Geeto67

Got it, so conservatives are literally losing their minds over every topic Tucker Carlson talks about on his show. Glad we cleared that up :thumbup: no wonder they seem so miserable, losing your mind 5 days a week over every little thing seems exhausting. See this is the problem I have with conversations with conservatives on this forum. Its not about issues or policies - for people like Pandah all that matters is that the other side is unhappy and that makes them happy. It is literally the most vacuous, unintellectual, approach to politics. What common ground can be found with someone who is willing to screw themselves over just so they can think their nameless, faceless "enemy" is unhappy.

This is wishful thinking on your part, or rather it is your opinion of how you think things should be not a statement of fact about the law. The reality is that the requirement of taking a CCW class is not a direct violation of the second amendment and you will not find any previous jurisprudence, holding, statute, or any binding legal document that will support this at all. Even the 2008 supreme court case Dc vs Heller, which establishes the right to keep and bear arms for self defense, recognizes that states have a right to regulate firearms so long as it is not a de facto ban, which a CCW is clearly not. Joe, you are a smart guy, and you teach gun safety. I really wish you wouldn't spread NRA propaganda like this because it is counterproductive the the actual conversation. Just because this is how you want it to be, doesn't make it true, and taking a hardline opinion means you aren't really coming to the gun control conversation with intellectual honesty. I don't know that this country ever really was a society that had the widespread upbringing and handling of firearms. One of the reasons the NRA was founded in the first place was because the majority of Union Civil War soldiers didn't have experience or proficiency in firearms. The old fashioned form of gun control is really that firearms were way more expensive in the 1700 and 1800's, esp. in the American colonies where most had to be imported from England/Europe. Most firearms were shared tools of the family in the way a plow or a working head of livestock were. It wasn't until the second American industrial revolution (1870-1914) that manufacturing caught up and firearms became cheaper and plentiful. How many would have taken the CCW class if it wasn't required though. All the rest of this stuff is fantastic though. keep up the good work. Right, but maybe that's a shortcoming of the CCW class curriculum itself, and one that isn't solved by doing nothing and taking away what little training there is? Agree 100% No, it falls on everyone in society, not just the "parents". Saying "parents should" and then doing nothing isn't going to solve any of these problems. If you genuinely think people should have training and familiarity, and I am pretty sure you do, then make it a requirement though licensing. It's not a hard concept.

I feel like you and I are better aligned on this than you and Mace. His position is clear, he would rather there be nothing than something while I agree something is better than nothing. I can't argue with this either, and frankly I agree - proficiency is proficiency, and if reading is not necessary to be proficient then there isn't an issue. But do you think reading should be a necessary part of proficiency? I'm not saying you should worry about the criminals, but there is some relevancy that doesn't come into this conversation that often but should: How do the criminals get guns? Legal owner carelessness plays a big part in how criminals get gun, and with an increase in the number of weapons being carried you are just naturally going to see an increase in the number of weapons that legal owners lose to criminals, even if the rate doesn't change. I think this further supports the idea that people need training for how to handle a firearm and use them safely, which includes how to carry one so that one doesn't "walk out of" a jacket pocket or purse and into a criminal's hand

the numbers don't support this statement https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23510/w23510.pdf you said the CCW course was a bit of a joke, that statement underlies that if it were not a joke it would be effective - so what would make it not a joke for you?

and yet somehow 3900 people failed to pass or had their CCW revoked, so what you are saying is, the CCW permit needs stronger controls and not weaker?

So your examples are mostly Pundit sources (not news sources) practicing brinkmanship? Can you really say any of these people speak for the whole of one political side, and if so, does that mean that Hannity and Tucker speak for all conservatives? Sounds like you are giving "the media" a pass for the action that most people are angry with the media about, just because it convenient for you.

this is a better article: https://www.10tv.com/article/news/politics/house-committee-passes-bill-allowing-for-concealed-carry-of-guns-without-training/530-2319005a-deb3-4db8-bca7-b27928cc8b19

Can you explain your source for this? because from my vantage point most people really don't give a shit. Like at all. Is this one of those things where the trolls are so amused that they are trolling all the imaginary people in their head that make up their idea of the "left"?

nice work, keep chugging away and it will run soon.

Hang on there a second.... $56,380 isn't his full "salary" or income. It is his compensation as CEO of Tesla for 2018. He didn't cash the check however so his income from tesla was technically $0. But that is not the end of the story..... in 2018 while he was making $58,380, he also received $2.3 Billion dollars in stock and options from Tesla from meeting certain tollgates. This also isn't considering his compensation from his other companies, his charities, and his investments. This is just Tesla. so his compensation for 2018 was $2.3B +58,380 just from tesla alone. So why didn't he pay income taxes on any of it? He has access to $2.3B, he can spend like he has $2.3B, so why isn't he taxed on the $2.3B as income? Well, The wealthy have the option of taking their payment in non-traditional ways that can avoid the technical definition of income tax. For instance if he just holds on to that money for 1 year, he is not subject to income tax laws but the SEC tax laws regarding securities. Any Profit (and it is all profit) is taxed at the capital gains rate, and not the income rate and - you guessed it, capital gains is much much lower. So how does he spend it if he has to wait a year? While he is waiting he can take a loan out on the amount and wouldn't you know it, they give very very low interest rates to people who have a billion in assets and can overcollateralize the loan. Between the interest rates, the capital gains tax (which only is paid when it is realized or sold which can take decades to do), and the various other loopholes that exist around not for profits, offshore accounts, etc...People like Musk end up "virtual money bins" where their money is in a state that can't be taxed but still available to them. While he may be "building value" in his company along side this, we are just talking about his personal wealth. Yes his personal wealth is tied to the value of his company in the form of shares of stocks, these are still assets he alone controls and don't count to the value of his company as assets held by his companies.

We are on the same page, got it. :thumbup: There is an initiative to target small tax evaders and that is lowering the 1099K reporting on third party payment companies (paypal, venmo, cashapp, etc). In typical fashion the education problem rears it's ugly head because facebook is full of memes about how your yard sale is going to be taxed, when in reality nothing is changing about how an individual is filing or paying their taxes, the government just knows a little bit more about how they are being paid. Unless you are not reporting any of that UBER money, in which case yeah it might be changing a little.

Is any of this english? Seriously I don't get your point. You may think this is a simple question but it isn't because it depends on a huge amount of factors. If you want a simple answer though it is - never. It should never be a personal exemption for an individual to be exempt from paying taxes because that person is the head of a company that created jobs. The COMPANY gets that tax break, often on a case by case basis because they actually create jobs and usually tied to some incentive (like location or expansion).

Those old Dakota convertible pickups were always interesting. They had a 3.9L v6 that was a 318 with 2 cylinders lopped off (similar to the chevy 4.3L v6), which made it easy for people to do v8 swaps into them later. I knew a guy on Long Island that drove a 1991 from new until it finally rotted into the ground about 5 years ago. FWIW there is a really nice white sport vert parked out at buckeye lake. less than 4000 made in 3 years production there aren't many out there.

I'm toxic because a bunch of middle class dudes misuse the word slavery when talking about a system built on actual slavery further diluting its significance? hardly man. Words have meaning. I'm sorry that my comments made you face your privilege man and that you didn't like what you saw, but that's not a me problem that's a you problem. No great fortune was built in this country without credit, banking, and lending. Its a tool just like any other, and as such is it prone to be misused. For some self financing works, it may not work for all. It certainly has its advantages and drawbacks, but the advantages aren't widespread enough to declare universally that anybody with a credit card or a car loan is forever suffering in indentured servitude. I will say that a large portion of the population does misuse credit or at the very least overextend themselves credit wise to the point that it financially hurts them. This isn't a "bank" problem, this is an education problem. Not enough people are graduating high school with a basic understanding of how to budget, how to evaluate credit, or even how to to basic accounting let alone what their rights actually are in the financial system as consumers. Knowledge asymmetry is how large institutions leverage things in their favor against consumer and even smaller institutions. Can something be done? sure it can, but it requires you to vote for candidates that favor education. If you are a professional in the field (like I am) you can donate your time to free programs for people who don't have access to financial professionals to guide them. You can teach your kids basic accounting and about credit, how it works, and the positives and negatives.

I’ll remember that the next time the bank is whipping me for bouncing a check or deciding that raping my wife or kid is ok because I bought a house with their loaned money. Also, I’m pretty sure that the worlds collective billionaires don’t have Scrooge McDuck style money bins to hold all their gold.

Re: Slave and Slavery Seriously, in the context of the American economy where ACTUAL slaves were a part of that economy for 246 years, some money printing and wage fluctuation isn't going to lead back to bonded servitude and subhuman status. I'm sure this slave/sovereign thing sounded witty when you first heard it but, it's a pretty flawed empty platitude trying to passing itself off as clever analogy but crumbling at anything more than a passing glance.

It's a made up thing. Or rather it is the physical representation of the intangible concepts of credit and value as a means of facilitating exchange. It's greatest utility is in making it easier, cleaner, and knife free way to give change of a pig in the purchase of 5 chickens. Maybe but not really. We work for Value, sometimes in the form of credit, sometimes in the form of security, sometimes as means to facilitating personal growth and expansion, etc....Whatever the reason Money is a physical representation of quantifying that value. As value is personal to the individual, so is the denomination of money that person thinks their underlying reason is worth. Human Being Still a Human being. :grin2:

From my very limited experience, you need a Tool and Die maker to make you a die press mold to do the pressing. You could try contacting the company that makes the old one and see if they will sell you their dies (unlikely but you never know). Once you have the die press mold, it really doesn't matter who makes the press, you or a stamping company. If you need a thousand + units a stamping company may be the best bet. If you are only making a couple per week, then it might pay to get a press from harbor freight and do it yourself. Try reaching out to Superior Die Tool and Machine, or B&G Tool.

My neighbor bought a brand new base bronco 4 door. So far I have seen it in every configuration (top up/down, doors off/on) while I walk the dog. I really like it, at least as much as a JLU wrangler. I was in the Meijer on H-R road last night and saw a new Bronco 4 door with plastic over the window. Car was still on temp tags. Couldn't help but think did someone break into it? or did it fail open? Considering the recalls related to the top I am curious.

Its a really clean C4. I mean you won't have to vacuum out the lost coke and hooker pubes out of the cracks in the seat cushions, but that still doesn't make it $15K. I fell like if it was LS swapped though, it might be worth it, but as it sits, nah.

buy a motorcycle. Then piss on her leg to assert your dominance. kidding I mean she has a point: beater = insurance costs + fuel cost + repair costs which isn't great. If she is already complaining about spending money with the truck, then this will accelerate that argument. I am in favor of you buying a beater, esp a fun one, but you need to find a way to frame it as beneficial to her to win her over. Do the cost/benefit analysis of how you being independent of her car will benefit her.

It's short wheelbase, so you'll never really get rid of bouncy. Doesn't mean it's not tons better. The original Austin mini used a cone and trumpet suspension which is literally a rubber cone and some solid bushings in place of an actual spring and a fluid filled shock. having modern pieces is def better all around. As far as cheap - it's just the flares that make it look like that. a lot of modded mini's historically used trailer fender style flares since there is no room to move rubber inboard on a mini. I feel like people are being too critical for something that is just on brand for what is a tiny shitbox car with a racing pedigree mostly because it was small and cheap.

Have you ever driven an original mini? Bouncy and cheap is kind of their thing.

If you want to mess around with it, replace all those dry rotted bushings in the suspension first. Also it looks like it has the ZR2 rear sag that was common with these trucks. Inspect the rear leaf spring packs really well to make sure there isn't any cracking or broken springs, and then invest in a pair of 2" shackles to fix the sag.