That isn't hard to do when you're printing money like it is going out of style... They are hiding the inflation well, but it is coming...
You don't print $5 Trillion and hide it forever... (and it isn't "hidden" so much as they have covered up the effects for awhile)
Jobs are recovering.
U6 is more interesting than U3, as it work force participation rate... how is growth in the US economy? How is wage growth going?
Do you really want to give that up?
Yes, because they all suck right now, they should be far better... Everything from food stamps to health care has been a disaster under Obama... You think this is good? I'd hate to see what you think is bad, because this is terrible... It should be much better...
Beware of being led by emotions. They seldom lead to good decisions. To reason alone must be one's first master.
Yes, which is why I don't want Clinton in charge of a Lemonaid stand, much less America... She is pond scum... Actually, as a human being, I don't like her at all. Moving past her policies, she is not a nice or good person.
Trump is actually the more reasonable of the two choices... He isn't married to any one position, he has already shown flexibility when it comes to various points during the election. He is more more of a moderate than Clinton is.
The only comparison I can think of that may be valid is Trump has shown a method of getting elected where truth doesn't matter; where career ending gaffs don't matter; where obvious attempts to court racists don't matter; where blatant appeals to emotions and feel good slogans are the rule of the day, with no real plan to implement any of it works. It is bombast rather than true leadership and wisdom.
Did Ronald Reagan in 1980 really have a plan for anything before being elected?
How much of that survived his first 6 months in office?
Trump knows that it doesn't matter what policies he puts forward, none of it will apply in a year anyway, the world will be different...
And side note, it has ALWAYS been this way, remember Reagan's "Morning in America" thing? That was just feel good emotions as well...
Both Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler are white dudes with questionable taste in grooming who promote a rosy-goggled Romantic nostalgia for a distant "better time", appeal explicitly to a similarly romanticized working poor with vague intimations of the action they'll take (note, these volk don't themselves want to know the details), who encourage violence at their well-attended populist rallies, pay special personal attention to costuming and event planning, and who both blame many of their countries' problems on groups of undesirables, descriptions of which cleave closely to popular images of racial minorities.
The difference is that Hitler was angry with Jews for more than 15 years before he became Chancellor...
Frankly, a year ago Trump didn't give two flips about Mexicans or Muslims, and I don't think he does even today. He is just playing the game as it exists to get elected, saying what has to be said.
Deep down inside, I doubt he harbors any hate for anyone... except perhaps people bad at business.:)
---
Note: I don't believe 75% of what comes out of his mouth, he is just playing the game... I have no idea if he'll be a good or bad President... But I look at Clinton and based on her history, I believe she'll be a terrible one...
I would prefer someone else besides either of them, frankly... Marco Rubio would have been a nice choice... Even Bernie Sanders would be more acceptable to me than Clinton... So it isn't all about what team they are on (I wouldn't vote for Ted Cruz, for example, I consider him far more dangerous than Trump).
"no record of ever punching anyone, ever" does not even make the case that he hasn't, and in fact makes a rather large claim to knowledge (...how do YOU know?)
If Trump was prone to violence and had ANY history of hitting anyone, the media would be all over it...
His comments about Mexicans and Muslims, combined with a history of punching people would be catnip to the media...
The fact that CNN or MSNBC hasn't found ANYONE who claims Trump uses violence is telling...
Pretty much a zero sum equation as far as I see it.
Then you aren't living in reality...
There is no basis for comparison between the two and if you think they are the same, you REALLY are delusional...
But then delusional people rarely know they are, so you'll deny it... I'd suggest you get help, but has that ever worked over the Internet?
Probably not...
Trump has his issues, genocide is not one of them... If you actually knew what the hell you were talking about, you'd know that. Hitler was known for getting into fights, he used force and violence long before even getting into office... Trump has no record of ever punching anyone, ever, he doesn't use violence to solve his problems...
Are there going to be enough people out there with 4k systems to take advantage?
I don't think so, but I haven't studied the numbers close enough to say one way or another...
I will say that 4k came too quickly after 1080p for me, and I'm the kind of person who they are targeting, since I have disposable income and a house big enough to use a 4k screen.
I currently have a 70" Sony 1080p TV, very nice home theater setup... I'm not feeling any reason to go to 4k, and yes, I know what 4k looks like, I just don't care...
It requires spending a ton of money that I can spend somewhere else, changing the setup that I'm used to, etc.
For Pete's sake, Hams are literally 0.2% of the population.. We and our antennas are NOT the reason HOA's exist.
Hams alone aren't... but the various things you want to do, there are a thousand more just like it, such as painting your front door orange... Leaving 10 cars parked out front, etc...
This is my point... you want to do what YOU want and aren't considering your neighbors... This is why HOAs exist, too many people who don't care about anyone else but themselves...
And I'm not asking for anything crazy
That is your opinion, I disagree with you... You want to put up a 63 foot tower, that isn't normal for a residential neighborhood.
Your solution is not a solution for *some* hams, who are unable to drive further, spend more or live someplace other than where they are.
Then perhaps they shouldn't be Hams... their desired use isn't compatible with their neighbors...
my tower won't hurt you
It is ugly and may reduce property values by making it harder to resell my house next to you... So, you're wrong, it may well hurt me in the pocketbook...
Your area may be different I suppose, but HERE in north Texas, nearly ALL new single family homes being built right now (and there are a LOT of them) will come with CC&R's.
I live in North Texas, look in Prosper and Celina, you can find 1/3 acre plots of land in normal neighborhoods that don't have such restrictions.
You need a semi-custom home builder for what you want, you aren't going to get it from a DR Horton or KB Homes.
And yes, you'll pay more, but on the plus side you'll get a better house, more land, and more freedom.
But the sad fact is, you will pay more, drive further, and/or live in an older home to escape the HOA nightmare.
Life is full of compromise, it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too...
You want to put up a 63 foot tower, one of the reasons so many homes have HOAs now is exactly because of that... In the past, they didn't exist, people like you did exist, and now we have them...
There are not really any houses available which are of similar age, cost and location that don't have CC&R's.
I'm sure you think that... but you likely are not correct...
I know in my area
Again, you think that... have you done an exhaustive search and pulled the rules for each area and looked?
More likely you have a small sample size and are guessing...
Sure, they can incur a longer commute, spend more, or buy an older home that's not subject to CC&R's
Yes, that's right... all of life comes with choices and compromise...
After all, hams are literally 0.2% of the population.
The percentage doesn't matter when one lives next to you...
But that didn't stop my HOA from putting the k-bosh on my attempts to get even a modest 63' vertical tower
If you lived next to me, I'd object to that as well... That is double the height of the house, we don't need that in our neighborhood... You don't have the right to override the wishes of the majority, just because you think you're special...
You say that as if your opinion is somehow fact... it isn't...
People who brutally hurt innocent victims have nothing like a moral equivalence to a system which punishes said people.
I think you're wrong... because two wrongs don't make a right... Torturing someone because they did something bad is just as bad as what the bad person did in the first place...
Land isn't fungible; therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the government to not permit (or more accurately, to not send out its police officers to enforce) contractual provisions that undercut basic property rights.
What exactly are "basic property rights"?
Go back a few hundred years and many Native Americans didn't think people could even own land, it belonged to everyone.
You're inserting your personal viewpoint and opinion and assuming it is fact. Something to consider anyway...
If you disagree, so be it. But you are advocating for a larger and more intrusive government, whether you admit it or not.
Not as much as you think... I think people have the right to enter into contracts as they see fit, you think government should step in and protect people from themselves.
Which one of us is REALLY for "larger government" again?
Assange is not currently wanted in the US. There is no indictment against him, there isn't a warrant for his arrest, and there is no request for extradition.
You actually don't know that... there are "secret warrants" and sealed indictments...
He may well be wanted but the government just won't admit it...
Further, I feel that life in prison is also torture... the idea that we put people into 10 foot by 8 foot concrete boxes for the rest of their lives is evil in my view...
Even if the person does horrible things, that is now how you treat humans, or you're no better than them...
Maybe you can't let them go free, but you could have prison farms and communities made up of such people where they have an area to build a home, farm food, and have a life away from the rest of us...
Slashdot Mirror
Hitler is already a proven election-winner. That's not a fair alternative to Trump. Put up a more hypothetical name, please.
How about me?
If your only two choices on Earth were Donald Trump and myself, who would you rather have?
Poor old flynutjob, going to be so butt hurt when Trump loses.
And what are you going to say when Clinton loses?
The stock market has almost doubled under Obama.
That isn't hard to do when you're printing money like it is going out of style... They are hiding the inflation well, but it is coming...
You don't print $5 Trillion and hide it forever... (and it isn't "hidden" so much as they have covered up the effects for awhile)
Jobs are recovering.
U6 is more interesting than U3, as it work force participation rate... how is growth in the US economy? How is wage growth going?
Do you really want to give that up?
Yes, because they all suck right now, they should be far better... Everything from food stamps to health care has been a disaster under Obama... You think this is good? I'd hate to see what you think is bad, because this is terrible... It should be much better...
Beware of being led by emotions. They seldom lead to good decisions. To reason alone must be one's first master.
Yes, which is why I don't want Clinton in charge of a Lemonaid stand, much less America... She is pond scum... Actually, as a human being, I don't like her at all. Moving past her policies, she is not a nice or good person.
Trump is actually the more reasonable of the two choices... He isn't married to any one position, he has already shown flexibility when it comes to various points during the election. He is more more of a moderate than Clinton is.
The only comparison I can think of that may be valid is Trump has shown a method of getting elected where truth doesn't matter; where career ending gaffs don't matter; where obvious attempts to court racists don't matter; where blatant appeals to emotions and feel good slogans are the rule of the day, with no real plan to implement any of it works. It is bombast rather than true leadership and wisdom.
Did Ronald Reagan in 1980 really have a plan for anything before being elected?
How much of that survived his first 6 months in office?
Trump knows that it doesn't matter what policies he puts forward, none of it will apply in a year anyway, the world will be different...
And side note, it has ALWAYS been this way, remember Reagan's "Morning in America" thing? That was just feel good emotions as well...
Both Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler are white dudes with questionable taste in grooming who promote a rosy-goggled Romantic nostalgia for a distant "better time", appeal explicitly to a similarly romanticized working poor with vague intimations of the action they'll take (note, these volk don't themselves want to know the details), who encourage violence at their well-attended populist rallies, pay special personal attention to costuming and event planning, and who both blame many of their countries' problems on groups of undesirables, descriptions of which cleave closely to popular images of racial minorities.
The difference is that Hitler was angry with Jews for more than 15 years before he became Chancellor...
Frankly, a year ago Trump didn't give two flips about Mexicans or Muslims, and I don't think he does even today. He is just playing the game as it exists to get elected, saying what has to be said.
Deep down inside, I doubt he harbors any hate for anyone... except perhaps people bad at business. :)
---
Note: I don't believe 75% of what comes out of his mouth, he is just playing the game... I have no idea if he'll be a good or bad President... But I look at Clinton and based on her history, I believe she'll be a terrible one...
I would prefer someone else besides either of them, frankly... Marco Rubio would have been a nice choice... Even Bernie Sanders would be more acceptable to me than Clinton... So it isn't all about what team they are on (I wouldn't vote for Ted Cruz, for example, I consider him far more dangerous than Trump).
"no record of ever punching anyone, ever" does not even make the case that he hasn't, and in fact makes a rather large claim to knowledge (...how do YOU know?)
If Trump was prone to violence and had ANY history of hitting anyone, the media would be all over it...
His comments about Mexicans and Muslims, combined with a history of punching people would be catnip to the media...
The fact that CNN or MSNBC hasn't found ANYONE who claims Trump uses violence is telling...
Pretty much a zero sum equation as far as I see it.
Then you aren't living in reality...
There is no basis for comparison between the two and if you think they are the same, you REALLY are delusional...
But then delusional people rarely know they are, so you'll deny it... I'd suggest you get help, but has that ever worked over the Internet?
Probably not...
Trump has his issues, genocide is not one of them... If you actually knew what the hell you were talking about, you'd know that. Hitler was known for getting into fights, he used force and violence long before even getting into office... Trump has no record of ever punching anyone, ever, he doesn't use violence to solve his problems...
It is Clinton who is the warmonger...
likely plunge us into thermonuclear war within 6 months of taking office.
You have no idea that is likely... You really don't...
You're just guessing, imagining, daydreaming...
Don't confuse the two...
I'll never support Trump. No matter who the alternative is.
Adolf Hitler?
What experts are those?
Experts such as physiologists who know a fuck ton more than you do.
Your newfound innocence is charming but I'm afraid dangerously naive.
And you're a fucking asshole who should be waterboarded so you know what you're talking about...
Then you can apologize over and over and over about how sorry and wrong you were.
Are there going to be enough people out there with 4k systems to take advantage?
I don't think so, but I haven't studied the numbers close enough to say one way or another...
I will say that 4k came too quickly after 1080p for me, and I'm the kind of person who they are targeting, since I have disposable income and a house big enough to use a 4k screen.
I currently have a 70" Sony 1080p TV, very nice home theater setup... I'm not feeling any reason to go to 4k, and yes, I know what 4k looks like, I just don't care...
It requires spending a ton of money that I can spend somewhere else, changing the setup that I'm used to, etc.
1080p was needed, 4k is "meh"...
Wait, who said anything about torturing?
Putting someone into a 10 foot by 7 foot concrete box for the rest of their lives is torture...
That isn't even my definition, that is what experts believe.
Do bad acts *without justification or defensible provocation*, bad things happen to you.
And that is why it will never stop, because people like you feel that it is ok to do bad things to people because "they did them first".
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
I once thought like you do, until I woke up and saw the truth, that it was self-destructive thinking that leads to never ending violence.
For Pete's sake, Hams are literally 0.2% of the population.. We and our antennas are NOT the reason HOA's exist.
Hams alone aren't... but the various things you want to do, there are a thousand more just like it, such as painting your front door orange... Leaving 10 cars parked out front, etc...
This is my point... you want to do what YOU want and aren't considering your neighbors... This is why HOAs exist, too many people who don't care about anyone else but themselves...
And I'm not asking for anything crazy
That is your opinion, I disagree with you... You want to put up a 63 foot tower, that isn't normal for a residential neighborhood.
Your solution is not a solution for *some* hams, who are unable to drive further, spend more or live someplace other than where they are.
Then perhaps they shouldn't be Hams... their desired use isn't compatible with their neighbors...
my tower won't hurt you
It is ugly and may reduce property values by making it harder to resell my house next to you... So, you're wrong, it may well hurt me in the pocketbook...
Your area may be different I suppose, but HERE in north Texas, nearly ALL new single family homes being built right now (and there are a LOT of them) will come with CC&R's.
I live in North Texas, look in Prosper and Celina, you can find 1/3 acre plots of land in normal neighborhoods that don't have such restrictions.
You need a semi-custom home builder for what you want, you aren't going to get it from a DR Horton or KB Homes.
And yes, you'll pay more, but on the plus side you'll get a better house, more land, and more freedom.
But the sad fact is, you will pay more, drive further, and/or live in an older home to escape the HOA nightmare.
Life is full of compromise, it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too...
You want to put up a 63 foot tower, one of the reasons so many homes have HOAs now is exactly because of that... In the past, they didn't exist, people like you did exist, and now we have them...
I've no idea what you're even trying to imply here.
Of course you don't, because you are closed minded and are unwilling to see any viewpoint other than the one programmed into you...
Take a deep breath man
Yea, yea, go fuck yourself...
There are not really any houses available which are of similar age, cost and location that don't have CC&R's.
I'm sure you think that... but you likely are not correct...
I know in my area
Again, you think that... have you done an exhaustive search and pulled the rules for each area and looked?
More likely you have a small sample size and are guessing...
Sure, they can incur a longer commute, spend more, or buy an older home that's not subject to CC&R's
Yes, that's right... all of life comes with choices and compromise...
After all, hams are literally 0.2% of the population.
The percentage doesn't matter when one lives next to you...
But that didn't stop my HOA from putting the k-bosh on my attempts to get even a modest 63' vertical tower
If you lived next to me, I'd object to that as well... That is double the height of the house, we don't need that in our neighborhood... You don't have the right to override the wishes of the majority, just because you think you're special...
False
You say that as if your opinion is somehow fact... it isn't...
People who brutally hurt innocent victims have nothing like a moral equivalence to a system which punishes said people.
I think you're wrong... because two wrongs don't make a right... Torturing someone because they did something bad is just as bad as what the bad person did in the first place...
Actually most attempted suicides who are prevented the first time never try again.
A lot of suicide attempts are really cries for help...
He's in solitary because he tried to kill himself.
So we are torturing him because he tried to take his own life?
That is the dumbest thing I've heard all day. You're not wrong of course, but it is still dumb (the position, not you)
The correct action is to allow the suicide.
Of course it is, if someone wishes to take their own life, that is their choice. But in this case, it wouldn't be suicide, it would be murder.
He (she) has already been tortured by their treatment...
Land isn't fungible; therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the government to not permit (or more accurately, to not send out its police officers to enforce) contractual provisions that undercut basic property rights.
What exactly are "basic property rights"?
Go back a few hundred years and many Native Americans didn't think people could even own land, it belonged to everyone.
You're inserting your personal viewpoint and opinion and assuming it is fact. Something to consider anyway...
If you disagree, so be it. But you are advocating for a larger and more intrusive government, whether you admit it or not.
Not as much as you think... I think people have the right to enter into contracts as they see fit, you think government should step in and protect people from themselves.
Which one of us is REALLY for "larger government" again?
Assange is not currently wanted in the US. There is no indictment against him, there isn't a warrant for his arrest, and there is no request for extradition.
You actually don't know that... there are "secret warrants" and sealed indictments...
He may well be wanted but the government just won't admit it...
Solitary confinement is torture.
I agree...
Further, I feel that life in prison is also torture... the idea that we put people into 10 foot by 8 foot concrete boxes for the rest of their lives is evil in my view...
Even if the person does horrible things, that is now how you treat humans, or you're no better than them...
Maybe you can't let them go free, but you could have prison farms and communities made up of such people where they have an area to build a home, farm food, and have a life away from the rest of us...
In today's new-house market, that pretty well sums up your options.
The facts do not support your statement...
Less than 50% of new homes built today are in a HOA...
At the end of each one of these "voluntary association" contracts, the vast majority of which are non-negotiable
Yes they are, you had the option to NOT buy the property...
do you think people should be allowed to sell themselves into slavery?
Yes, they should... Why not? Do you not own your life and yourself?
Why?
Because the real world isn't a law book or a class room...
There is a middle ground between "yes" and "no", the FBI can find all sorts of "reasonable sounding" ways to not comply, for awhile...