btq96r

Still deciding.

The best available agents likely go to the President and Vice President protective details. Then the advance teams for both. Given the issues we've seen reported (which makes you know there's more unreported), those details have their own issues. The details for a candidate and former president are probably less than top tier.

I was taking a nap and haven't done more than scan some feeds for info yet. I'm already cringing at the word "sniper" being used.

It's amazing what our physicians can do these days, hoping for the best outcome.

Arguably 10x more entertaining than what's coming out of Hollywood these days. Between the decline of good content, and Netflix snagging up some of the better from what does come out, foreign and old isn't a bad way to be competitive.

If you couldn't smoke in the theater when it was released, it's not a "classic". But year of production aside, the way they upscale these movies for the modern screen is impressive.

With few exceptions, for new releases, unless it's a James Bond, or Star Trek movie, I'll wait for it to hit streaming. AMC theaters was doing this cool thing where they would show old movies remastered. Getting to see Lawrence of Arabia in a theater was a very cool experience. That's worth the time and cost.

I know. I'm slacking on something that might be one of the most essential firearms to own. One day an old boss and I were talking guns and which one would be the most useful in a classic SHTF, breakdown of society and services scenario. We came down on a 10/22 being that gun for a whole host of reasons. Plentiful ammo (back when you could buy by the bucket easily and cheap), perfect for small game hunting, and at the top of reliability.

Always enjoyed his work. Dude was great at his craft for sure.

That did it. Wonder what's driving the sale prices on these. And why the 7.8" barrel isn't getting the same...that's the one I'd be hard pressed to resist.

I'm seeing $899.00 on that link.

I just saw this and had to hide my wallet. Oy vey. https://battlehawkarmory.com/product/cz-scorpion-3-micro-9mm-4.2-201-pistol

Good aside to my search, but I have a GSG 522, so I'm good on a .22 rifle equivalent. I looked at the M&P option back when buying the GSG and thought it solid, but wanted something different from an AR at the time. That said, I've noticed the GSG is a little picky about what ammo it will cycle, so I may switch or upgrade someday. It would likely come down to the M&P and a Ruger 10/22 for that decision.

Mechanically it'll be perfectly fine if you want to shoot it. Aesthetically, however...

It's nice to say I'll just buy everything I can afford, but like food gone to waste, I don't like the idea of buying guns that just sit there, especially new ones. Aside from taking up space, getting a CZ isn't a one time contained purchase considering I'd put at least a micro red dot on it. A decent plinker of a .22LR pistol is easier on cost, and diversifies my stable more than a Scorpion would. But yeah, I'll get the Scorpion too someday.

Thanks for the recommendations, all. I knew I'd get solid recommendations to consider. Lots of love for the Taurus', though I can see why. I'll have to whittle down the plethora of TX22 offerings to one I like. Then I'll have to make a choice between a .22LR handgun, or a CZ Scorpion 3+. Tough life for me, folks.

Thinking of buying a new gun for the first time in a long time. One option is a .22 LR pistol, which I think will be just fun, and pretty useful in a bunch of situations. Anyone want to plug their favorite make and model? M&P22 by S&W, and Walther P22 are my leading contenders, but quite open to the gestalt if different. One thing to consider, this isn't going to be some heavy use, competition gun, so I don't need top end/top buck. Some fun and plinking are my main ideas for this gun, figure throw it in the range bag whenever I go shoot something else just to enjoy.

Was just wondering the other day why we hadn't seen you posting in a bit. Sorry to see it wasn't just needing an internet break. Hoping the health issues are resolved with the best outcomes possible.

We did. It was informative, well acted, and entertaining.

Mortgage lenders are getting desperate to close deals. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240516437694/en/UWM-Announces-0-Down-Purchase-Program They'll say this is different because NINJA loans aren't in play, and ARMs aren't carrying the load...but it's still not a great idea. The concept that housing should be some protected market that isn't susceptible to corrections and crashes when things get bad is a wrong one. One of the things that made the Great Recession happen through the housing market was a lack of skin in the game when it came to mortgages. It's a lot easier to walk away from a home you didn't put anything down on, and your mortgage was in effect an approximation of rent in terms of financial burden. Having money you had to save, and at risk in the event of default...well, then you're much more apt to cut back on luxuries, get a side gig, and other things to keep from losing the asset and all that invested money in foreclosure.

The minimum wage should be indexed to something, not subject to the complete political whims of Congress and the President like any other legislation. And again, it was always intended to be a liveable wage, certainly in conjunction with some federal programs for additional assistance. The poverty guidelines work as useful as anything else. For a single person, that's $15,060, or $7.24 when you divide it by 2,080 hours (52wks x 40hrs). For a family of four, that classic nuclear family with Mother, Father, two kids to at least continue a replacement population level (because Social Security and Medicare), that amount along the same math is $15 if only one parent is working. I'm led to believe this is when America was Great which some are trying to Make Again. It would be nice to know how many jobs are in that $7.25-$15 range so the economic impact could actually be gauged to promopt a decision, not just be too wide a canyon as to suggest we'd be Evel Knievel'ing it to try and cross. I'm with you that it's not really AI in the way we defined that before it became a word every company trying to buy and sell it wants in their quarterly earnings call transcript. But it's going to be a disruptor sooner rather than later.

The counter to that is, so many of those execs and managers couldn't come close to doing what the workers do. In some industries that require licensing, you see very few people from the rank and file rise in management. When you get to that point, you have two sets of people who can be easily replaced. Yet only one side currently gets equity as a comp incentive way more often than not. I just used 10% as an example for discussion purposes. The period based reward of shares can be used for labor employees too. I'm all for aligning logical performance measures. And you can tailor that by section. Factory workers X number of units shipped, Y% of quality control pass rate...IT can be managed in network up/downtime, average ticket open to resolved time...whatever accounting and HR can be evaluated by; I'll admit I don't much to offer in ideas for them. But the idea is to award more ownership for employees and teams that show they want to own the work product. That way workers are being rewarded more for their contributions to the vision being developed and mapped out by their executives. Again, these will be fractional compared to how many stock units are out for the general public on exchanges, or privately held. But my main point is, company equity, private or public should be more freely dished out to give incentives beyond the paycheck or bonuses. Yeah, I get people want cash, but getting folks invested in their companies again is something we need to consider. Throw in proper vesting safeguards and I think it can work.

I get the logic behind your statement here. I'm an support management at my own company, and I don't qualify for their private equity purchases or grants (the doctors I work with can buy in, and some get grants as comp). Through index funds, have my net worth tied to companies I'm not a labor or management participant in. So, I say all the below as someone who benefits from the labor of others in companies other than my own for future income beyond my job. Some folks shouldn't or just can't make the transition from worker bee to what I'll call office level management. Not a knock on them, if that's a path they can take and do it well, more power to them. Let's say they offer the line employees an extra 10% of their salary in stock. No W2 pay cut, just 10% of the gross in stock grants. That is a fractional cost in nominal value to the company, and if done through a reasonable vesting schedule, can reward employees who stick around and help grow the company and/or keep it profitable. And with AI at a spark, soon to be a fire before we know it, on the way to becoming a star in terms of outputs and use, I think those who actually use their hands and intuition are going to become a more valuable commodity than in middle management at the moment. So, this is something we'll keep debating, and rightfully so.

If you look at the divide between rewards based on returns from the labor outputs between workers and executives/investors, there's a case in plenty of industries. It's more of a discussion about equity (financial equity, not DEI equity) than anything about basic minimums and work structures, but it's a real conversation. I'm hoping we see the pendulum swing towards labor workers getting stock grants as a norm, not offered at a discount as part of an ESPP. That would close up the gap and level part of the playing field....especially if stock holdings among union members was voted collectively.

Because there is a societal interest in making sure a floor of standards to prevent exploitation of low income workers exists. The minimum wage was just one part of a broader package that also set the standard work week, and put guardrails on minors working. All three things were out of whack leading up to, and during the depression.