greg1647545532

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Portable-Toilet-5-Gallon-Dual-Spray-Jets-Travel-Outdoor-Camping-Hiking-Toilet/29402399?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=1381&adid=22222222227019858392&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=52593951791&wl4=pla-84474400751&wl5=9014979&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=112561937&wl11=online&wl12=29402399&wl13=&veh=sem

So a chamber pot then.

I'm not an expert on these things, but if you can't put any holes in the floor, walls, or ceiling, how else can you get the poo poo out of the room?

Obama could have cured cancer and conservatives would have solemnly and thoughtfully reconsidered their opinion of him. :lol:

It couldn't have happened to a nicer birther.

I took the time to write up an explanation, which you apparently ignored. You regurgitated some screenshots that you didn't make which basically just restate your hypothesis. Bravo.

Hey now, we only point out liberal hypocrisy on this board.

I see, I thought you were talking about leasing vs buying, but you're talking about leasing a car that you couldn't otherwise afford to buy.

James Comey is probably a decent guy, a dedicated civil servant who's devoted his life to law enforcement and, I genuinely believe, wants to do the right thing. That said, he got too political, made 2 massive mistakes during the election, and Obama should have fired him for it back in July. Since Obama didn't have the grapes to do it (because it would look like a political firing instead of a general competence firing), Trump should have fired him during the transition period. But he didn't, and now, 10 months after the supposed grievous infraction that he had to be fired for, Trump suddenly axes him with a bizarre statement about "Even though you told me on 3 separate occasions that I'm not being investigated..." The whole thing smells rotten. It smells like Trump wanted some assurance that the Russia investigation wouldn't come back to him, and Comey, being the dedicated law enforcement civil servant, refused to cave, and got axed for it. It's possible to think that he should have been fired and still not approve of the manner in which it was done. And, I think B3NN3TT's right, you already knew that.

I don't get this. First, if it's a business vehicle then you can deduct the depreciation regardless. Second, if it's a "high depreciation" vehicle like a luxury car or a high-tech hybrid, that depreciation has already been factored into the lease payment, and the leasing company still expects to be able to make a profit off of you. Third, the leasing company gets to take the incentives and the tax credits, not the lessee, so again, that's already factored into the lease payment. Again, all of this boils down to, "It sure is nice to always have the latest technology in a car and never have to worry about the guilt of selling it 3 years later at a massive discount. Sure is nice." Nice things cost money. Likewise, after owning my house for 8 years I can see the advantages of renting, but at the end of the day it's nice not to have to clean your own gutters and replace old plumbing, and nice things cost money...

How I saw leases explained once. "Driving a new car is nice, right? Nice things cost money." Financially, leasing is usually going to be inferior from buying new and selling used. After all, that's exactly what the leasing arm of the finance company is doing, except they want to get a small profit out of you in the process. "But not having to deal with selling a car every 3 years is nice." Right, see above. There are two cases where I think leasing is smart. One, since the lease payment is based on the projected resale value at the end of the lease term, you think you've played the game better than the people with access to mountains of data. Which is possible, and sites like lease hackr can help, but you have to pay attention to a lot of details. Two, you're willing to pay extra for nice things.

You know what? Those writers are fucking lazy. Here's the full press release that they probably spent 5 minutes turning into an article. Bolding mine, to show where they got that quote from. They're clearing talking about the budget as a whole, not just the 8.25m from the global women's fund thing. So lazy, yes. Regurgitating press releases is the laziest form of journalism. Regurgitating press releases while not making it apparent that all they're doing is a regurgitating a press release is borderline dishonest. Making obvious mistakes while doing so is shameful. That said, I don't see how this is "grasping at straws." Also from the press release: I don't know if these programs are the best way to spend taxpayer dollars; I'm not the type to micro-manage foreign aid spending. But I'm highly suspect that anyone in the Trump administration is proposing these changes based on factual evidence or careful analysis, because Trump has made it clear that facts don't matter. Foreign aid programs like this are generally a bargain in terms of the return on US investment -- global poverty and local political strife is bad for global trade, and creates breeding grounds for future military investment that is always, always going to be much more expensive than just paying for children to go to school. I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong, that this funding won't actually make any difference whatsoever, and I'd be happy to examine any evidence to that effect. I just have little faith that the government would be able to produce such evidence. So, far from grasping at straws, this seems like a legitimate complaint; for the good folks at Oxfam, an immediate threat to the social good they wish to do, and for the American taxpayer, to the haphazard way that our money continues to be mismanaged.

Me, I wish I could afford to buy into the bracket of cars that don't depreciate. If you can get the initial capital together, daily drive classic Ferraris or air cooled Porsches and then sell them a couple years later for more than you paid. At least I'm a home owner, so I pay less for housing than schmucks who rent. Stupid schmucks. Don't they know that owning an expensive house in a highly desirable zip code is so much smarter?

People consistently overestimate the size and benefit of government assistance programs. Conservative politicians, dating back to Reagan's debunked-but-still-widely-believed "welfare queen," paint a picture of poor people living the good life on the government's dime. Liberals like to think that by voting D or updating their facebook status they've already solved world hunger. Suffice it to say, even taking into account meager government assistance, poor people still pay more for most things. Having shit credit or no credit usually means paying more for a crappy apartment than it's really worth. Rents are high in poor neighborhoods for what you get, and most people don't get help from the government.

I'm not a big fan of generalizing, but I think that conservatives and liberals often talk past each other on issues like this because they're addressing different levels. Paying 20x the actual cost of tires is fucking stupid, and it really doesn't take much math ability to run the numbers and realize that renting-to-own a set of shitty Chinese 185s is a really poor financial decision. It's hard to have sympathy for someone who can't figure that out, and as much as I wish we weren't wired this way, I can't deny that humans love a good opportunity to point and laugh at dumb people. At the same time, I think it's important for someone in society to fly up to 30,000 ft and take a big picture look at why people do stupid stuff. As an analogy, smoking is also really fucking stupid. It doesn't take much research ability to realize that smoking is bad for you, and expensive, and it's hard to have sympathy for someone who can't figure that out. But smoking is bad for society; it creates expensive health problems, it hampers the quality of the workforce, indoor smoking is a deterrent to commerce, etc. I, for one, am glad as hell that someone took the time to research why people make the dumb-ass decision to start and continue smoking, and then promoted policies, products, and campaigns to get people to quit. I think it's raised the quality of life for the average American, and I think it's made society better. Maybe people would have gotten there on their own eventually, but I think a society were people work on stuff like this from a high level is going to be better than a society where people just shrug and say, "stupid people do stupid things, can't be helped" Likewise, I think it's important that someone is working on understanding why some people will pay so much for some stupid tires. That doesn't mean paying too much for stupid tires isn't stupid, but it doesn't mean we can't take a step back and try to understand a pattern of behavior that seems so illogical to us.

Hard to take your kids to the doctor on a couple dozen bicycles. It's harder to get a decent job and/or move out of a shithole if you're relying on busses (how's the bus service in Hilliard?) This is 6 and a half pages, challenge yourself to make it through.

Is this an opinion or a statement of fact? Would it be possible to change your view on this? If so, what would you need to see?

The war powers act to which you're referring spells out when the CIC and use military force. Which of those 3 conditions applied in this case? This is why Bush, and then Obama, and now Trump, continue to cite the [bullshit] 2001 AUMF against al-Queda for any and all attacks on terrorist targets, because it satisfies condition 2 of the war powers act. Bush went to congress for authorization to invade Iraq, thus satisfying condition 2. Obama played a bullshit card in 2013 when he said he would go to congress for authorization to engage with Assad but that he "didn't need to." I'm not sure what his legal justification for claiming not to need congressional approval was, but when it became apparent that the Republican majority was not going to give him the authorization, he dropped the issue (to much derision over his "red line" comment.) Presidents regularly ignore the war powers act to varying degrees, but usually there's at least an attempt made to justify it -- US soldiers killed in an attack somewhere, NATO or UN authorization, etc. In this case, there's basically nothing. Just a president deciding on his own to bomb another country.

The drone strikes were on ISIS targets within Syria, which Obama justified with the 2001 AUMF (a bullshit justification, IMHO, but a pretty well-worn one at this point). Trump continued the tradition when he took office, so this isn't even his first action in Syria. This attack on a Syrian airfield is the first direct attack against the Syrian government. It's different. That's why it's news. eta: Yes, we've armed anti-Assad Syrian rebels, so in that sense we've already been involved in a proxy war against Syria, and by extension Russia, but we're now directly attacking a sovereign government apparently. Without congressional approval, without any imminent threat to the US, even one as flimsy as Bush's bullshit WMD argument. We attacked a sovereign nation over an apparent humanitarian issue while refusing refugees from that same country. WTF is going on? Where does this end?

No, I don't, and it makes my post all the more prescient.

Remember when we were talking about transgender rights and you tried to deflect our attention to the national debt or something? Classic....

Edgy AND funny? Get this man an HBO special! Look out, comedy world!

Same, but I'm a middle age straight white guy. Nobody's ever beat me up or threatened to disown me while calling me a or anything like that. Nobody in this thread has been offended or thrown a "hissy fit." I even explicitly said that RC K9 can keep using the word if he wants, but continuing to use it after being informed of its perception colors his character. That's it. I didn't get mad, or hurl insults, or stomp my feet. Honestly, I can't think of a tamer way to convey my feelings about the issue. Is even that ridiculously tame response too much for some people? Would that make them... I don't know if we're talking about some other specific example here, but years ago when I learned the vocabulary of the trans community it wasn't because people were offended, or crying, or whatever, it's because someone said "We prefer not to be called trannies," or something to that effect. But it doesn't matter how calmly or reasonably they make the request, a few games of telephone later and it gets twisted and exaggerated to some cartoonish example of millenials being thinned-skinned pussies. People should be allowed to have a preferred vocabulary. If someone says "I prefer to be called a 2nd amendment advocate instead of a 'gun nut'," I think that's a reasonable request and I will honor it. I'm not going to haul off about what a thin-skinned pussy they are, or continue to call them a gun nut and then act like the sky is falling when it annoys them. That doesn't mean that every such request is reasonable and must be granted, but in this case, I don't see what the big deal is. One of the perks of being a libertarian is being able to walk down the middle and call both sides idiots from time to time. In the case of bathroom bills, it's the "family values" backed Republicans who are being the thin-skinned "big brother" idiots. Call them out on it, don't back up dolts like Ben Shapiro on this issue. It's OK to side with the liberals from time to time when they're obviously right.

I'm glad your hand healed nicely.

By the way, careful you don't cut yourself.