Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
scaredyclassic
ParticipantIllegal government action is just different than private actor action. When the state acts, it triggers different legal standards, but it also triggers a different reaction from people.
For instance. Consider two different machete attacks. One, a civilian nutjob takes a machete out behind a 7-11 and beheads someone. Bad.
Second, a court holds a trial in Missouri, finds the defendant guilty of shoplifting, and decides to lop off the defendant’s hand with a machete. worse!
The second incident is much, much more alarming, even though it’s only a hand, not a head, because it carries the imprimatur of the state. We are much more concerned about a court
system that ignores the law and brandishes machete justice than we are, as a society, about private actors.
Police officers are state actors and represent the government. When they act illegally, it is more like the second example than the first. That’s where the outrage comes from.
Now, the individual cop might really be a rogue, nutjob outlier (assuming he actually did something wrong). But we can still expect more scrutiny, more outrage, when a state actor acts than a private individual. It seems to carry the stamp of approval of society.
this is not irrational, any more than it would be to be upset about Hmong internment camps if, theoretically hmong people were also simyltaneously criminally but privately individually kidnapping brides as part of a cultural relic from their homeland. just because they are occasionally individually imposing b on each others freedom doesnt mean a gov. internment program is not orders of magnitude more alarming
July 7, 2016 at 7:33 PM in reply to: ot. the life changing magic of tidying up: the Japanese art of decluttering #799391Participantmy closet is very neat
Participant[quote=zk][quote=FlyerInHi]
Of course, being likeable gets a lot done. That’s why, though I’m an ass here, I’m very nice in person.
[/quote]
Being nice and being likable are completely different things. In fact, I’d say there’s not even very much correlation between the two. A raging asshole is probably not likable, but even then, only if he’s consistently and overtly mean. Plenty of extremely nice people are very much unliked.[/quote]
theres a continuing ed. co. called THE LIKEABLE LAWYER with useful classes like HOW TO DEAL WITH NITWITS, RAMBLERS AND JERKS. ive been meaning to take a class.
Participanttemecula streets are safe.
u will love it here.
i walk every day on the street. weaponless. nothing bad happened.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=poorgradstudent]I’m certainly curious how the NRA will respond to the recent tragedies.[/quote]
Tragedies? As far as the NRA is concerned, they weren’t tragedies. They were successes. You know….good (white) guy with a gun. Crickets. That’s what you’ll here. Crickets.[/quote]
product liability. the car is defective because it does not automatically display lic and reg holographically on side window.
Participant[quote=SK in CV]Do you think it’s a dangerous combo? More dangerous than white people with a legal weapon?
California was an almost open carry state. Until 1967. What changed that was a republican lead movement that resulted in the Mulford Act. Even then, white people carrying guns wasn’t a problem for republicans. But when the streets of Oakland were being patrolled by armed Black Panthers, to protect citizens from the Oakland cops, things had to change. Who was it that took guns away from law abiding people? Ronald Reagan signed the bill into law.[/quote]
dangerous 4 the black dude.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]scaredy, you sound just a wee bit apathetic. I understand everything but it can’t be that bad! You still have a few months to make up your mind.
Chin up! The “fat lady” hasn’t even approached the backstage area yet. Stay tuned. This is no time for apathy![/quote]
anybody who says they dont care cared enough to say they dont care, and so, sort of cares.
but i really dont care.
Participantwhat persuades jurors in a trial?
theoretically it’s cold, rational analysis of facts and law.
but that is not how it really goes down in hotly disputed cases.
July 6, 2016 at 10:30 PM in reply to: ot. the life changing magic of tidying up: the Japanese art of decluttering #799351Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Scaredy, how’s your tidying up coming along?
So many things to watch on YouTube. Who needs cable anymore?
http://youtu.be/VOfVW7RZKVY%5B/quote%5Dstill messy.
Participantebay.
i am probably taking weird stuff that does nothing or is hurting me.
the water pik and salt water gargle with 5x a day flossing would probly do the trick
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=scaredyclassic]unless it was in South Park. then its ok. but not in an actual campaign…[/quote]
I know what you mean, but why is this true? I suppose because SP is offensive in an equal opportunity kind of way. I seem to recall Isaac Hayes reading for the part of Chef and saying something to the effect of “I hope you have insurance” in an interview. Can’t find it anymore, though.[/quote]
south park is funny. trump is not funny. vermin supreme is funny. hillary clinton, not funny.
Participantunless it was in South Park. then its ok. but not in an actual campaign…
Participantthe star of david with the money symbol is kinda beyond the pale 4 me
Participant[quote=joeypants05][quote=joec]Yeah, prop tax is much much higher in Texas and also, with so much land, I don’t think Texas is as good of an investment in terms of housing, also without prop 13 that we have here. I don’t think prop 13 would ever go away completely for primary home buyers even though they may try to change it, but with businesses and the wealthy controlling all the laws, it’s unlikely anything will ever change IMO).
My parents have places in TX and they said that they’d lose money if they were to sell the place they bought and are renting.
CA with Prop 13 is a very unique state (are we the only 1 in the country?) so if people move to Texas or Nevada, or wherever, I don’t think they would ever move back to CA due to the much much much higher housing cost.
Not to mention prop tax would be higher if they bought a new place compared to the one that was sold.
Overall, I think if your income is super high, then no state income tax can make a big difference. We know dual income doctors making mil+ in a tax free state and I can see why you’d want to do that, but if that wasn’t you, then I don’t think the numbers are that great assuming you buy something not super great in CA.
A high mortgage is also a greater tax deduction if you are high income in CA so that 3k mortgage compared to TX may actually end up being 2k/month where in TX, you may be claiming the standard deduction.[/quote]
This depends on why you are buying the house. If you are buying the house as an investment then California is probably a better choice since your expected future appreciation is higher. If you are looking to buy a house to live in I’d argue that Texas is a better choice because you get more house for your money. The higher property taxes are more then offset by the income tax & SDI you don’t pay unless you are low income but if that is the case you aren’t in the market to buy a house in California.
I think you are overstating the effect of the mortgage deduction but I also would argue that paying less in interest is a better choice then taking a larger deduction. The deduction only adjusts your AGI down so if your marginal total tax rate is 40% you are still paying 60 cents in interest to get a 40 deduction. I’d rather pay 6k in interest a year and only get a 1k deduction then to pay 20k in interest a year and get a 8k deduction.
There is another key factor that I believe is overlooked which is risk. The risk of having a large mortgage is that if you fall on hard times, lose your job, get very sick etc then it is much harder to sustain a 3k mortgage payment or find a replacement income that can support it. A 250k mortgage in Texas will run you about $1100 a month which would be easier to maintain in case of disaster.
Like I said in my original post to the person that started the thread, we like San Diego but simply don’t want to afford a 3-4k mortgage to live in a not great place/area when basically everywhere else in the country (excluding a few key metro areas) we could live on much less in a much nicer house and area.
We could easily be wrong and if we get there and don’t like it we can always move back or choose the next place to try out.[/quote]
temecula?
-
AuthorPosts
