Lord Ratner

You're thinking short term. In the long term suppressed interest rates have inflated the assets that are usually financed, such as houses and cars. And now the workers can't afford those things. Inflation affects everyone, but when the wealth y have quadrupled their wealth, even a 50% haircut due to inflation means they're twice as well off. The rest of us however have not experienced a similar increase in wealth, and are there for much more affected by inflation. Fuck with the economy at your (our) peril. Food is not financed, so that's not a factor. And for those who are financing food, they are way past the interest rate mattering. You are delusional if you think property tax primarily affects people who are "entirely way too well off." Honestly it's kind of hard to conceptualize anything after that statement. It indicates that you live in an alternate universe. Also, ethical arguments don't have to take into account second and third order effects? What? So ethics only matter on the date of legislation? Honestly if this is how you think about anything it starts to make a little bit more sense that you support these emotional "fairness" policies. Sure, this is a Biden problem. It was a trump problem. It was also an Obama problem. And it was definitely a bush problem since QE was invented under his watch. But really this was a Nixon, Johnson, Carter, Reagan, and Bush H.W. problem too since we unpegged from gold in 71. Yeah dude, once again, second and third order effects. I care more about my children and grandchildren having a brighter future than I do the continuance of cheap TVs and meme stocks. The sooner we jam a stick in the spokes of modern monetary theory, fiat currency, and Keynesian economics, the better. We are now in a economic cancer situation. Taking the chemo now is going to suck, but it's going to suck a whole lot more if you wait till stage 4. Biden is not tightening. Powell is tightening. To the great consternation of many Democrats. And don't worry, when Trump wins the election it will be the Republicans spending trillions that we don't have. There are no responsible parties anymore. However the real problem is that we aren't actually tightening yet. The drawdown of fed assets has been exceeded by the drawdown in the reverse repo facility, which is why liquidity has increased rather than decreased. Once the RRP runs dry, if, and it's a huge if, the Fed continues to tighten, only then will we see the effects.

I need some song suggestions for a morning alarm clock. I have an unnecessarily complicated morning automation to wake up our 14 month old, and it ends by playing a song randomly selected from a list. But I need more songs to add to the list. And ideally something a little less... assertive than this, which is the alarm I use on my phone:

I just got a Sig Rattler LT with the 6.75" barrel. Haven't got it dressed up yet, and I'm still on the fence between keeping it a pistol or getting an NFA stamp for better stock options. Hopefully the court cases work out to beat back the SBR rules a bit. That Ruger looks sick.

I like a carry gun to be as sleek as possible, minimize the things that can catch on clothing. I don't like single/double actions either. I used to think it was great when I primarily shot a SIG P229, but since moving to striker-fired (always single action) I've been converted. That's something I do like about a 1911, every trigger pull is the same force. External safeties are (in my opinion) for guns I don't want to unload/unchamber between uses. Trap shooting, hunting, etc. For a carry gun it's just something that can be in the wrong position and hinder a stressful and time sensitive use. If the gun is out of the holster that means it's time to shoot. Same theory behind carrying one in the chamber. Of course that means any holster must have complete trigger coverage, but that's pretty normal. Hair trigger: You're right, what I really was meaning to say is that the pull distance is so short. I like there to be some movement in the trigger since with a carry gun there are many scenarios where your finger is on the trigger but not firing. Obviously that's my preference, I don't think it's unsafe for a trained and competent shooter to carry a 1911, I just think most people carry them because they are cool (they are) or it's what they are used to, when there are much better options. Again, 1911 use in Mil/LEO is practically zero for a reason.

I absolutely hate 1911s for carry weapons. External safety, external hammer, hair trigger pull, low ammo for the footprint. I do like that the single stack magazine makes it thin, but there's a reason you don't see many Mil/Leo professionals using a 1911 on duty. Or 45ACP for that matter. And if you need more than 8 you're probably trying to take down a shooter at longer range. Like this dude. Amazing shot, he didn't need the extra rounds at 40 yards, but I probably would 🤣: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/indiana-mall-shooting-elisjsha-dicken-neutralized-gunman-15-seconds/ Damn beautiful guns though.

Unethical? You bet your ass. Doubly so in the states where your property tax can go up through no action of your own. I believe it is objectively immoral to change what someone owes on something they purchased responsibly and within their budget simply because a bunch of other people around them have different budgets or spend irresponsibly. Of all the plethora of things California gets wrong, prop 13 should be the law of the land. I would address that problem specifically, and make it illegal. However the better answer is to simply stop suppressing interest rates artificially. These billionaires are only to play this stupid game because banks are willing to give out near zero interest loans. No billionaire is going to do that if they have to pay 9% on it. That doesn't make it ethical. And more importantly that doesn't change the fact that the unintended second and third order consequences of this change can be very messy. However, unforeseen second and third order consequences are a Hallmark of almost all Democratic legislation, so par for the course. The problem is that this is the government trying to blame others for what it created. You want to know why the ultra wealthy in this country have reached escape velocity compared to the rest of us? It's because we have a government that believes fiat currency allows them to print as much money as they want for whatever they want. But they are so fantastically unimaginative with this power that they simply feed it directly into the banking system. Gee, small wonder that the biggest beneficiaries of this mechanic have been real estate, equities, and financial assets. Overwhelmingly things that the rich and ultra-rich own disproportionately. So if you want to fix it, let's lock our currency to something that doesn't allow the government to devalue it massively in a manner that flows almost directly to the richest people in the country. Let's stop artificially suppressing interest rates so that the wealthiest in this country can get nearly unlimited free money to spend in whatever way they see fit. Let's stop protecting gigantic corporations and Banks from the financial Doom of their poor decision making every time it comes home to roost. Too big to fail should be considered hate speech. Anything short of that it's just another trick fuck bit of legislation that will end up having second third order effects worse than the problem it was trying to solve, without addressing the root issue.

I carry the P365X. Phenomenal gun. I recommend going to a range and trying the 365, 365x, and 365x-macro. If they have one with a red or Green Dot sight on it, give it a try. I was very skeptical of pistol mounted optics, doubly so for concealed carry, but it took all of one day to make me a convert. The technology is great. There's a reason it's the most popular gun in America right now.

Right, and we would add yet another incentive to have every asset overvalued by the government, while creating a new industry around undervaluing assets.

Oh yeah, what ever happened to that guy?

I think that just says more about you and how you approach the conversation. That's not to say that you don't get some fairly absurdist abuse thrown your way, but if you haven't been able to hone and adapt your positions based on the information and data on this forum, then you're on a team. I'll be honest, I respect that you continue to engage, and about 75% of the time you do it in a respectful manner (I consider that a very high percentage for internet conversation. I don't think I meet that standard). But I have found your arguments to be fairly cookie cutter, cheerleader type DNC stuff. Rarely compelling, and I am not even remotely a die-hard conservative. I think a part of that might be that since you are a political minority here, you are usually on the defensive and that makes it very hard to concede any ground to the other side. It's not a unique phenomenon. And yes, I absolutely believe there are people here who fit that description but from the conservative side. Pretty much anyone who defends Donald Trump's character probably falls into that category. You could just be a true believer, but it is rare to find someone on either side who so neatly fits into the political party positions. I only bring this up because I get the sense from gearhog that he is legitimately interested in honing his own beliefs and incorporating as much new data into them as possible. Even though I do not agree with a lot of his conclusions. That's the value I get from this board as well. I get the sense that you believe your positions are already perfected. At least that's how you communicate them. In that case, yeah you are definitely wasting your time.

While I agree with the concept of debating the content and not the source, the only realistic way to do anything useful is to filter out sources that do not meet a certain standard. Being correct sometimes is not a high enough standard. As an example, it is unrealistic to expect someone to spend time disproving the many insane things Alex Jones says regularly. Even though he's right sometimes, and even though he's right sometimes when everyone else is burying the story. It's just the peril of dealing with unlimited information. As an intermediate solution, you can ignore a source with an obvious bias. A sort of "recusal" for media. I'm this case, it's rational to discard Russian-government-controlled media when discussing a war Russia is waging. Yeah, they'll be right sometimes. Too bad so sad. There's not enough time in the day to vet sources with a huge bias when other sources exist. I wouldn't trust the Ukrainian press releases either, nor waste time with them.

Awesome, thanks. This will simplify my life It's a shame USAA is "just another back" now.

Got a link to the jun 15 change on the sweep? Thanks for the heads up, I'm going to get this set up

Definitely a poet first... his songs all sound poorly produced and his voice is trash. But the lyrics are always amazing. I always had this one in my head when we'd all drunkedly stumble back to the base in UPT.

That was my thought too. 3 1/2 hours is a long way to go to randomly break into a house.

While I agree in principal, recidivism is a real problem with crime and we simply don't have the resources (or will power) to keep that many people locked up forever. I don't have a great answer, obviously, but a background check is relatively painless and there are definitely people you don't want having guns. For example, a murderer/rapist/gang banger awaiting trial out on bail. Abolishing the entire bail system isn't realistic. More controversially, I am open to limited waiting periods. Far more than background checks. No more than 7 days, but maybe an even lower limit. Crimes of passion are real and demonstrated, and cooler heads often prevail with time. I can think of no constitutional scenario where a gun needs to be purchased *now* as opposed to next week. You aren't forming a functional anti-tyrannical-governmental force in 24 hours. Concerns about self-defense (which are arguably not what 2A addresses) might require a gun sooner, but I think you can allow police the option to waive a waiting period and you wouldn't have a worse outcome than we have now. I think state-funded gun safety courses would be a brilliant move for the cause. Conservatives are so against spending money, but if you really wanted to change the narrative and get more people comfortable with the 2A, this would be a low cost way to make gun owners safer, make more people gun-friendly, and take away many liberal arguments against gun ownership.

This is a concept that was recently brought up in court regarding an illegal immigrant having a gun. The judge ruled in his favor. Do the rights protected by the Bill of Rights extend to all people, as they are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" or is the Declaration referring to other rights? Saying that the Amendments don't stand individually poses the same problem as many of the proposed gun laws... where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide how much "responsibility" one must display to be worthy of the Rights? Obviously there is a limit somewhere, as we restrict the ability of felons to vote and own weapons, but even that is a contested idea, one I struggle with. As to the serial numbers, first you have to demonstrate that serial numbers are reducing gun crime. Not just helping track the gun to wherever it came from. Are criminals avoiding serialized guns? Are they getting caught because of the serial number? So many laws are some nerd's idea that might do this or might do that, without any evidence before or after that it actually does anything at all. Yet the law rarely has a sunset clause like the assault weapons ban of 1993 had. Serial numbers do absolutely help the government track guns. That's bad. So the associated good needs to be clear and supported. I don't see evidence of that right now. With "ghost guns" the problem would be if someone starts making a bunch of guns and funneling them to gangs/cartels. Is this already illegal? If so, do we need another law making it illegal? Is this (meaningfully) increasing the number of guns in criminals' hands? I think the argument for banning ghost guns is that the serial number allows the maker to be tracked down easily. Obviously someone making guns for the cartel isn't going to follow that law anyways, so instead this becomes a law that you can use to theoretically "get" the cartel suppliers for making unserialized guns without actually proving they were selling guns to bad guys. Like how Al Capone was nabbed for tax evasion instead of all the actual murdering and booze-running. But that was a bullshit tactic in the first place, not a victory of law-enforcement. Forensics have advanced to the point we don't need to play games like that anymore to catch crooks. But this is also so niche I just don't care much. I would much rather have the NFA restrictions on suppressors and short barrels addressed.

Bashi is getting a bit close. Continuously proclaiming the inevitability of Russian victory and arguing that Ukrainian corruption sets them up as an unworthy ally. Especially when there are plenty of examples of much bigger countries being defeated/repelled by well-funded underdogs. But he's also just a troll But yeah, the character attacks as Russian shills is getting old.

And I think people don't realize how natural the anti-human instinct is. You ever met someone who boils issues down to "humans just suck" or "humans are a cancer on the Earth?" My wife was like that way back. Never actually acted in a way that indicated she believed it, deeply compassionate and attached to her friends and family, but if you mentioned the environment, boom, humans are the worst and we probably need fewer of them. That impulse, I think, is just part of being a species with a hyper-advanced intellect and self-consciousness/awareness as a primary characteristic. Similar to how racism is a natural but "toxic" manifestation of tribalism. Keeps you alive in the jungle, but less compatible with advanced society. These impulses must be overcome with reason and wisdom. Instead the environmental movement has given in to them absolutely.

Are you sure the Afghans didn't just have superior firepower, superior numbers, a deeply secure anti-corruption apparatus, and direct support from US military units? Because I've been told that's the only way Ukraine has a chance here...

No rush. I've done the same. Perils of the Internet🤷🏻‍♂️

Right, you know, except for the whole invasion of Ukraine thing. I wonder if there are any other "historically Russian" parts of Europe... Definitely doesn't compare to Hitler targeting historically German parts of Europe for "reunification."

If you establish that you are going to feed someone, then stop feeding them without sufficient time or opportunity to feed themselves, then yes, you are starving them. You can argue whether you should have fed them in the first place, but once you establish a relationship, what you do in that relationship matters. We could have let them fend for themselves from the beginning, but we didn't. Maybe we should have, though I disagree. Doesn't matter, we did. And you now have to operate from that reality. For everyone calling for a negotiated settlement, that's not going to happen unless Russia has something to lose by refusing. And that's not going to happen without a re-armed Ukraine. I agree with all of the complaints about a feckless administration with no strategy and no goals. That's the hand we've been dealt. The North Vietnamese couldn't defeat us with unlimited weaponry. They didn't need to. This is unidimensional thinking.

Sure they have. Artillery is how this war is being fought, and they are out of shells. We are the resupply. Obviously there's a debate over whether we should, but we made Ukraine our proxy in this war, and now we are withholding. I've said it many, many times before, I don't care what their odds are if they want to fight. And for now, they still do. So arm them up. I'm a big fan of the negotiated settlement, but neither Russia nor Ukraine seems interested at the moment. And Russia will not be interested until we resupply Ukraine, at which point they may find a newfound interest in peace. Actually that's another paradox in your reasoning. We should be negotiating a settlement, but not give any motivation to Russia to settle.

This is an ironic thing to say considering they have been starved of the weaponry required to fight. If I were a bit more cynical I would say you are being intentionally disingenuous. We shouldn't be sending them money or weapons! *We stop sending them money and weapons.* See!? They are losing, so there's no point in sending the money or weaponry!