Fudge_Brownie

Should be available in ~5-10 minutes, and stay that way.

Should be available in 10 minutes. Pro-tip link is to it in the future

Media outlets might have declared Hillary Clinton the winner of Monday night’s presidential debates—but what does Wall Street say? For the most part, analysts agree that the markets have ruled in the Democratic presidential candidates favor. Source:Fortune It was a battle between the lawyer and the salesman, and for the most part the lawyer came out on top. BBC Most commentators gave Clinton the edge over Trump after the debate. CNN Money We all know who won the debate, don’t we? She won on every count, and clearly. TIME I didn't watch it, and I'm not sure any of these are the greatest sources of unbiased info... but Fortune pretty much summarizes that you might want to get new sources of information.

I've never been that concerned about weights, but isn't 24lb bizarrely light for an MTB of that era? I didn't think it was easy to get an FS bike under 25lbs. What was the old bike?

Old school cool. Do the hubs have disc mounts? And hopefully you have a shorter stem in the parts bin Let me guess... road bike owner?

I feel bad I never contribute to any of the photo threads, and I happened to have a mediocre photo to contribute for once. From last weekend at a trail ride event, featuring the new-to-me WR.

I was also on the look out for a CRF250X but was happy to find the Yamaha because of the valve stories I'd read about the CRF's. I have a feeling a lot of it is overblown, or related to some early troubles that spoiled their reputation. My reliability bar has been set high. That poor TTR250 has had the shit beat out of it, with very little love put back in to it It keeps on trucking. How do you like the way the 450 feels? Seems like those bikes got a lot more attention in the late 2000's. I've never ridden one, but I feared it'd be a little to heavy and overpowered for the tighter stuff I like to ride.

1. We obviously disagree strongly on this one, but that's fine. My point is that the discussion on these type of issues often ignores what was really said. So it becomes 'he's anti-abortion' instead of 'he wants state level decisions'. See the difference? 2. Because the federal government has done so well with it so far? 3. What about it? 4. I'm lost. Wait... you know that advocating for states rights doesn't mean dissolving the federal government entirely right? That it still has a purpose? And that people can agree on what purpose that is? This is almost as bad as those who claim libertarians want zero government. 5. What road to pave? Interesting. Because you know the federal government collects tax money from all 50 states via gas tax, then distributes it to them, right?

So what? The point being that we have NATO to make these kind of world-governing decisions/debates. I can see why we would want to take part in it, be a member. But I also see that we should reduce our involvement in foreign issues, especially directly. That's a straw-man right? Where you pretend I would take issue with something, even though I haven't, so you can discredit it? I always forget the names for those scenarios. I have universal expectations. And I don't expect him to know about everything off-the-cuff either. I'll say that I think he knows quite a bit less off the cuff than the rest, but that's not really relevant. And the few times I've paid attention to his speaking, he didn't really make much for points. Just talked in generalities. Those aren't quiz moments either. That's prepared speaking, where you're supposed to have a point to make. But you remember earlier in this discussion when I said GJ also could use improvement in his public speaking too, right?

1. ... okay? 2. No I didn't. And does not change my point. 3. I don't understand why we need to quiz candidates on the spot, on many kinds of knowledge, and expect them to speak to it every time. To me, it is not unlike having school children memorize more trivial things that they can reference on the job/in real life before hand. I'd expect a President not to make uninformed decisions. But I don't need them to know everything off the cuff. 4. You're looking to validate your unwillingness to consider other options. I'd accuse you of having the same close mindedness if this was Stein, don't let my personal preferences get in the way. And hooray for single-issue voting. Besides, I believe he'd be fine with your state keeping the drug laws the way they are. He is not for the federal government regulating it. The same dismissiveness was used when Ron Paul said he personally didn't want abortions, but close minded people like yourself conveniently overlooked that he said it should be a state level decision.

People like you are the reason we have the shit selection of candidates we have. He admitted he didn't understand the question/topic, pretty apolitically and honestly, but you need him to be a bullshitter to consider him a viable candidate. You indirectly want a career politician, a talking suit, but then get upset when you get one in office. The part I don't understand is that his political views are such that we should be less concerned with foreign affairs than we have been. I guess maybe it would have been too dismissive to point out in that moment that he is less concerned with their business, to leave it to NATO, and to focus on some of our more local issues? But I'll admit... his public speaking does have room for improvement.

Forgot to grab a picture, but picked up a 2007 WR250F last weekend. It's pretty much exactly what I'd hoped it would be. An improved TTR250. Lost the off-idle torque, but gained a ton of midrange and top end. Lighter. Nifty factory trail computer. Electric start, factory headlight and tail light. And everything about the way it rides is better.

We knew that, but I guess I didn't realize it was so wilful. So, basically, you're wasting people's time? You're one step away from trolling. This is not unlike another person here who contributes very little to the discussion, but tries to play it off as trolling or not caring. Is this like when you fall down, and then say 'I meant to do that'?

There's an irony in your support for PC, and claim that stereotypes are rooted in racism, while talking about the stereotypes of those complaining about PC. You know who I see advocating for PC the most? The same demographic. Though this might have to do with population statistics.

By that logic, you just called him a racist.

Tell them you crushed it

I use my phone. On rare occasion, it will report that it lost GPS signal. It mostly seems to match alright. Most of the matching problems I see are from poorly designed routes. Like overlapping segments, or weirdly positioned start/end points.

I'm not sure that's the norm, especially for those who subscribe to all other monthly services. If you cut that in half (I pay $115/mo, no phone pkg) it brings your total figure in line with the previous one. I'm sure many pay more than I do, but I think 230 is pushing the upper limit. Granted, I think we can all agree this isn't a comprehensive comparison. I think the consumer pricing index (CPI) does a lot of this analysis for us, but I haven't spent the time to figure out what they cover. I bet they've covered this. I've crossed paths with a few people that I think to myself "do they make a lot more money than I think? Or do they just have massive credit card bills?"

I never would have put it that eloquently, but yes. And I find it hard to say that executives are compensated better than ever, perhaps too much, while not expecting that it took money out of pockets on the lower tiers. You've been writing a lot of powerpoints, speaches, or reports lately, haven't you? Monetary 'distractions' is a nicer way of saying that you need to improve self control, or ability to save money. I just spent $75 on an energy drink order, so I don't want to make it sound like I say this from my high horse. But I think you're describing middle class spending habits that are fairly acceptable, as long as you have the income to do it. And aren't complaining about being broke. I'm sure some "in my day" self-deluded asshat will be happy to scoff at your $4 coffee while forgetting they paid $800 for a VCR or a HandyCam. And $800 in 1985 is $1800 adjusted for inflation. It'd be more interesting to see what hasn't scaled well. I believe housing and college have outpaced inflation significantly. But electronics have gotten cheaper, and cars last much longer. I suspect car insurance is quite a bit higher - might have to go look that one up.

The core debate is that Kevin believes a minimum wage should also be a living wage. The part I never understood about the anti-minimum wage job argument that 'look at these skilled people who make that much' is that in theory, the increase in minimum wage could gives those skilled laborers leverage to demand a raise. And I think that could scale up the job market. The opposite argument of what I'm making above is that you scale the minimum wage upward and it just drives up everyone's costs. Now the plumber and the handy-man are charging more, so the landlord has more expenses, so he's charging more for rent. And a bunch of people suddenly have more money so they drive up the cost of rent. Sure you're getting paid more, but cost of living may scale with it. When you advocate for raising the minimum wage, where do you think that money will come from? Your wife is arguably an unusual example, not the norm. But I bet if we dug deeper, there's desk jobs out there. Perhaps 911 dispatcher as an example.

I don't think his own path should negate his argument. But since it's going that direction, I am a bit curious if he'd share his plan. If the current job isn't enough, are there promotional opportunities you hope to advance to from that job? And do you know that they pay notably better? I have a feeling you're the type to keep trying at what you're doing without stepping back and realizing it'll never work. You seem like a people person - sales jobs in certain fields usually have good potential. And some trades seem to pay well enough that I feel bad for those that paid for 4 years of college, and 4 years of lost earning potential, and come out struggling to find a paper pushing job because they were misguided.

My narrative is that the growth in the bottom end is a lack of opportunity for them to move in to the middle. Not that they're falling in to the lower. I think what's happening is they're born in to lower and stay there. That one chart isn't the most interesting though because it doesn't cover wealth distribution. And it's been a bit since I looked at the data, but IIRC the middle block is getting compressed to the left side of the salary range. I agree that the upper has also grown, but I think that's going to correlate with the baby boomer's reaching their peak income levels. I theorize that as they die off, less genx'ers are going to see the same. I haven't looked for or seen data to support this part though. I'm also trying to shift this discussion from herp-derp try harder. Because even if the middle class was 1%, and the lower class was 90%, I think some people would still be mumbling 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' with their fingers in their ears.

My own example shows 50% of the population in middle class. I'm not saying that no one can advance. I see many people who could have a better job but choose not to (coughkevincough). And there's plenty who aren't trying at all. But worrying about them is like worrying about the 0.5% of theft from a Walmart store on principle. It's shooting ourselves in the foot pinching pennies. I'm more concerned about shrinking opportunity. That's different from claiming it doesn't exist. Half of me wants to slash and burn support programs, and ditch the minimum wage just to see the chaos. Primarily because I think it would force people to suddenly give a shit. The catch is that the new voters will likely vote for which ever class president gives them the most free candy.