in "another recession/huge housing collapse." First, if that event occurs, who is likely to have the liquidity to buy your silver. Second, wouldn't you be much better off holding cash to buy equities and real estate at market bottom prices.

Andromicus posted...

reruns_revenge posted...

Still available at the Best Buy in Goleta ha.

I know where you live now

Ok. So tell me, where do I live.

Still available at the Best Buy in Goleta ha.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

CwebbMichSac4 posted...

alot of people think there's a good chance

A lot of people are dumb?

This. Or hysterical or prone to ridiculous hyperbole. Or using it to demagogue and for fundraising purposes.

Less than .001%.

Among other things, consider the feasibility of buying a rental property based on the financial circumstances (your personal finances, whether you have co-owners/investors, do you pay cash or finance, will the property cash flow, etc.), ownership and business structure (will title be in your name or under an LLC, etc.), income expectations and investment horizons, and in particular whether you really want to be a landlord.

Not paying rent, having to evict them, damaging property, dealing with illegal activity, etc.

Being a slum lord can be extremely profitable with the right scale, but it's nothing I ever wanted to try. I prefer more predictability and less volatility and hassle. In other words, more dependable tenants that pay rent, take care of their living space and tend to stay longer term, which leads to less turnover (and, thus, more income and lower costs).

I own some. This relates to the US rental market.

You don't just acquire them for no money down. You need to have cash to either pay the full purchase price or fund the down payment.

If using financing (i.e., leverage), the down payment for a rental/income producing properties will typically be higher than a standard owner occupied residence (which is 20%).

If applicable, you'll also need more cash or financing for renovations and repairs before it can be shown to tenants, and a cash reserve for unexpected costs.

Then you'll have to consider rental rates to determine if the property can cash flow (i.e., rents cover debt service, maintenance, insurance, property taxes) or you'll initially be cash flow negative (so you'll be bearing out of pocket costs. The usual metric for valuation is the cap rate.

Another thing you'll have to think about is whether you want to self-manage or hire a property management company for a fee (I do the latter).

After that, you'll have to deal with rental income tax and depreciation, tenant and rental law issues, among other things.

So it's not like you can just wake up one day and go out and buy a bunch of rental properties with no money or financing. Also, in my experience, the cheaper the house the less desirable the area which leads to lower rents and lower quality tenants. Yet another thing to think about.

And there are places in CA where the cost of living is even higher. I think the median price for houses in my area is in the seven figures.

Most of the people that live here made or make their money somewhere else and not through the local economy, which is largely tourism and higher education based. Those incomes make it very difficult to pay for the extremely high cost of living. I have seen people pay $800 a month for a 10 x 10 foot room without windows in the back of a garage. Houses often sell for over $1,000 per square foot.

The best part? The state taxes EVERYTHING into oblivion. The typical higher state income tax bracket of 10%+ even starts to kick in when your income hits about $60k per year. And then you regularly see sales taxes of around 10% in most places.

There is a reason why the percentage of people getting welfare and social services in California is grossly disproportionate to the state population on a national basis.

But Duke University has never mishandled a rape accusation case involving students, including when they were innocent of the claims.

*cough Duke lacrosse case cough*

Far-Queue posted...

My debit card is a Visa card, but I'll probably start using my credit-only card moving forward. I get bonus rewards and shit for using the credit card anyway. Just like the convenience of debit in not having to pay a bill every month.

I get the convenience issue.

One other risk I just thought about. I do electronic transfers and write checks from my checking account to pay bills. My debit card also is tied to my checking account. So if I used it to charge something and some fraudulent user got the information, it could also cause me to be unable to pay bills or bounce checks because the funds were either drained or tied up.

But most of all, I use a credit card for the reasons I mentioned before and because I carry a relatively high balance in my checking account.

My credit card has been fraudulently used three or four times, but every time it has been caught quickly, I had to pay nothing and got a new card sent to me by overnight mail. I just don't want to deal with the potential complications of someone accessing a cash account.

And I hate these scumbags too.

Bacon_Pancakes posted...

Far-Queue posted...

Most banks are insured for this stuff, and they'll refund it if it's deemed fraudulent. I should be able to get it back.

I had something similar happen to me and they could get most of the funds back (probably 90% but my account was drained)

Glad you caught it and hopefully you'll be able to get your money back! See if your bank offers fraud protection too. Every time I make an online purchase I get an email and text saying I made a purchase and if it's on a site I've never used before I get a pin sent to me that I enter on my bank app before the transaction can complete... basically 2 factor authentication for purchasing.

The potential to lose any amount of cash is why I never charge anything to a debit card and only use credit cards. They have excellent fraud detection, you don't owe anything for fraudulent charges, can't lose cash and can get perks (like additional warranties, airline miles, cash back, etc.).

Why do you guys use debit cards instead of credit cards?

So do you lose the $200 from your account or does it get replaced.

WTF does "PIV" mean.

I don't think anyone has to go through the relatively easy process of pointing out that all of those claims are incorrect to safely ignore this rather poor trolling attempt.

All you need to do is observe the tension and inherent idiocy embedded in the suggestion that giving the government control over "knowledge" and the instruction on how to supposedly "smartly consume media, extrapolate upon given ideas on their own, and engage in the political process" makes people far "easier to control" in the first place.