Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's
@ri.oldfolkshome.org
@RIOldFolksHome in all the places
Reposted by Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's
Agree. Anyone who thinks “globalization” is some sort of US economic policy that we can turn on or off has no concept of the modern world. The world outside the US exists and they’re racing ahead with or without us.
November 12, 2025 at 7:22 PM
Agree. Anyone who thinks “globalization” is some sort of US economic policy that we can turn on or off has no concept of the modern world. The world outside the US exists and they’re racing ahead with or without us.
I'd bet saying "inflation was coming down" would have pissed people off even more because many (most, I wouldn't be surprised) think "inflation coming down" means prices *drop* when it actually means "prices are increasing more slowly").
November 12, 2025 at 6:26 PM
I'd bet saying "inflation was coming down" would have pissed people off even more because many (most, I wouldn't be surprised) think "inflation coming down" means prices *drop* when it actually means "prices are increasing more slowly").
In high school I never had to refer to the notes. The act of taking them was sufficient.
In college I definitely had to refer to notes when working on homework and studying for tests. (This was for physics and EE, FWIW)
In college I definitely had to refer to notes when working on homework and studying for tests. (This was for physics and EE, FWIW)
November 12, 2025 at 6:06 PM
In high school I never had to refer to the notes. The act of taking them was sufficient.
In college I definitely had to refer to notes when working on homework and studying for tests. (This was for physics and EE, FWIW)
In college I definitely had to refer to notes when working on homework and studying for tests. (This was for physics and EE, FWIW)
Interesting! That was just the opposite for. I had way better retention when I was taking notes (handwritten because this was the 1980s) then when the prof handed out the lecture slides, notes, etc.
Mind you, I was never trying to take down stuff verbatim but rather paraphrasing and summarizing.
Mind you, I was never trying to take down stuff verbatim but rather paraphrasing and summarizing.
November 12, 2025 at 6:04 PM
Interesting! That was just the opposite for. I had way better retention when I was taking notes (handwritten because this was the 1980s) then when the prof handed out the lecture slides, notes, etc.
Mind you, I was never trying to take down stuff verbatim but rather paraphrasing and summarizing.
Mind you, I was never trying to take down stuff verbatim but rather paraphrasing and summarizing.
I really want to know how many of these people were news-watching adults in the 1970s or early 1980s.
November 12, 2025 at 4:50 PM
I really want to know how many of these people were news-watching adults in the 1970s or early 1980s.
The New England Patriots. 😏
November 12, 2025 at 1:30 PM
The New England Patriots. 😏
The Rockford Files is the best.
November 12, 2025 at 4:58 AM
The Rockford Files is the best.
Yep. Troll or bot for sure.
November 11, 2025 at 8:22 PM
Yep. Troll or bot for sure.
This is deeply misleading. The agricultural section of the bill does NOT ban hemp-derived cannabinoid products that contain less than .3% THC total. www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/hemp/news/15...
November 11, 2025 at 6:26 AM
Yes, having a pension that locked you into working for the same employer for 25-35 years no matter how much it might turn out to suck because if you left early you got little or nothing was such a wonderful thing.
November 11, 2025 at 6:16 AM
Yes, having a pension that locked you into working for the same employer for 25-35 years no matter how much it might turn out to suck because if you left early you got little or nothing was such a wonderful thing.
They’ll screech it & they’ll actually be correct.
Unlike the malpractice-committing author who apparently didn’t bother to check out (or did but didn’t have the mental power to understand) the relevant court cases that make it clear it’d be unconstitutional for anything but over the air radio & TV.
Unlike the malpractice-committing author who apparently didn’t bother to check out (or did but didn’t have the mental power to understand) the relevant court cases that make it clear it’d be unconstitutional for anything but over the air radio & TV.
November 11, 2025 at 12:51 AM
They’ll screech it & they’ll actually be correct.
Unlike the malpractice-committing author who apparently didn’t bother to check out (or did but didn’t have the mental power to understand) the relevant court cases that make it clear it’d be unconstitutional for anything but over the air radio & TV.
Unlike the malpractice-committing author who apparently didn’t bother to check out (or did but didn’t have the mental power to understand) the relevant court cases that make it clear it’d be unconstitutional for anything but over the air radio & TV.
Excellent!
So does Drew Ensign have the biggest entry? Though I suppose Ed Martin has to be up there too.
So does Drew Ensign have the biggest entry? Though I suppose Ed Martin has to be up there too.
November 11, 2025 at 12:48 AM
Excellent!
So does Drew Ensign have the biggest entry? Though I suppose Ed Martin has to be up there too.
So does Drew Ensign have the biggest entry? Though I suppose Ed Martin has to be up there too.
No, I do not.
Spend 30 seconds googling about US defamation law.
The defamation plaintiff has to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the statement is false.
If he can't do that he loses, no matter how much harm the statement caused him.
Spend 30 seconds googling about US defamation law.
The defamation plaintiff has to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the statement is false.
If he can't do that he loses, no matter how much harm the statement caused him.
November 10, 2025 at 4:36 PM
No, I do not.
Spend 30 seconds googling about US defamation law.
The defamation plaintiff has to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the statement is false.
If he can't do that he loses, no matter how much harm the statement caused him.
Spend 30 seconds googling about US defamation law.
The defamation plaintiff has to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the statement is false.
If he can't do that he loses, no matter how much harm the statement caused him.
You would need to *if you want to win your defamation lawsuit*.
In the US the plaintiff has to prove the statement false to be able to win.
If a statement is not falsifiable it is impossible to prove the statement false and so the plaintiff will lose.
In the US the plaintiff has to prove the statement false to be able to win.
If a statement is not falsifiable it is impossible to prove the statement false and so the plaintiff will lose.
November 10, 2025 at 4:34 PM
You would need to *if you want to win your defamation lawsuit*.
In the US the plaintiff has to prove the statement false to be able to win.
If a statement is not falsifiable it is impossible to prove the statement false and so the plaintiff will lose.
In the US the plaintiff has to prove the statement false to be able to win.
If a statement is not falsifiable it is impossible to prove the statement false and so the plaintiff will lose.
In the US a defamation plaintiff has to prove the statement at issue to be false. Which means the statement has to be falsifiable in the first place.
How do you propose Elon prove "Elon is a thief" to be false?
How do you propose Elon prove "Elon is a thief" to be false?
November 10, 2025 at 4:32 PM
In the US a defamation plaintiff has to prove the statement at issue to be false. Which means the statement has to be falsifiable in the first place.
How do you propose Elon prove "Elon is a thief" to be false?
How do you propose Elon prove "Elon is a thief" to be false?
30yr: $558,034
50yr: $1,044,049
100yr: $2,402,602
perpetual: infinite
50yr: $1,044,049
100yr: $2,402,602
perpetual: infinite
November 10, 2025 at 3:59 PM
30yr: $558,034
50yr: $1,044,049
100yr: $2,402,602
perpetual: infinite
50yr: $1,044,049
100yr: $2,402,602
perpetual: infinite
What does it give you that a 30yr doesn’t? You can do that very same refi-ing with a 30.
The difference in payments is small, and will in actuality be even smaller since the 50 will have higher rates than the 30.
The difference in payments is small, and will in actuality be even smaller since the 50 will have higher rates than the 30.
November 10, 2025 at 3:55 PM
What does it give you that a 30yr doesn’t? You can do that very same refi-ing with a 30.
The difference in payments is small, and will in actuality be even smaller since the 50 will have higher rates than the 30.
The difference in payments is small, and will in actuality be even smaller since the 50 will have higher rates than the 30.
I think a 50yr is a dumb idea unless you’re planning to flip the house (and if so there are better options to use).
But let’s not exaggerate either.
But let’s not exaggerate either.
November 10, 2025 at 3:53 PM
I think a 50yr is a dumb idea unless you’re planning to flip the house (and if so there are better options to use).
But let’s not exaggerate either.
But let’s not exaggerate either.
In the first 5 years you’ve only paid down about 6% of the balance and in the first 10 years you’ve only paid down about 12%, so if there’s a big crash you’re hosed.
November 10, 2025 at 3:53 PM
In the first 5 years you’ve only paid down about 6% of the balance and in the first 10 years you’ve only paid down about 12%, so if there’s a big crash you’re hosed.
1) try actually reading what you’re replying to. She’s talking about people who don’t stay in the house long.
2) that “getting screwed” scenario is equally true for a standard 30yr mortgage for years. Look at the principal balance graph for a 30yr at today’s rates.
2) that “getting screwed” scenario is equally true for a standard 30yr mortgage for years. Look at the principal balance graph for a 30yr at today’s rates.
November 10, 2025 at 3:53 PM
1) try actually reading what you’re replying to. She’s talking about people who don’t stay in the house long.
2) that “getting screwed” scenario is equally true for a standard 30yr mortgage for years. Look at the principal balance graph for a 30yr at today’s rates.
2) that “getting screwed” scenario is equally true for a standard 30yr mortgage for years. Look at the principal balance graph for a 30yr at today’s rates.
Thanks for letting us know you don't have any idea what the Fairness Doctrine did or required.
(Which, to be fair, was already obvious from every one of your skeets.)
(Which, to be fair, was already obvious from every one of your skeets.)
November 10, 2025 at 3:00 PM
Thanks for letting us know you don't have any idea what the Fairness Doctrine did or required.
(Which, to be fair, was already obvious from every one of your skeets.)
(Which, to be fair, was already obvious from every one of your skeets.)