grinreaper

I opened this thread up to post this very thing. It's been awhile since I looked at rents in NYC but Manhattan retail rents a number of years ago could top $150 s/f for those bowling alley shaped t-shirt shop spaces. At 1500 s/f that's $225,000 annual base rent. That same space could typically be found in a strip in the suburbs of Buffalo or Cleveland for $10,000-$12,000. I can remember paying $10 for a draught beer in a !@#$ing TGI Fridays in downtown Manhattan while that same beer would cost $2 in a typical suburban bar in WNY. Locations have consequences.

Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economics professor is considered the architect of Obamacare. Having people with healthcare experience involved with creating the law is a good thing as long as they have no hidden agenda. Having an ideologue running the show that freely admitted that having a stupid public was the only way the bill could pass was probably not the way to go.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

This is what you wrote down in post #37 of this thread: Is this the government's job? http://money.cnn.com...-fixing/?iid=EL Telling businesses how to set prices? Own it.

Those facts can't be true because they don't fit his narrative.

Yes, you did. Explain how the government is setting prices in this instance.

You completely missed the point in your own !@#$ing post, you imbecile.

"Preaching" is Reverend Meathead's way of discussing.

"I lean toward the analysis that any new surge there is more a ruse to build up a force that can be used to stymie China in the near future." Then explain what you meant by this.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/rex-tillerson-team-obamas-humiliating-display/ As he said on occasion, George W. Bush was content to let history be his judge. Barack Obama’s associates do not, to put it mildly, exude that kind of quiet confidence. They don’t appear to believe posterity will prove their judgment sound, so they have instead elected to theatrically rend garments in the hope that their display will distract from posterity’s verdict. The early days of the Trump administration were typified by the near ubiquity of “former Obama administration officials” in the press. Whether they were providing blind quotes to reporters or waxing contemplative about their own sagely conduct of American affairs, Team Obama seemed keen to attack every deviation from what they determined to be orthodox U.S. foreign policy. Their outrage over Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s latest comments is only the most recent hyperventilation. “Tillerson says U.S. no more will condition foreign relationships on countries adopting US values such as human rights,” read the Associated Press headline. This team Obama could not abide. “Brutal thugs are smiling,” bewailed Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power. “Human rights are not only US values. They are universal. Trump/Tillerson approach is [a] green light for repression.” “I guess [the] U.S. is stepping down as leader of the free world,” Obama’s former ambassador to the Russian Federation, Michael McFaul, lamented. Even a handful of reporters felt compelled to express their profound sense of shame. “If Exxon had a foreign policy this would be it,” asserted Politico’s chief international affairs columnist, Susan Glasser. These reactions and others resulted from a tendentious reading of Tillerson’s comments by the AP. The confusion is evident in how other news outlets reported on the secretary’s comments: “Sec. of State Tillerson says American values must be separate from American foreign policy, even as they ‘guide’ it,” ABC News declared without any apparent concern for that sentence’s aggravating contradictions. A modest effort to dig past the headline revealed that Tillerson’s comments were, in fact, rather banal: “In some circumstances, if you condition our national security efforts on someone adopting our values, we probably can’t achieve our national security goals,” Tillerson told his colleagues. “It really creates obstacles to our ability to advance our national security interests, our economic interests.” “It doesn’t mean that we leave those values on the sidelines,” Tillerson continued. “It doesn’t mean that we don’t advocate for and aspire to freedom, human dignity, and the treatment of people the world over.” America’s chief diplomat added that, in some cases, the United States will condition its bilateral relationships with other states based on “certain actions as to how they treat people.” This is better known as “The Obama Doctrine.” Don’t take my word for it; take President Obama’s. “I am also an idealist insofar as I believe that we should be promoting values, like democracy and human rights and norms and values,” Obama told The Atlantic’s Jeffry Goldberg in a 2016 interview auspiciously headlined, “The Obama Doctrine.” He continued: “Having said that, I also believe that the world is a tough, complicated, messy, mean place, and full of hardship and tragedy.”

Look at one of the maps I've posted here and yes he did go to look for a number to give the police. Once he was told to not follow Martin then he didn't follow him. Zimmermann was not the aggressor here. Martin was.

Trayvon Martin was a dumbass who was already at his father's condo and if he had stayed there everything would have been fine. He instead decided to search out George Zimmermann and attacked him. George Zimmermann didn't do anything out of the ordinary. He called the police regarding a suspicious person in his neighborhood. The neighborhood had experienced numerous break-ins in recent months. He followed the instructions of the dispatcher except for getting out of his vehicle to check for a house number to give the police. He didn't follow Trayvon Martin. He was viciously attacked by someone who sought him out in order to do damage. He was in fear of losing his life when Trayvon Martin was slamming his head against concrete. He shot a thug who was trying to kill him. Who wouldn't?

This is a clearer map.

Look at the map. It was Trayvon Martin who stalked George Zimmermann. It was Trayvon Martin who attacked George Zimmermann. It was Trayvon Martin who was slamming George Zimmermann's head into the cement. If George Zimmermann didn't shoot Trayvon Martin then he was most likely going to end up either dead or a vegetable. Trayvon Martin was nothing but a thug and brought about his own death by trying to kill another person.

Which one of those two are not constitutional rights?

It is mind boggling that anyone, even one as dumb as you, would ignore the evidence in order to perpetuate a false narrative. All of you people still clinging to the belief that somehow Trayvon Martin was a victim rather than a thug who failed to kill George Zimmermann and got himself shot in the process are just plain ignorant and delusional.

Are you !@#$ing drunk? What could we do with ground forces against China? If we ever get in a war with them expect large booms and mushroom clouds, not charging up their version of San Juan Hill.

It is amazing how ignorant people can be. Even when faced with the truth they still cling to false narratives that fit their preconceived notions. Have you ever seen a map depicting the routes taken by both parties? If you had, and trusting that you have at least a minimum level of intelligence, it would be clear to you that Trayvon Martin initiated the fight that ultimately got him killed. He was a thug who stalked Zimmermann and got killed as a result of trying to bash Zimmermann's head in.

Trayvon's picture.

Were you around here for the discussion and the trial?

You obviously don't know what transpired that night. Also, you should learn to put a sentence together that makes sense, even if your thoughts don't.

This has nothing to do with race but everything to do with honoring a thug who got killed while he was doing thuggish things. Why do you liberal, progressive snowflakes always try to bring race into the equation?

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/06/university-california-santa-cruz-protesters-sit-meet-demands-black-liberation-rosa-parks The University of California-Santa Cruz caved to the demands of liberal student protesters who staged a sit-in at the administration building, Abby Huntsman reported. Huntsman called it another example of educators accommodating "snowflakes on campus." The school's African-Black Student Alliance occupied the building for three days, demanding four specific concessions from the administration. Read Full Article According to the Santa Cruz Sentinel, the four demands were four years of student housing for "all students from underrepresented communities" who applied to live in the Rosa Parks House, creating a lounge space in the Parks House, painting the Parks House the colors of Pan-African liberation and teaching a "mandatory educational diversity orientation" to freshmen students.

https://conservative-daily.com/2017/05/06/democrats-fighting-right-hide-illegal-aliens-inside-congressional-buildings/ Liberals are not happy. The Trump administration is ramping up a new policy to arrest illegal alien criminals where they are most likely to be found: in courthouses. Last week, the Chief Justice on the New Jersey State Supreme Court warned ICE agents that there would be “serious consequences” if they continue arresting illegal aliens in courthouses. Within days, the Trump administration gave the judge a clear response: no. They arrested two more illegal alien criminals in New Jersey courthouses last week. Democrats are now scrambling to block the practice. They are moving to prohibit ICE agents from arresting illegal aliens in courthouses, schools, and dozens of other “sensitive locations.” What is even worse is that they are starting to convince some RINOs to come on board with their plan as well! Help ICE do its job! Send your message to Congress now and DEMAND that they kill the Left’s attempts to stop interior deportations! Representative Adriano Espaillat (D-NY) has introduced H.R. 1815, the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act and is actively courting liberal Republicans to support it. This bill would list courthouses, healthcare facilities, field trips, school bus stops, food banks, homeless shelters, victim centers, Congressional offices, Public assistance offices, Social Security offices, and DMV offices as locations where ICE cannot arrest illegal aliens. I put a couple of those in bold to draw extra attention to them. First of all, Democrats are actually trying to codify into law the right for them to hide illegal aliens in their own Congressional offices. Let that sink in for a second… They want to be able to give illegal alien criminals sanctuary in their taxpayer-funded offices. The legislation would even allow illegal aliens to be hidden on Capitol Hill and would prohibit ICE agents from making an arrest. Additionally, the fact that they listed public assistance offices as “sensitive locations” creates more questions than answers considering that it is illegal for illegal aliens to receive welfare. If it’s against the law for illegals to receive public assistance, why shouldn’t ICE be allowed to arrest them in public assistance offices? This legislation wouldn’t just make it harder for ICE agents to do their jobs, it would make it more dangerous. ICE prefers courthouse arrests because illegal aliens are forced to go through metal detectors before entering. That practically eliminates the danger of the arrest. If the Democrats get their way, agents would be forced to make arrests in their targets’ neighborhoods, leaving themselves vulnerable. That is unacceptable!

In case you missed it the first time: Seriously, why would anyone honor this wayward kid? An honorary degree in aviation? Is that because he was always flying high? It certainly couldn't be because of his prowess at bashing peoples heads in against the sidewalk. One might think that an honorary degree would be bestowed upon someone that you might want your children to emulate. What a !@#$ed up society we live in.