Drive fast, live hard, no regrets... Sorry Penske

[notfrommensa]

Originally posted by LessinSF
I have it all figured out without his book.

I have to sell my loft for enough profit, which, when combined with a big enough bonus and my current investments, can realistically be expected to return 50K a year pre-tax. Then, I do 500 hours a year of contract work at $100 per hour. For a total income of $100K pre-tax per year.

This, however, is about $60K less than I made last year (investments aside). This deficit is overcome by: (1) I rent for much less per month than my mortgage (even tax-adjusted), property taxes, and HOA dues combined; (2) I stop contributing to my 401 (K) because I don't plan to live much past 70/75 anyway (and I will eventually get my inheritance); (3) spending at least 3-4 months a year travelling places that are much cheaper than San Francisco; (4) a lower tax burden (that will, however, be probably more than offset by higher CLE, dues, FICA, and insurance costs); and (5) a slightly reduced lifestyle while here (fewer $80 dinners alone).

And, even if I burn the principal, I'm pretty sure I can last until I get my inheritance. And, even if I can't, I can always return to law or increase the amount of contract hours I do. But what I cannot do is get back these years to be able to not work, play, travel, whatever I feel like doing. And, I could keel over tomorrow with all that money unspent.

Less (this plan would not work if I wanted kids, but I do not) inSF

If we do marry, are you still wanting a pre-nup. I never heard of the inheritance. Dish?

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
And finally, congratulations go out to Lance Armstrong, 33, and Sheryl Crow, 43, who have announced their intention to make things legal. The seven-time Tour de France champ popped the question to the "All I Wanna Do" singer last Wednesday during a mountain-biking vacation in Sun Valley, Idaho, according to the cyclist's Web site. The couple, who met two years ago, will likely tie the knot in the spring. This will be the first trip to the altar for Crow and the second for Armstrong, who has three children with his ex-wife, Kristen.

Interesting article defending L'Equipe's article, indicting American Cycling for conflicts of interest in defending Lance's innocence, and wondering why the charge was dismissed so easily here. Of note is that the French newspaper and the lab did not know it was testing Lance's blood when it found evidence of EPO doping. The tests were blinded. - http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-...ews/smith.html

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by LessinSF
I have it all figured out without his book.

Less (this plan would not work if I wanted kids, but I do not) inSF

Your plan lacks a female companion. A sugar mama could make things easier, no? Or what happens if you become enamored with a waitess in a strip club and she bleeds you dry before you reach 60?

And 70-75 is pretty ambitious of you.

And never count on an inheritance - unless it's an irrevocable trust, counting on money from the dead will bite you in the ass.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I had a response to your prior post to me composed, but an internet snaffu prevented me from posting it. it was damn good, so I'll piece together what I can remember of it...

your posts on politics do not have anything to do with any contested issue. that is the problem. they are scroll-through fluff. everyone on the board that has posted on the subject has agreed that the buses should have been moved to higher ground before the hurricane and/or used to evacuate anyone who otherwise couldn't get out and that it was a failure of local government that they were not. your posts on the subject are crap that you are forcing us all to wade through in order to find any content. much like the fecal matter lining the streets of New Orleans. the other choice is not to read the PB because the white noise has overpowered the debate of contested issues.

that is my dilemma. and my point, if I must have one.

The water in New Orleans will be pumped away, leaving an unpleasant goo. I hope the same doesn't happen to the PB.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by notfrommensa
If we do marry, are you still wanting a pre-nup. I never heard of the inheritance. Dish?

I don't respond to socks.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
Your plan lacks a female companion. A sugar mama could make things easier, no? Or what happens if you become enamored with a waitess in a strip club and she bleeds you dry before you reach 60?

And 70-75 is pretty ambitious of you.

You are a moron and do not realize the unlikelihood of either of your premises occuring.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It goes beyond agreeing the buses should have been moved (that's a no-brainer) and simplifying the issue as you have is either being wilfully ignorant or disengenous. the broader issue is what is the role of the various governmental entities in ensuring disaster preparedness and response. My point has been that the responsibility primarily, up through post-levee breaking was the local authorities and their failure was paramount to the resultant death and human suffering. Ty says he expects the local government to be incompetent and the Fed must take primary responsibility for everything. Over the last three days a lot of interesting information that raises additional questions about the local response and responsibility have come out. I posted them and the response from a certain wing, is generally, so what where was FEMA. Ty continues to respond and say that might be troubling, I would like to know more. But on the Federal side, everyone knows enough know to indict.

The blame Bush message first and frequently on every issue is far more white noise than anything I posted related to nagin's faiulures. That white noise has been going on for 5 years.

the local government responsibility part was in my first post (and before you posted this response I had edited it back in to my attempted repost). I'm not going to debate you here on the points you raised about local government response. That belongs on PB if at all. And I don't think anyone, Ty included, is seriously debating whether there is responsibility to go around here. I am saying that the manner in which you post things directly detracts from people's willingness to read your content. I am not the first person to point this out to you. or even the first person today to point this out to you.

as to your blame Bush crap, need I remind you of your 10 to 15 thousand anti-Clinton posts? You are such a fucking hypocrite. It almost makes the effort of asking an admin to put you on ignore for me seem worthwhile.

Hopefully at some point you will start being amusing to me again. But that point will definitely not be today.

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by LessinSF
I have it all figured out without his book.

I have to sell my loft for enough profit, which, when combined with a big enough bonus and my current investments, can realistically be expected to return 50K a year pre-tax. Then, I do 500 hours a year of contract work at $100 per hour. For a total income of $100K pre-tax per year.

This, however, is about $60K less than I made last year (investments aside). This deficit is overcome by: (1) I rent for much less per month than my mortgage (even tax-adjusted), property taxes, and HOA dues combined; (2) I stop contributing to my 401 (K) because I don't plan to live much past 70/75 anyway (and I will eventually get my inheritance); (3) spending at least 3-4 months a year travelling places that are much cheaper than San Francisco; (4) a lower tax burden (that will, however, be probably more than offset by higher CLE, dues, FICA, and insurance costs); and (5) a slightly reduced lifestyle while here (fewer $80 dinners alone).

And, even if I burn the principal, I'm pretty sure I can last until I get my inheritance. And, even if I can't, I can always return to law or increase the amount of contract hours I do. But what I cannot do is get back these years to be able to not work, play, travel, whatever I feel like doing. And, I could keel over tomorrow with all that money unspent.

Less (this plan would not work if I wanted kids, but I do not) inSF

I can think of a way to save even more money--move in with Spanky. I'm sure he would welcome the company and the potential for two wild and crazy guys hitting the town, strippers in tow. I expect to be invited to the poker games.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
the local government responsibility part was in my first post (and before you posted this response I had edited it back in to my attempted repost). I'm not going to debate you here on the points you raised about local government response. That belongs on PB if at all. And I don't think anyone, Ty included, is seriously debating whether there is responsibility to go around here. I am saying that the manner in which you post things directly detracts from people's willingness to read your content. I am not the first person to point this out to you. or even the first person today to point this out to you.

as to your blame Bush crap, need I remind you of your 10 to 15 thousand anti-Clinton posts? You are such a fucking hypocrite. It almost makes the effort of asking an admin to put you on ignore for me seem worthwhile.

Hopefully at some point you will start being amusing to me again. But that point will definitely not be today.

I don't want to debate the merits of the issues here either, and I tried not to do that but rather talk in general terms. In general terms I have said there is blame to go around but I think the discussion from certain parts of the spectrum tends to be conclusory and one sided in its criticism of one level of government. I stand by that. if the longer posts with facts, cites to School Board minute meetings on the issue, cites to state evacuation plans bother you, I don't know what to say. Its factual evidence of what went on. It should be looked at and discussed before reaching a conclusion to the contrary.

As for the Clinton charge, you can believe this or not, I was never really that anti-Clinton (in Spanky's analysis I voted for him, twice) until certain parts of the spectrum lost all ability to be objective. I have never seen someone from the opposite side of me, including lawyers, be able to say perjury in front of a federal judge is wrong without qualifying it with an exception that doesn't exist in any statute-and you want to say I am a hypocrite? If one side refuses to be objective why should the other?

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
as to your blame Bush crap, need I remind you of your 10 to 15 thousand anti-Clinton posts? You are such a fucking hypocrite.

Why can't someone dislike both? I do.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I don't want to debate the merits of the issues here either, and I tried not to do that but rather talk in general terms. In general terms I have said there is blame to go around but I think the discussion from certain parts of the spectrum tends to be conclusory and one sided in its criticism of one level of government. I stand by that. if the longer posts with facts, cites to School Board minute meetings on the issue, cites to state evacuation plans bother you, I don't know what to say. Its factual evidence of what went on. It should be looked at and discussed before reaching a conclusion to the contrary.

As for the Clinton charge, you can believe this or not, I was never really that anti-Clinton (in Spanky's analysis I voted for him, twice) until certain parts of the spectrum lost all ability to be objective. I have never seen someone from the opposite side of me, including lawyers, be able to say perjury in front of a federal judge is wrong without qualifying it with an exception that doesn't exist in any statute-and you want to say I am a hypocrite? If one side refuses to be objective why should the other?

care to count how many posts I have made about Bush on PB or otherwise? I am actually anti- most politicians, either side of the fence. Go ahead and find and point to a bunch of my rhetoric-filled politics posts.

Hell, I probably have about 100 posts there total. I like to read what people post there when they are posting actual content, but have little to no desire to enter into pissing matches over politics with anyone there. I even stood up for you and Hank as recently as yesterday, if you recall.

Anyway, I am not at work and engaging in this discussion with you any longer would be counter to my Thursday evening enjoyment, so instead I'm going to head off into the sunshine and maybe run across the street to shop and/or drink.

Toodles!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Ty says . . . the Fed must take primary responsibility for everything.

One of the reasons I quickly tired of engaging youon the FB is that you cannot help yourself but misstate other people views. On the above point, you know I don't think that. We traded PMs about it yesterday.

Whether you're being inattentive or provocative, it doesn't matter anymore. It's like arguing with a second grader.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
And finally, congratulations go out to Lance Armstrong, 33, and Sheryl Crow, 43, who have announced their intention to make things legal. The seven-time Tour de France champ popped the question to the "All I Wanna Do" singer last Wednesday during a mountain-biking vacation in Sun Valley, Idaho, according to the cyclist's Web site. The couple, who met two years ago, will likely tie the knot in the spring. This will be the first trip to the altar for Crow and the second for Armstrong, who has three children with his ex-wife, Kristen.

Welcome to Monday.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Interesting article defending L'Equipe's article, indicting American Cycling for conflicts of interest in defending Lance's innocence, and wondering why the charge was dismissed so easily here. Of note is that the French newspaper and the lab did not know it was testing Lance's blood when it found evidence of EPO doping. The tests were blinded. - http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-...ews/smith.html

How do they explain his wins the next 6 races?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Why can't someone dislike both? I do.

I think I might be more critical of Bush but for the blatant prejudice and close mindedness of the anti-Bush crowd, which makes me defensive. I have had educated people who claim to be open minded, diverse and anti-bias come into my home with no actual knowledge of my politics and say to me, as they ate my food and drank my wine, "I could never socialise with someone who voted for Bush, they are just awful people". Literally. As partisan as people may think I am, the supermajority of people I associate with left of Hillary Clinton and some of them are open socialists. As partisan as I am, I would never say something so ignorant or prejudiced and I would never teach my kids blind hatred of another group of people because they voted for the opposite mainstream party. Yet I see, in person, liberals do it on a daily basis. Literally. And before someone cites the religious right as exhibiting that same behaviour, I don't consider the religious right generally to be educated open minded people, so I expect close minded parochial ignorance out of them.