Taro T

Anyone planning on hitting up Nick's on Friday 9/5? If there is any interest, I should be able to get there this year. Once again won't be going to the opener but will be going to a home game a little later in the year. @Rock Pile @Just Jack @JÂy RÛßeÒ @aussiew @todd @R. Rich @jimmy10 @Dan Gross @holmz56 @judman @SuperBowlOrBust Any others? (for some reason @mead107 isn't tagging)

Presumably it's woke in the same way removing the Indian madien from Land O'Lakes butter was; removing Uncle Ben from Uncle Ben's rice was; and so on and so forth. They're maybe right that it was in that same vein. They got rid of the old white guy that pretty much symbolized their company. But, it could simply be following in the footsteps of "this is not your father's Oldsmobile." Either way, it's likely a poor decision. There's only 1 Cracker Barrel in the general area that we live and it isn't terribly convenient to get there so have only been there once or twice when meeting with others; so really don't have a horse in this race. Have seen the tweets purporting to be the more "modernized" decor that goes along with this rebrand. Presuming they're legit, would put this more in the Oldsmobile category than the woke one as it seems they're getting rid of the "charm" by making it far more generic than it was. But could easily be mistaken about that. Either way, it appears they very likely are sending their current customers the message (whether intentionally or unitentionally) that they aren't really the customer base the company wants eating their food nor buying their knicknacks. And expect the message will go over as well as when in GM's attempt to woo younger car buyers who were not interested in them over to the Olds brand they did so by accidentally telling their existing customers that the cars they were selling were literally not for them anymore. And the younger car buyers didn't become enamored with them and the older car buyers decided they could buy something else - those LTDs and Crown Victorias Ford was selling were just as roomy as their old Olds whose marketers had offended them.

Actually, they promote the idea that 47's DoJ could be releasing what info is in the FBI files that doesn't include GJ testimony nor material that identifies the underage victims of Epstein's teen prostitution empire. Unless that material is going to be part of ongoing or forthcoming prosecutions, they're right that the info should be released in whole and unredacted (again, except for the portions that indentifies the victims or is itself "kiddie porn") and let the chips fall where they may. Do realize at this point they seem to have no intention to do so.

You're seriously blaming 47 for inflation over the past 4 years when he's been in charge for ~1/8 of that time frame? How much of that increase occured on 46's "watch" and how much on 47's?

Well, 4" schlong will stop posting here any day now that TC is over and Bills season is almost back. Don' cha know, he only posts in politics threads during the off-season.

Not so sure it's that they have to worry about losing their job it the report is unfavorable; more so they have to worry about losing their job it their initial estimate ends up getting significantly revised consistently in the next 2 quarters. The initial jobs reports have been wildly inaccurate since she took over in 2022. Hate the way 47 made it look like he's canning her for not giving him results that are favorable to him because she actually has been giving initial reports that were favorable to him (at least the last 2 months) and she did that consistently for 46 as well. If he nominates someone for that post that actually starts getting the estimates close to correct, that would be beneficial. Time will tell if he does or not.

Dude, if you're going after Catherine Herridge, you've already lost. Hers is the gold standard of investigative reporting.

Would prefer the monies raised from the tariffs go towards deficit reduction and if they were to ever get to a point where the budget is balanced (which we'll never get to and never actually did, not even when 42 had a "surplus" (that was due to SS receipts exceeding expenses, but those were already supposed to be allocated to be used exclusively for future SS expenses)) then reduce / eliminate personal income taxes. Realistically, they'll be used to primarily increase spending and modestly reduce the deficit.

If the kid has a horrible credit rating, could see them offering him a ridiculously high interest rate. And he'd be very wise to stick to his guns and pay cash or walk out to another dealer. (As you suggest at the end.) Cousin had a friend that had a couple of bankruptcies in his past; he ended up having payments on a 5 year old car that were more than those for much nicer new cars. But the real money for dealerships is in selling the extras: warranties, undercoating, paint sealants, etc. And their service department makes way more money than the car sales department does.

Two additional points, though much of Russia is in Asia, the portion where most of the population lives is in Europe and, are we really going to judge how good a deal actually is by what the chattering class thinks of it at the time? Seward paid less than half of what Jefferson paid 64 years earlier and got about 60% of the land mass and an incredible trove of resources. There also were those that weren't happy with Jefferson's deal either as the nation still had debt from the Revolutionary War and they didn't fully know what he'd bought; thus the Lewis and Clark expedition.

Umm, Seward's folly was a pretty big deal too. And came 64 years later.

You're point being ...

Apparently it isn't yours either if you believe carbon is a gas at temperatures & pressures approaching/approximating room temperature and atmospheric pressure. 😉

We know one it WON'T be. 😉

4 things. 1. If a country decides not to abide by a ruling of the ICJ, the matter for how to resolve the issue goes before the Security Council. The US has a veto on the Security Council. So, for all effective purpose, the US only has to abide by rulings of the ICJ when it sees fit. 2. If the US withdraws from the UN, it loses its permanent seat on the SC and also its veto power on the SC. 3. The SC can not only force a member country to accept the ICJ's rulings, it can also enforce police actions against countries. 4. The US should NEVER withdraw from the UN nor miss a session of the SC. (The Soviets learned the hard way why you don't want to miss a SC vote back when North Korea invaded South Korea.)