RedDenver

17 hours ago, teachercd said:

Didn't you say your friends had an Ooni?  Did you happen to try pizza from it and if so, what did you think?

 

That heat just changes everything.  That electric Ninja was great, really kept a high temp.

The pizza was really good. I think it took 2-3 minutes, but I don't remember exactly.

19 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Bit the bullet and got one today.  Cuisinart 3-1 pizza oven.

 

Not bad but not great.  It says it gets to 700 but I think 630's (like my credit score) is more accurate.

 

So, what is the big deal with that difference?  Well, 700 and up you are cooking in 3 minutes.  600-630ish...8-9 minutes.  

 

I added in some adjustments to see if I can get to and keep it at 700 so we will see.  

 

It was 200 dollars.  I sort of wish now I had just got the 300 dollar Ninja Woodfire one which I have used before and have cooked pizza in 3 minutes.

Is it electric, gas, or wood fired?

Fancy is the #1 F word for someone drinking from that cocktail glass.

5 hours ago, teachercd said:

The fact that some people think low income tax is bad...is so weird to me.

 

 

The fact that people don't understand what taxes pay for... is so weird to me. Lower taxes is penny wise and pound foolish, as has been shown over and over again.

4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

They absolutely did foster an economic growth spurt and have paid for themselves as evidence by the massive increase in government revenues in subsequent years.  A stronger economy btw going into Covid….also allowing for a much stronger post Covid recovery (combined with quite a lot of government spending).  
 

Tax cuts do have an immediate deficit component to them, they also foster growth in years after which increase treasuries revenue which in turn pays for the tax cuts.  It’s not an immediate process like so many talking heads like Krugman on the left conflate it to be.  

Ah yes, the supply side economics makes a comeback. Remember when Kansas was going to be the experiment that showed how great it was?

Makes sense

5 minutes ago, Slow yer Roll said:

Go back and read the first 1/2 dozen pages in this thread.

I think most of the love for Deion being Nebraska's coach was in a different thread.

22 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

If this is what needs to happen, to get out of this total crap show we are in now, I support it.  But, the devil will be in the details.  How are they going to have this, while abiding by Title 9 issues....and be workable for AD departments that already are running in the red?

 

Also, athletes need to be ready to give up some of what they have enjoyed.  (being able to transfer whenever they want, opting out of bowl games...etc.)

 

10 years ago, all the power was with the programs/teams.  Now, all the power is with the players......with this, hopefully that evens out in the middle somewhere.

22 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

This is my biggest question on this.  If they do it as "revenue sharing" can they get away with directing most of the payments to the revenue-generating sports?  If not there are going to be a whole lot of happy golfers and tennis players and a bunch of pissed-off football players.

I talked to a lawyer (she's a corporate contracts lawyer, not a in sports or labor law though) that said Title IX only applies to equality of participation for players, she thinks that the universities can pay the players as a separate entity and not as employees to avoid Title IX salary issues. It's a new area of the law though, so no one really knows what will happen.

Fancy is #1?

that image doesn't render for me

12 hours ago, funhusker said:

I haven’t followed closely.  It’s my fault.  
 

I assumed you were defending these idiots “protesting” on the campuses and shutting down learning only to promote antisemitism.

No worries, I'm making an orthogonal point, which is easy to misunderstand. Admitting fault on a message board is impressive, so kudos to you, sir.

Just now, funhusker said:

And wasn’t Parks arrested?

Yes - that's my point. She was arrested for breaking the law. But it was clearly not a riot despite your claim: "If it breaks laws, it’s not a protest.  It’s a riot."

Just now, funhusker said:

Easier to get sympathy from the public when getting arrested for sitting on a bus going to work instead of throwing rocks and calling people racist names.

 

These pro-hamas protestors are the racist a$$h@!es that Parks was standing up against.  Get a clue man!

Yes, we completely agree here. I think you are missing the point. Read what I wrote again.

12 minutes ago, funhusker said:

If it breaks laws, it’s not a protest.  It’s a riot.

 

yes, there were riots along side the BLM protests.

Rosa Parks broke the law with her protest to not give up her seat. The Greensboro sit-ins were protests where people were arrested for trespassing. Sometimes protests must break the law and that doesn't make them riots.

I took a look back at some of the early posts in this thread and found a couple of good calls:

On 12/3/2022 at 2:05 PM, ColoradoHusk said:

I think Prime will do well in the short-term in recruiting and transfers but their lack of NIL will hurt them. Yeah, CU has a lot of alumni and I’m sure a lot with $, but CU typically struggles with getting $ donated to them. 

On 12/5/2022 at 6:43 PM, Enhance said:

Look, until Deion does something on the field, he's as much as hype as any other newly hired coach. There's a lot to like about him and some things to be concerned about.

 

But I don't think next year's game is going to tell us much of anything about either Sanders or Rhule.

 

I'll tell you one thing though, I can't WAIT for all faux Husker fans who will come out of the woodwork if Colorado wins. There will be a lot of s#!tposting here. They'd rather be right about Rhule and/or the program than actually support the program.

2 hours ago, Enhance said:

Something I feel like is getting conveniently overlooked by some people in the whole Columbia University thing.

According to my research, Columbia (along with most universities) have clearly stated policies surrounding protests or demonstrations, where they can happen, how long they can happen for, etc. The policies seem quite fair and reasonable, allowing for demonstrations while still not interfering with other students or the going-ons of the university. So, if my facts are right, the Columbia students began a multi-day encampment that violated several university policies and wouldn't disperse, so they were arrested on Apr. 18. Then it all escalates into the building takeover that ended in more arrests last night.

 

Now, someone can certainly tell me if my facts are wrong, but all these people screaming about how Columbia is in the wrong and mishandled this whole thing... seems a lot like the pot calling the kettle black. Shouldn't the responsibility be on the demonstrators to do things the right way? Free speech without infringing on the rights of others yeah?

I agree with you in this case. But I think it's also important to remember that throughout history the rules and laws are often made to minimize or prevent protests, so protests not following the rules is mostly how they've had to operate. So it's somewhat a matter of if the rules Columbia has for protesting allow for real protests or not, which I think they do in this case.

3 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

My main problem with the wealth tax is that it's unnecessary. 

 

Just raise capital gains tax rates on the sale of stock. Add a surcharge to sales of stock that exceed certain profit amounts ($10, 20, 30 million) or have the capital gains only apply to accounts with a certain balance or individuals with a certain net worth. This way they are only being taxed on the amount of money they actually profit while simultaneously only targeting super rich individuals.

The wealth taxes incentivize spending and spreading wealth (i.e. not accumulating as much), both of which strengthen the economy by increasing the flow of money through the system. Capital gains taxes incentivize holding capital and not realizing the gains, so it cannot do the same thing as a wealth tax.

16 minutes ago, teachercd said:

See, that is my concern.

 

I THINK I would use it a lot, once a week or so.

 

I no longer have a grill since I got a griddle.  

Seems like a griddle would work really well for pizza.

I don't have a pizza oven but some friends have the Ooni brand that they like.

16 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

probably unconstitutional.  

I doubt that, which part of the Constitution are you thinking of?

16 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

@RedDenver lots of pages to sift through though for you unfortunately.  I’m not taking the time to do it.   This link was embedded in a Forbes article as the genesis of Biden’s  unrealized gains tax proposal 

 

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2025.pdf

 

Yeah, I haven't had the time to spend more than a few quick google searches and couldn't find a link to the exact proposal either. Thanks for that link though, I'll take a look at it later.

16 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Ok…..just think of the concept. 
 

It’s f#&%ing stupid. 

16 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Ok, explain the reality to me about taxing unrealized gains. 
 

the concept is beyond idiotic. 

We've had this same discussion on a wealth tax years ago. I'm not in favor of this particular proposal as I think the 25% rate is too high and/or the $100 million threshold is too low. But in general a wealth tax is not a bad idea IMO, which I know you vehemently disagree with. If I was to change the proposal, I would propose something more along the lines of an annual 10% unrealized capital gains tax on wealth over $1 billion. Although a 1% unrealized gains tax starting at $100 million and going up an additional 1% for every $100 million also seems reasonable to me.

The biggest problem with any unrealized gains tax is that it greatly matters how the gains are measured. Is it on Jan 1 at midnight? Some average over the past 3 years? 10 years? As Archy points out, what happens if they lose a ton of that wealth the next year? So while I think a wealth tax is fine in concept, in practice it's very hard to see how it would be fairly and consistently applied, which is why I think an inheritance tax (or death tax for the melodramatic) makes a lot more sense.

11 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Isn't the concept similar to property taxes?

Yes

48 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Yes, over 150 years ago one did happen.   And at one point Kansas was a shallow sea.  

150 vs 250,000,000 years ago - and one is geological and the other the political. Comparison seems par for the course for Archy.

58 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s still as Buster said absolutely fricken stupid and most likely unconstitutional.  

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

I don’t care if it only affects billionaires. Taxing unrealized gains is idiotic. 

You're both drawing conclusions based on second or third hand information. What's the actual proposal?

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

So damn stupid. 
 

 

Has anyone actually found what the proposal actually says? Seems like there are a lot of misleading or down right lies about this. I've looked around and all I can find is references to a 25% tax on unrealized captial gains for those with more than $100 million in wealth:

Quote

The 25 percent minimum tax on unrealized capital gains has several novel features and would for the first time attempt to collect tax on a broad set of assets on a mark-to-market basis or on imputed returns, i.e., without a clear market transaction to firmly establish any capital gain or loss. It would apply to taxpayers with wealth greater than $100 million, requiring a new annual wealth reporting system. 

If that's true, then it's not going affect anyone's house appreciating unless you've got a $100+ million mansion.

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

A civil war in the vein of the 1860’s or a civil war of each side barking at each other, like what we’ve had for decades upon decades?   One makes sense, the other does not.   I’ll let each individual choose on their own. 

Yeah, it's not like both of those have already happened in American history, so they surely don't make sense.

3 hours ago, Toe said:

Some rumblings that he wanted starter-level NIL money, even though he was a second-stringer. Doubt he'll find the money he was looking for elsewhere...

With all the tampering going on, he probably already knows what he will get elsewhere. Might just be leaving for more money.

32 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I’ve said for a long time that closing mental institutions has lead to a lot of our problems. 
 

 

For-profit prisons don't help either.