Meet your new thread, same as the old thread. - Page 130

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 07-13-2007, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No man is dirt poor if he's into you. He'll find a way to pay.

Unless you're an idiot, every man learns by 25 that he'll never have any real money. You get some crap like a nice car and clothes and some watches and shit like that. nd vacations. But the Cash. That's not yours. Which is fine. WTF would I do with it but waste it on cds and alcohol and piles of clothes I don't need?

I'm going Buddhist. Throwing all material out the window. Except for the expensive food. I can't give up good food.

I am with you completely.

Except that I also don't want to give up the wheels, even if they're somewhat humble. I may go Buddhist, but I'm not going to take the damn train everywhere.

sebastian_dangerfield · 07-13-2007, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I am with you completely.

Except that I also don't want to give up the wheels, even if they're somewhat humble. I may go Buddhist, but I'm not going to take the damn train everywhere.

Buy a good one and take care of it. I'd lease if I could, but I drive too much. I'm going to try to keep the two I have for 200,000 miles. I used to flip them at 60 to 80k, but when you do the math, with all the transfer costs and annoyance built into that cycle, you're better off just keeping a good one for the really long haul. A Japanese or German car will do 200k highway miles easily if you take care of it.

The beaten in thing is nice. The badge just fell off the hood of one of them, and it's a good a pile of dinks on it. Gives it a nice worn in look, and nobody will want to steal it.

SlaveNoMore · 07-13-2007, 11:55 AM

Quote:

sebastian_dangerfield
I'm going Buddhist. Throwing all material out the window. Except for the expensive food. I can't give up good food.

Becoming a Popov vodka guy, eh?

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-13-2007, 01:34 PM

NYT:

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not exist before the Sept. 11 attacks. The Sunni group thrived as a magnet for recruiting and a force for violence largely because of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which brought an American occupying force of more than 100,000 troops to the heart of the Middle East, and led to a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad.[...]

But while American intelligence agencies have pointed to links between leaders of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the top leadership of the broader Qaeda group, the militant group is in many respects an Iraqi phenomenon. They believe the membership of the group is overwhelmingly Iraqi. Its financing is derived largely indigenously from kidnappings and other criminal activities. And many of its most ardent foes are close at home, namely the Shiite militias and the Iranians who are deemed to support them.

“The president wants to play on Al Qaeda because he thinks Americans understand the threat Al Qaeda poses,” said Bruce Riedel, an expert at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy and a former C.I.A. official. “But I don’t think he demonstrates that fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq precludes Al Qaeda from attacking America here tomorrow. Al Qaeda, both in Iraq and globally, thrives on the American occupation.”

Ezra Klein:

AQiM is entirely a creation of our invasion. We have triggered the activation of a new branch of al Qaeda, a branch that has amassed extensive experience in adapting terrorist tactics to urban warfare, has proven our vulnerability, and will endure long after we've left. If we weren't fighting them over there, not only would they not be coming here, but they wouldn't exist in the first place.

linkini

sebastian_dangerfield · 07-13-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Becoming a Popov vodka guy, eh?

No. No. Booze is still a major expenditure.

Which reminds me... It's past noon EST.

ETA: Dug into Knob Creek for the first time in a while two weeks ago. Those 20 units of proof make such a difference. Red Bull and bourbon is just a stupid drink. I can't smash the furniture in my own home.

Even in the basement.

ltl/fb · 07-13-2007, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No. No. That's still a major expenditure.

Which reminds me... It's past noon EST.

Are you giving up the house?

sebastian_dangerfield · 07-13-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Are you giving up the house?

Honestly, I couldn't care less about the house. That makes her happy. I like the performance aspects of things most. It's all a quest to find that sweet spot of perfect irresponsibility and promise you had at 22 and the world works real hard to take away from you for the rest of your life.

I'm working my way back. Slowly.

ltl/fb · 07-13-2007, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Honestly, I couldn't care less about the house. That makes her happy. I like the performance aspects of things most. It's all a quest to find that sweet spot of perfect irresponsibility and promise you had at 22 and the world works real hard to take away from you for the rest of your life.

I'm working my way back. Slowly.

Having a kid and a wife who likes her huge, expensive house are really good, solid steps back to that age-22-ness. I can tell you are making real progress. Kudos!

sebastian_dangerfield · 07-13-2007, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Having a kid and a wife who likes her huge, expensive house are really good, solid steps back to that age-22-ness. I can tell you are making real progress. Kudos!

Like I said, it's slow. I'm a have my cake and eat it kind of guy.

ltl/fb · 07-13-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Like I said, it's slow. I'm a have my cake and eat it kind of guy.

OK, so if you aren't giving anything up w/r/t food, drink, housing,* or car, what are you giving up? Did you give away your wardrobe, and are you now wearing the same stuff every day?

*including furniture, apparently.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 07-13-2007, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
OK, so if you aren't giving anything up w/r/t food, drink, housing,* or car, what are you giving up? Did you give away your wardrobe, and are you now wearing the same stuff every day?

*including furniture, apparently.

You know, it's possible to have it all and just ignore it.

sebastian_dangerfield · 07-13-2007, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
OK, so if you aren't giving anything up w/r/t food, drink, housing,* or car, what are you giving up? Did you give away your wardrobe, and are you now wearing the same stuff every day?

*including furniture, apparently.

Actually, yes. You really wouldn't want to smell these old swim/surf shorts.

sebastian_dangerfield · 07-13-2007, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You know, it's possible to have it all and just ignore it.

I think they call that not knowing what the fuck you want.

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-13-2007, 02:55 PM

Paul Krugman:

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Ralph Nader mocked politicians of both parties as “Republicrats,” equally subservient to corporations and the wealthy. It was nonsense, of course: the modern G.O.P. is so devoted to the cause of making the rich richer that it makes even the most business-friendly Democrats look like F.D.R.

But right now, as I watch Senate Democrats waffle over what should be a clear issue of justice and sound tax policy — namely, whether managers of private equity funds and hedge funds should be subject to the same taxes as ordinary working Americans — I’m starting to feel that Mr. Nader wasn’t all wrong.

What’s at stake here is a proposal by House Democrats to tax “carried interest” as regular income. This would close a tax loophole that is complicated in detail, but basically lets fund managers take a large part of the fees they earn for handling other peoples’ money and redefine those fees, for tax purposes, as capital gains.

The effect of this redefinition is that income that should be considered by normal standards to be ordinary income taxed at a 35 percent rate is treated as capital gains, taxed at only 15 percent instead. So fund managers get to pay a low tax rate that is supposed to provide incentives to risk-taking investors, even though they aren’t investors and they aren’t taking risks.

I haven't paid attention to this issue at all. Can someone explain to me why this -- particulary, his last sentence -- is wrong?

Shape Shifter · 07-13-2007, 02:58 PM

Crazy liberal Peggy Noonan on W:

Americans have always been somewhat romantic about the meaning of our country, and the beacon it can be for the world, and what the Founders did. But they like the president to be the cool-eyed realist, the tough customer who understands harsh realities.

With Mr. Bush it is the people who are forced to be cool-eyed and realistic. He's the one who goes off on the toots. This is extremely irritating, and also unnatural. Actually it's weird.

http://opinionjournal.com/columnists.../?id=110010326