That’s my roots. Maybe that’s why it appeals to me.
That’s my roots. Maybe that’s why it appeals to me.
Clear, concise, and with respect. That seems exceptional for a modern parent.
Yeah, it’s funny. But, OP, please tell him he’s awesome for me.
I can identify the holographic sight and the rifle. What’s everything in-between?
Nothing matters if there’s no meaningful choice on the ballot. And, your single issue perspective is part of the problem: You put your feelings first.
That’s definitely not the quality of answer I was expecting. Thank you. I’d not realized Sony has been such an innovator.
A mod deleted my comment and suggested I approach in a better way. I apologize for my presentation.
You were righteously angry. And, it’s definitely not ethical for the other to respond to words with physical violence.
I’m a multiple-minority with a strong sense of justice. I speak from experience when I say: We must pick our battles and means wisely, particularly since the orange baffoon emboldened a wide scope and magnitude of hatred.
I wasn’t there. But, it seems almost certain this was not a wise battle for you to fight alone, perhaps at all. There’s almost certainly something you should learn from this. And, whatever it is to be learned, it’s definitely not to silence yourself and advocate others follow.
If you tell us more and solicit others’ input then maybe there’s insight we could offer. And, if this isn’t a safe enough space to do that, PM me. I’ll share a place where such a post would be very well-received.
Why is the “high end” brand Sony?
About 1998: I tried to ask a Sony receiver to deliver about 80% published RMS. After about two minutes it went into a protection mode, never to recover, bricked.
About 2005: A used Sony 5.1 HT setup’s receiver failed. The speakers said 4 Ohm on them. An HK 4 ohm stable receiver begs to differ. Speakers went to Craigslist.
I’ve been avoiding Sony for nearly 20 years. Are they doing something right for playback devices such as a CD player?
Because if you don’t do as the others then you’re perceived as personally attacking their bandwagon comfort. Said another way, your nuanced ideology is far less important than their shallow feelings.
I don’t answer questions twice.
Removed by mod
I can’t dumb it down any more. Perhaps another can do so.
I mean the stock market is literally gambling
I’ve a better record of success than the most successful poker players. Is it ten years of good luck or the consequences of effort and skill?
The proposal is whether or not we should allow people to use unrealized gains to secure loans without having to pay taxes on said gains at the point of taking the loan.
Thus locking out all non-corporate investors from margin, prerequisite to options, prerequisite to risk mitigation and gains enhancement. The average investor looses the freedom to do much more than DCA a fund.
This would only occur if you’re worth more than 100 million.
It’ll never be passed in such a way. Legislation always favors the corporate and wealthy as they’re the ones that write it. It’s most perverse in finance and investment. There’s been nothing favoring human investors since the breakup of Ma Bell.
It’s totally inadequate to save the republic from the nearly-unmitigated, algorithmically-optimized capitalism that exists today. The biggest fish, corporations, would simply get bigger by eating their biggest threat: humans with a lot of resources, but not the most affluent.
The stock market is a tool. It’s not the cause.
TL;DR:
The neolib’s proposal is crap.
This isn’t:
legislate away most of corporate personhood
restore the Glass-Steagall Act
repeal the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Constitutionally outlaw corporate personhood and all derived market futures. But, that won’t solve the core issues with capitalism or human proclivity.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Man in the middle at the demark, flower pot, or ped. It’s “clipboard and safety vest” easy until underground or past the mux.