misteraven

IMG_2635.mov

Yeah thats crazy! Does the estimate break down materials cost, as well as provide a time estimate? You can easily block out the material estimate yourself if its itemized and then figure out what he's charging per hour for the time. When I was doing the provisioning for the screen printing stuff I got quoted $9k - $10k for the electrical work. Basically trench maybe 15ft, lay down whatever that outdoor pipe is (think it was schedule 40), install a new service entry panel and breaker panel and then run two electrical drops according to spec (specific amperage). They claimed it was mostly materials cost and should take a day and a half. Looked up all the stuff (or a quality equivalent on Amazon and was about $1100, so dudes were taxing hard). Then googled / Youtube'd how to do it all. Ended up spending $1500 to do all of it, as well as require all the overhead lighting, install and new light switch that didn't exist, as well as install 5 new outlets that also didn't exist. Honestly wasn't that hard despite not knowing anything about electrical. Also ended up running plumbing, installing a new sing and outfitting the entire shop for pneumatics, which included running hard pipe through out and install cut off valves, water traps and two pressure gauges. Also pretty simple after a few hours on YouTube. Suggest you consider just doing it yourself man. Bettering it'll be a teeny fraction of that cost since plumbing is pretty much just PVC and glue. Or you can buy quick connects and not have to do anything except cut it to length and snap it together. Even if you go high end and run copper pipes (unlikely), still easy and not that expensive since we probably ran about 8- ft of that through two rooms for out pneumatics.

Realizing I came off like a dick here, so I apologize. But did come off as a cop out to basically say you kinda agree but since doing so wopnt solve anything, you'll just keep debating it and pushing back instead. Not like that comes any closer to solving it.

I think following to Mercer's point(s), if people were to consider college as it should be... An investment in time, energy and money... That we'd see a much different dynamic happening. Further to that, lets pretend that the loans and aid applied to it required the same general qualifications as just about other loan, such as a mortgage or business loan... Requiring you to go to a bank and present what the money is being used for. So in order to actually be considered, you'd make a business case on why that degree is worth the money that is being asked of it and why you're a safe bet to borrow that money, which we know is substantial. So like a mortgage, they'd investigate the school and run comps as to how a degree from that school stacks up against other schools, what the average profession you're seeking pays and how its affected by other market based dynamics. Perhaps even structure it like a business loan in which you need to meet certain projections on a timeline so every quarter they check in to see if your progress is healthy enough for them to keep lending money to continue according to your projections and plan. Sounds wild when you consider it against the current system, but we all know that if the government got out of the student loan business and stopped be the guarantor of last result, thats exactly what we'd be seeing. That and a lot of people being far more diligent about saving for college so they could skip the bullshit or at least minimize the need to borrow, very likely also making them think much harder about going to college, as well as what they want to pursue as far as a degree. No doubt you'd cut enrollment by orders of magnitude so those with a degree, that took all that time to set it up and achieve that goal would be fewer and far between. Not only would the degree be more valuable, but the burden on colleges to ensure they're delivering a product good enough to qualify all that would be far greater and I would presume we'd see far better educations being offered, as well as far more competition between schools to win your business. Like @MercerI still have faith in an open market solution to most things. In the case of this, when we're discussing service / commodity, it would seem a no brainer. Likewise, as in most other instances, as soon as government steps in and decides to regulate and / or supplement the market, you can also expect that they'll fuck it all up. Capitalism isn't perfect, but neither is the human condition and compared to all other systems for commerce, seems about as close to perfect as we can get in practice.

damn, dudes getting serious, LOL.

Neither of them are in my opinion, but very different reasons. Trump is a straight narcissist in the biggest of ways. He's so deeply invested in his own bullshit that he cant fathom any other reality, let alone points of view. Biden isn't too far off, but he's JV at it, whereas Trump is shooting hoops around Jordan with it. But you have to really have your head pretty far up your ass to ignore all the tell tale signs that Joe Biden isn't pretty much riding into the sunset of life. I can respect he has a speech impediment that might force him to taker a little longer to form his communications, but we have a lifetime of his to look at where we can compare Biden over the span of decades. To not see the clear decline in his mental capacity is just ignoring the obvious cause for better or worse that's the guy leading your team or anyone but Trump.

Many great points. Agree with all of it myself except the bit that case for getting a degree is strong. It’s been shown repeatedly at this point that on average the degree, over the course of the average professional career, rarely pays back its cost in the difference of earnings against an individual without a degree. Fact is, once your foot is in the door, career advancement and the compensation that goes with it, is most often tied to performance. Theoretically we could argue a person with a degree should perform better, but that really only holds true at the beginning of it. Seems social stigma, more than anything else, drives kids to go to college despite the notable debt and difficulties for them and their parents to foot that bill. Colleges have done an awesome job of engineering that and with help from the government have created a pretty great racket. Now it’s on the verge of caving in on itself so we see the mad dash to flip it by just agreeing we’ll all pay for it rather then the usual hoops of going severely into debt and adding to all the defaults. That way they can keep the racket running just a little longer.

I think you can simplify this further by highlighting a key part of @Mercer‘s reply. Supply and demand. If something is common to the point of being ubiquitous, it’s no longer exceptional but the norm. As such, it no longer has the value you would see from something that is exceptional. ———— If reality was some Star Trek like utopia, in which money no longer has meaning and we can ensure everyone could chase whatever level of education they can wrap their brains around, then yeah... makes sense. In our real world, the practical application of that is a dumb idea, unless collectively, we’re all cool with footing the bill for everyone else to chase their intellectual pipe dreams. And then we’re also cool with the idea that having a degree earns you nothing extra since it’s expected now that everyone gets free college.

But pushing back to the idea on 12oz scratches that itch?

Like we’re speaking two different languages. Once again, I’m trying to get past the surface of it. I’m trying to show how groups are treated unequally, generally based on what appears to be political leanings. It’s not about the hate speech. That exists everywhere and it’s a cop out for that exact reason. It’s inherent to the system itself since internet protocols don’t force you to navigate the internet with a visible identification, so people have a tendency to do and say things they would likely not do or say in real life, most of it shitty. We have had plenty here on 12oz over the years. Anywhere you decide to not be heavy handed and screen all comments, inevitably leads to people being shitty, which often includes hate speech. Much more so if you host online discussion founded under the idea that it’s “free”. Alternative is to clamp down hard, a very slippery slope, or go do something else entirely. Open platforms lead to a lot of shitty contributions, but they also lead to some brilliant ones. Basically a fair representation of society in general. Point I’m trying to make is that these guys have been treated unfairly, presumably because of their political leanings since they got pulled because their platform has hate speech on it, yet nothing when it comes to the other platforms that are just as riddled with hate speech. Article mentions that these guys even cooperated with the FBI and that the suspect had accounts on the other platforms. Yet the media paints Gab as some sort of exception and they’ve been delisted from the App Store. Gab was never launched with the intent to encourage hate speech. It’s literally based on the idea of free speech and open discourse. It amazing that it would seem this conceit is viewed negatively when it’s literally the core tenant of a free society. It’s why it’s enshrined in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights. You can’t legislate away evil, nor can you legislate people from being shitty. Through the process of public discourse, it’s presumed that civil society will filter out that kinda crap and collectively society will evolve forward as it explores new concepts and ideologies. Unpopular speech is the natural part of that process. If the fear is that the occasional dickheads with obviously bad ideas speak up and might convert the broader public to their bad ideas, then we got bigger problems. The alternative is what you get in places like China and Russia. Hopefully you get the point I’ve been trying to make. You start allowing political biases to be the basis for marginalizing other otherwise unequally affecting a particular group, you’re on a dangerous path. Eventually that shit loops back and bites everyone in the ass. ”Hate speech” was simply the vehicle they used to execute that bias. Since all the platforms have Hate speech, only this one was singled out, that should be pretty evident if you can get past the mainstream media’s narratives.

Did you read the quote? What social media platform isn’t? Seen the most vile shit in YouTube comments yet haven’t seen them yanked off the Apple store. Seen foul shit on Twitter and Facebook but both of those are baked into iOS. You seen very determined to not believe there isn’t an obvious bias in the mainstream media or any agenda beyond reporting fact and news. Curious why your such a staunch advocate for the integrity of the reporting out there that you’ve consistently pushed back on every comment I’ve made suggesting otherwise? It’s cool, you’re entitled to your opinion and it doesn’t really affect me if you adopt my position or not, but seems wild to me how in the face of all of it, you seem to not think that there hasn’t been a clear lack of integrity by the media. Be interested to hear your counter argument for why I should take the reporting at face value.

Not for nothing but Trump stole the show with that “I love you guys” speech on the Whitehouse Lawn. Fly shit kinda got funny after the ten thousandth meme, but his impromptu wrap was pure comedy. Dude is a genuine clown. Figuratively and literally. Shit was hilarious.

Source: https://blokt.com/guides/dissenter-review Assume your comment had something to do with it being a hot bed of anti semitism and racist activity like the MSM is driving or was it just concern that maybe we'd lose members to Gab?

LOLOLOL. He's a parody of even himself.

Unsure if this deserves its own thread, but came across this article today after checking out an online community @Kultsturned me onto called Gab (link: https://gab.com/). Anyhow, its an interesting article that touches on a lot of what we've been talking about here on 12oz and was a particularly interesting read since I've recently looped back to some previous efforts to relaunch the website and evolve our own online community forward. Anyhow, check it out: https://blokt.com/guides/dissenter-review What jumped out at me was a new browser focused on privacy called Dissenter (link: https://dissenter.com/), as well as a chromium extension that allows those that have the extension to have online discussions on any site / page, regardless as to whether they have comments enabled or not. I'm still mainly maintaining Brave as my primary browser, but going to do a little homework on Dissenter and give it a try. Beyond that, there was some really interesting mentions of a lot of the bullshit with Social Media and also touches on some of the echo chamber / polarization as we've been discussing in the Tonight's Debate thread that also jumped out at me. Anyhow, good read. Go check it out.

Yep, browser my social feed and it’s basically the same as what we see here... Nothing much. Again, not to get into a polarized and partisan debate, but is it just all out fatigue? No doubt I’ve done been over all the nonsense that is politics (and it’s coverage by MSM as you all know). Or could it be that between social media and what appears to be an all around devolution of society, that we’ve largely lost the ability to scrutinize what was said, investigate the bits that stand out or seemed less than true and have a proper discussion about the merits and criticism of some of the concepts and counter arguments put forth? Not for nothing, but I’m still basically seeing a lackluster response that seems to really only be centered at that fly on Pence’s head. Because I lived so long in NYC, my feed is largely left leaning friends that have been pretty clear and vocal about where they sit politically. I saw some lukewarm attempts at pointing out Biden’s qualities, but this time it seems they aren’t even bothering to go through the motions. Maybe it’s just me, though I’d like to think I’m pretty unbiased. Or perhaps a better way to put it is equally biased about both clowns running, but it seems to me that very few are genuinely interested cited for Biden / Harris. Only excitement I see is in hating Trump. Fair enough I suppose, but amazing to see how far politics have fallen in general when it’s come to this. Perhaps just me misreading things and obviously just speculation but crazy dynamic all around.

Actually just started Terminal List by Jack Carr. Dude is a friend of a friend and caught a podcast with him, so giving that a go. Used to love Vince Flynn back in the day so thought it would be a fun read. Also out of zombie novel books from my go to authors as well as anything with a half decent review.

Didn’t watch, but find it oddly quiet in social media land. Basically people (or rather the few discussing it) are only talking about the fly that landed on Pence. Apparently Harris had an underwhelming performance if a fly landing on Pence Is the highlight of the debate. Tragically comical if that’s the big take away.

Its 2020... Could happen.

Not entirely 100% but I believe Geneva Convention rules only apply to how countries deal with other countries during time of war. I do not believe it extends to how countries govern themselves. A significant portion of the ammo purchased domestically by law enforcement, literally billions of rounds, are banned for use outside the United States and unavailable for supplying our military. So a cop pepper spraying a make shift Antifa tent of stuff is the least of it.

Damn...

To add a little levity to this so we can all sort of take it down a notch, thought I'd post this picture of Trump secretly flashing the black power symbol. Maybe just pandering for the black vote.

Fair enough, kinda feel the same way to be honest. But I'd like to mention that I addressed this in my response to you. There's bound to be outliers, always. We see a couple dumbasses flash the okay gesture that has been appropriated a secret white power symbol. Though there's a lot of references out there that say otherwise, I'd agree with you that in this context it likely is intended as a racist symbol. But likewise, for every the couple times that we saw this flashed, I also saw a member of Proud Boys that was clearly not white. We saw a little testosterone on display as well, but kinda hard to call that out as violence if we're to compare it to what we've been seeing at "mostly peaceful protests". Sorry man, if this is the smoking gun that is intended to prove that the Proud Boys organization are the "neo-fascists, violent, white supremacists" group that mainstream media is marketing that as, I'm still far from conveinced. And yet again, I'm disclaim that I have any support at all for them... Seriously. If it turns out its the KKK reincarnated, I'll be happy to stand corrected and will acknoledge it without reservation. It still won't take away from the main point I've been tryuing to make all along, which is the media has a very clear bias, which is being facilitated and spread through social media, which in turn is having a significant impact on why the nation is tearing itself apart. At the very least, the media should be allocating equal coverage to the extremism that is so evident at a great many of the Antifa "peaceful protests" as well as classify them as violent extremists, since it's sort of becoming more often the rule, than the exception. At least whenever they're confronted by anyone that doesn't toe the line in regards to an ideology that clearly has the underpinnings of marxism, if not communism. It's not even alluded or implied, they're literally waving flags with the hammer and sickle. Lot of videos out there, but here's some photos to highlight my point. There's thousands of these all over the place and just as many videos. Yet, this group isn't presented as violent and rarely even referred to as extreme. Still can't find anything even in the ball park regarding Proud Boys and yet if we go off their description in mainstream media, one would expect to find similar photo and video that would be orders of magnitude worse than this, if we're to go off descriptions and presentation. Not sure if this is directed at me, but hope it was obvious that I read your response and also that I tried to respond respectfully.

Kinda got busy and also kinda just wanted to step away. Been trying my best to not get stressed over stuff that at the end of the day, I have zero control over and remain mindful of my attempts at not wasting efforts in my circle of concern, since doing so comes at the direct expense of my circle of control. Side note... I strongly suggest you guys take time to listent o this podcast that does a much better job explaining this topic than I could: http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/that-which-you-can-change That being said, I'm curious if you recognize how your reply is largely proving my point? You've begin by trying to define systemic racism. Fair enough, but unsure why you're doing so when the focus I keep trying to draw is in the unequal presentation "marketing" of two opposing groups that are in the media spotlight right now; Antifa and Proud Boys. I've repeated many times, even several times in the same comment that I'm not a supporter or critic of either. My intention is simply to show that the media is disingenuously covering the subject and based upon the evidence I'm suggesting that there is an obvious bias at play. Perhaps you can say both are the culmination of systemic racism, but if we are to truly discuss systemic racism, it sort of circles us back to Biden if we're discussing the two candidates. I can see the argument that Trump has likely enabled racists, but we cant forget Biden and his Crime Bill of 1994 is a literal cornerstone for systemic racism. Not theoretically, not an opinion, but fact. We can see how that legislation was a huge catalyst that disproportionately affected black and minorities. Further to that, despite being vice president for 8 years, under the first black president no less, makes me wonder why neither through a majority in Congress that held for a time between both terms, never made any effort to roll that back. Likewise, Biden has a long track record, and by track record I mean exactly that as a senior legislator for 50 years, that points to instance after instance of direct racism. Even to this day, he blunders out statements that require a hell of a trapeze act to not see as straight racism. But again, the topic is the disingenuous and bias presentation by the media, to which you you're using mainstream media articles as evidence that the Proud Boys is a racist organization. I spent a fair bit of time to investigate and post screen grabs showing the way both are being presented. How Proud Boys, despite having existed for a fraction of the time Antifa has, and really has only been a topic at the national; level for the last couple months, has somehow generated 2200+% more online media coverage than Antifa and almost 5x more than BLM, which has been a national conversation since shortly after Kaepernick took a knee during a televised NFL game on Aug. 27, 2016. Beyond that, we've all seen the protest (riot) videos showing literal battles between Antifa and cops. We've seen traffic stopped, people dragged from cars at these events. We've seen businesses looted and block and blocks of cities burned out. We've also seen shootings occur both as a racist response to Antifa as well as Antifa taking premeditated action towards counter protesters. We've seen two individual cases of Antifa laying siege to literal blocks of cities, as well as have seen how these controlled areas descended into violence and at least one murder. Buy what I have yet to see is anything even close to approaching that, caught on video and demonstrating how Proud Boys are specifically violent and clearly racist. I've seen a shit load of articles, lost of stats, plenty of talking points reaching towards circumstantial evidence that leaves the reader with no other conclusion than the Proud Boys are racist. Honestly, I would expect to see at least a video or two that show it. At least a few images showing them interacting with an obviously and open racist group. On both sides of this debate we've seen outliers that aren't necessarily representative the organization they're supposed to be representing. But I'm not even seeing that on the Proud Boys side so far, which again begs the question of how what we see with our own eyes is not at all similar to what we're being told by mainstream media. Again, they said the sky is red, but I can see with my own eyes its blue, so I have to wonder where the discrepancy is and why. It honestly shouldn't take a lot of convincing, especially on a forum like this, to convince anyone that maybe the mainstream media is full of shit and though society as a whole has yet to accept the various smoking guns that exist as evidence that there is very clear bias by them, that we might take a more skeptical position than general society at large. For example, I'd assume we can all likely agree that Jeff Bezos is probably among the most successful business men in history seeing as he's personally worth tens of billions of dollars and with Amazon, is worth something like a trillion dollars. So why would a billionaire like him decide to buy the Washington Post when we all also know that print media is all but dead and for at least a decade or longer we've heard about top tier newspapers like them and the New York Times struggling financially to the point that they need bailouts and sponsors to keep from going out of business. Would be an odd place to spend money of the desire is philanthropy, so what else would it be? Obviously this is speculation on my part and not a statement of fact, but then again, it does beg the question. Me pointing out that I have yet to see the array of videos of Proud Boys being violent, let alone violent and racist and me also pointing out that they've been covered by online media 2200+% more than Antifa does comes from that same place. Hopefully I've been clear enough that those still reading can understand what I'm communicating here. Also, don't take my word for it... I encourage you to do your own investigations, postulate your own theories and obviously draw your won conclusions. Most importantly, I en courage you guys to take skeptical positions because the media is lying to you and social media is only facilitating it.

Not sure I’d classify him as a monster. Example: List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll Dudes that are responsible for stuff on that list... Monsters. Perhaps you could point to the casualties of the war since he’s been in office, but then again, compared to previous administrations, fairly certain the tally falls on the lower end by comparison. Not to branch off into yet another conversation, but what actions by him make up your perception of him being a monster? Clown... yeah. Brash and crude... for sure. But without going back to my discussion of positioning, marketing and manipulation by media and how inconsistent it is in their portrayal of specific people versus their counterparts... Not sure why people draw comparisons of Trump to Hitler or otherwise might view him as a monster. But yes indeed, Trump has been notably worse for gun rights than even the outspoken anti gun politicians like Obama. Your republican friends that try to say otherwise are just the other half of the contingent claiming the sky is red because that’s the narrative their camp has subscribed to. (Read my previous posts of that doesn’t make sense).