In the past when I've answered questions from you, it's proven to be a waste of time. Since your stated goal is to call me a liar, while you boast of your fascist portfolio, I'll avoid further engagement. Troll on, CL!
Let me preempt with a loud....
If that isn't trolling, I don't know what is.
I'm not going to advocate breaking the law, but if you want a revolutionary investment Emiliano Zapata might approve of, consider lending to a worker-owned cannabis farm. They can generate great returns, if they don't get raided fast & furiously by the "Choom Gang." You could even work the land during your free time, to earn an equity stake. Ask your financial advisor for details, and your attorney for precautions.
I'm not sure why you conflated an avatar with a commenter, but you did so first. Perhaps you can explain?
I assumed some degree of consistency, but indeed that was naive. A liberal could invest in clean energy stocks, for example, or lend to a worker-owned farm co-op, but only by diverting some of what (s)he can "afford" to give the approved Obamneycare corporations, which would be heresy in the now established mandatory cult.
First of all, you're not a liberal. Second, you're nothing like Emiliano Zapata. Third, I'm not actually a cat, though I do sometimes feel grumpy. Surely though, if you are a true and loyal believer in the Cult of Eternal Life Through Infinite Spending, you should give all you can afford to a government-approved insurance company.
Obamacare obsessed kitty cats.
If that's your way of calling me a pussy, you can go engage in coitus with yourself. I haven't even mentioned that legislation since your thread last week on (corporate) welfare. Maybe instead of UA, you should put your $ where your mouth is and buy some hospital corporation stocks.
In Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain satirized 12yo Tom Sawyer's absurd purported quotations from "the history books," but that kid was positively erudite compared to the dishonest and willful ignorance of Forthood. The Bible does not explain its many condemnations, e.g. of shellfish ("abomination" according to Leviticus) and pork, but it does say that we are all sinners and to love your neighbor and even your enemy (see above).
Forthood's compulsive dishonesty on this topic results from the difficulties of his own life and Brokeback marriage. He flagellates himself and others, as deliberately primitive religious nuts do around the world. Aloha snackbar, Forthood!
Problem is, I never see it go below where I want to buy,
WTF? You're angling for stock tips behind an avatar of Emiliano Zapata? This takes your pseudo-liberal corporatism to a whole new level.
"Viva la Causa, Compañero!"
technically speaking this would only include people within 1000 yards of your house...
Whatever happened to "Love thy neighbor"
Can't love everyone.
In that case, Forthood, you shouldn't make so many enemies, because Matthew tells you specifically to love them.
Love has to be a 2 way street, it'll never work one way.
Here, Forthood shows yet again that he has never read the Bible that he claims to believe in. His bigotry is as dishonest as hiding behind an avatar of Ronald Reagan, who entrusted his own children to a lesbian couple. I respect authentic Christians, but not hypocrites and liars who use Christianity as an excuse to judge and hate their fellow men.
I don't see it. ..
Your earlier comment conflated biological fathers with stepfathers and moms' boyfriends.
They all exhibit "mainstream sexuality," unlike the child-molesting "celibate" priests who should definitely be kept away from children - not only because of the molestation, but also the brainwashing (e.g. Forthood seems to have suffered from both).
BTW, throughout most of world history, Men were far and away the dominant single parent and outlived women to a huge degree.
I agreed with all of your comment until this last aside. Everything I've found says the opposite, i.e. that women have always lived longer, for evolutionary reasons.
Biological fathers...They are naturally protective of their offspring.
Your earlier comment conflated biological fathers with stepfathers and moms' boyfriends. If you average those three categories together, you would see a higher risk of molestation and other problems than would occur with the fathers you chose to discriminate against. The issue has been studied repeatedly; on average, same-sex couples do fine with children regardless of whether they're male or female. To the extent you can find exceptions, the highest risks are in what you called "mainstream sexuality," i.e. stepfather / mom's boyfriend situations.
So all of this fraud, lies and deceit for a 5% net gain?
Amazing, isn't it?
The gain is actually less than 5%, if you compare to when the legislation got signed in 2010. Spending has increased more than 5% though, illustrating yet again the purpose of the legislation: how to centralize power and maximize revenue collection while minimizing value delivery.
3) They should not adopt children, last thing we need is deviants adopting children and screwing their minds up. Deviants should be kept away from children as far away as possible. We should have them all registered and not allowed to live within a mile of a school. Homosexuals are same as criminals, should not be allowed to adopt.
If it was not for religion, you would not have had this intense hate. Whatever happened to "Love thy neighbor"
There is nothing charitable about Forthood, and his endless bigotry illustrates why there is nothing inherently charitable about religion. There can be faith-based charities, that do charitable work, but I doubt Forthood even contributes to those. Instead, he belongs to the sect of fear and loathing - he's even frightened of black people on TV.
father(s) with non-mainstream sexuality?
Softshell, your attempt at logic is difficult to follow there. You're saying you want "private stuff" for girls to be handled only by fathers who are interested in sex with females.
Restrictions on zoning and planning created the housing crisis and cause it to continue. SF should allow construction of more housing supply to meet the increase in demand. Instead of an overpriced city plagued by the paradox of high wage poverty (even university graduates are piling into overpriced apartments because they can't afford a place of their own), SF could be a more prosperous city with a higher standard of living simply by allowing enough construction to meet demand. Extending rent control out to the suburbs might protect some people, probably at the expense of others, but it does not address the shortage that is causing the problem.
The site is awash in spammers and quasi-spamming, and does not innovate to address the issue. For example, if you are searching for electronics and enter a specific brand name, you'll get a haystack of jerk ads for other products that contain "keywords" (other companies' trademarks) pasted in to fool CL's search into returning false hits. Compulsive spammers post the same fake ads over and over again, day after day, year after year. Ironically, to the extent CL does try to stop that, it ends up blocking legitimate posts, for example attempting to list an intercity ride share in the origin and destination cities gets blocked.
Other services have reputation scoring and filtering, but CL keeps everyone on the same level, which ends up favoring the unscrupulous abusers. Other services have more precise categorization, but CL keeps loose clusters of large haystacks, which lend themselves to abuse of trademarks as "keywords". Its decline illustrates an Internet tragedy of the commons: with no reputation to protect, and hardly any category constraints, the worst abusers proliferate and the best users go elsewhere.
From the article: "The discovery of this tool is another reminder of the importance of secure browsing technology, like HTTPS, since weak security systems can undermine the safety of internet users browsing websites."
Why do homosexual couples have tax breaks, they can't even make children or contribute toward future generation? Not saying two wrongs make a right, just saying tax code is full of crap and if you look at it long enough it'll just make you mad.
DINKs also get the same break, and there are probably as many or more of them than married Gays.
There are also many gay couples who have children, and IRL Forthood's avatar Ronald Reagan entrusted his own children and home to a lesbian couple while on vacation. Forthood knows that, but his internal problems cause him to keep lurching into his preferred counter-factual narrative.
For tech companies in San Francisco, the only real limitation in 2015 is the speed at which they can hire.
I suppose it's nice that the absence of revenue, or even a plausible business model, is no longer a real limitation. Still, I can't help wondering, what search filters are they applying to fail to find talent at $100k? Are they merely talking up their own value, by saying that only a unicorn who speaks fluent Inuit and can also code could possibly do their jobs, or are they limiting themselves to applicants under age 26 who have been coding since age 10? Considering that the revenue model is to find investors and turn large fortunes into small ones, how much programming skill does that require? If you are Uber or Lyft, how much code does it take to schedule a pickup? Also, if it does really require a lot of code, why can't they train in-house? Hire people for a low-paying job for part of the day, and pay them to learn to code for part of the day; grow your own coding talent in-house. I read articles like this and I see the persistent refusal to invest in training, and the refusal to look at anyone other than the narrowest possible applicant pool (in this case, newly minted CS degrees), and then the frantic complaint that there aren't enough candidates and thus the industry needs more H1B visas to compete globally. If the Captain can learn to code and support a family that way, how difficult can it really be?
Seeing the glass half full (so to speak), the tovbot script has at last managed to link an article that matches the OP headline; OTOH, its superficial skimming fails to consider perspective: 4 billion gallons might sound like a lot, but it's only a tiny fraction of a percent compared to agricultural use. "Fracking uses about 100 billion gallons of water every year in the U.S., which is a tremendous amount of water, but animal agriculture uses in excess of 34 trillion gallons." Most of California's water use goes to producing meat and dairy. You could shorten your showers, or quit showering altogether, and after more than a month of not showering you might save the amount of water that goes into one hamburger. You could exterminate all the fish, by drying out the formerly navigable rivers and streams they swim in, and pave those streambeds with parking on both sides, but it would not solve the problem so long as California continues to use more water than it receives from rainfall and desalination.
I'm waiting for AF to open up a diagnostic lab. He don't need no stinking tests to find out what's going on inside a body.
From the linked article: “Putting things into detectives’ pockets is standard procedure."
When the shopkeeper failed to put the money in the detective's pocket, the detective had no choice but to help himself, and ticket the shopkeeper for failing to follow procedure.
I suppose, if the R's win in 2016, they can use the logic of the OP to cut taxes and launch another war in Iraq. That increased debt enormously last time. Strangely, I don't recall it helping the economy.
Whichever party is in power wants more power for itself, at the expense of its rival. Rationalizations are sought, useful idiots recruited, and mechanisms are found. Deficit spending, unfunded mandates, and other tools are developed to concentrate power in the hands of those who wield it at the moment, at the expense of those who don't. Partisans love the lies of their own party, and hate the lies of the other side.
So your chart looks like it is saying overvalued as well?
The chart is Schiller's, and it says current 10-year P/E ratios are significantly higher than the historic median. To return to the historic median, either share prices would need to fall 40% or the 10-year earnings would need to climb 70%, from their current respective levels.
you're out of the liberal club.
It's gone, sold out, foreclosed, replaced by partisan zombies, the Invasion of the Body Snatchers.