Listening to Kovač is honestly a bit painful; the man is such an absolute fool it’s almost embarrassing to witness. Look, no matter how much he might dislike Andrej Plenković, if the only alternative sitting there is someone of Kovač's caliber, he’d probably hand him ten more terms leading the Republican Party instead of just one.
@analogtiger19/">@@analogtiger19 The kid is starting high school this fall, and as for what games they actually want to play, I honestly haven't a clue. I could ask, but my philosophy is usually to aim for a balanced, optimal build rather than overspending on a top-tier GPU at the expense of everything else. Though, I suppose I could be wrong there...
Larry Ortiz5 said:Buying pre-built PCs is generally a losing game; what you're looking at right now just isn't worth the money. You’d be much better off waiting for someone to help you put together a decent custom build instead.
It's not quite my style😁 , but I appreciate the input.
Does anyone have any configuration suggestions for $1667, with a budget cap of $6,000? It needs to handle gaming and schoolwork.
Jerry Williams53 said:The IRS can watch my every move if they want. Honestly, I couldn't care less. Same goes for any bank teller trying to shove some random survey down my throat... Just curious what legal ground they'd even have to shut me down... they've been taking my money for decades without an issue...
So, let me get this straight: you don't give a second thought when some bank teller tries to squeeze you, but the moment the IRS comes knocking with actual teeth, suddenly you're indifferent? Nice logic, pal. 👍
Quincy:
I’m genuinely curious—on what legal grounds could they actually shut me down? They've been ignoring my existence for decades without issue...
Nobody is going to "ban" you from anything... they'll just decide they don't want to do business with you anymore.
Technically, you aren't obligated to answer any questions, even those regarding money laundering protocols. However, if you decline to address those "mandatory" inquiries, you’ll likely find that your local Chase branch won't be particularly interested in opening an account or processing your deposits.
As for the marketing fluff, if you aren't interested, just tell the teller at the window and leave it at that. I honestly don't understand why people make such a fuss about it; everyone does it. For instance, what do you think is the actual purpose of something like a "Premium Rewards Card" or similar trivialities?
That said, bank employees are known to spout all sorts of nonsense from time to time, so I would suggest taking whatever you hear from them with a healthy grain of salt. One must rely on common sense first. 😁 Naturally, you wouldn't go handing over your girlfriend's Social Security number or anything of the sort...
Brian Moore12 said:The issue isn't about finding someone who can do it cheaper; it's about ensuring an American company—specifically one under domestic ownership—is the one doing the work. These banking giants rake in hundreds of millions in fees, and a massive chunk of those profits just gets shipped overseas. At the end of the day, I want people to have options. People should be able to choose whether they want their checking account handled by a big bank or not.
Well, there’s an American-owned company right in front of you doing exactly that—Wells Fargo. What part of that is confusing?
I believe several smaller regional banks are also mostly under domestic ownership. There was even that one outfit out of San Diego that went under and left its depositors high and dry.😍
And I still can't wrap my head around your theory regarding the IRS. So, your logic is that if the IRS performed banking functions, it would somehow be better simply because they wouldn't officially call themselves a "bank"? That is truly masterful reasoning.
I’m not entirely sure why you’re operating under the assumption that managing accounts through the IRS would be significantly cheaper. Take a major domestic player like Wells Fargo, for instance—which I believe you even brought up yourself—and you'll see they aren't exactly offering much more competitive rates than any other big bank out there. At the end of the day, what is the IRS besides just another government-run institution?
Brian Moore12 said:I did write it. Check post #27.
Anyway, while we're talking about direct deposits, why are we forced to use a specific bank just to receive our paychecks? Why can't we choose? Why couldn't we have our income sent through, say, Fidelity Investments or even a local shipping hub service? They're part of the payment system too, just like banks. Of course, we don't get a choice because the banking cartel won't allow it.
It isn't actually about some "banking cartel"; it’s a matter of the US Federal Government passing legislation that mandates these specific structures.
It seems somewhat illogical to assume this rule was cooked up solely due to bank lobbying. If you look at the timeline—this was implemented relatively recently, perhaps a year or two ago—nearly everyone was already using traditional banks for their payroll. Very few people were still receiving their wages in cash back then.
So, if you're looking for someone to blame, take it up with Joe Biden and his associates.
There is really no need for alarm... even if Ford decided to break ground on a massive manufacturing plant right here in the States, someone would find a way to sabotage the whole endeavor before the foundation was even poured. You can practically see it now: local sheriffs would be looking for their "incentives" to look the other way, and within days, a swarm of radical environmental groups would be out there protesting anything that moves. So, rest easy—there is absolutely no threat of Ford moving in, which means there is zero risk of any American workers having to actually answer to some wealthy German capitalist. Instead, everyone can continue to lounge comfortably on unemployment benefits, living off the hard work of the rest of the taxpayers. Sleep soundly, ☕
Please don't take this as a personal slight, but rather as an objective critique of a specific post. While insulting other members of the forum is strictly against the rules, expressing a disagreement with someone's views is perfectly acceptable... even if the post in question isn't exactly a masterclass in civil discourse. In my view, it doesn't warrant a formal penalty unless, of course, we allow this type of behavior to become the new standard.
Susan Peterson7 said:How is it even possible that in the capital of a nation, building facades fall onto pedestrians, roads are so riddled with potholes that driving feels like an obstacle course, and the historic downtown is paved with nothing but dull gray asphalt? To top it all off, we see multi-million dollar restroom projects being commissioned while police officers seem to be stationed on every single corner. Now, they’re pushing ahead with this "Washington, D.C. Waterfront" project that is supposedly going to define the capital's aesthetic forever. Their grand plan? To erect these hideous concrete and metal blocks 🤦 instead of preserving beautiful buildings in the classic architectural style, complete with cozy cafes, tree-lined promenades, and bike paths—you know, the things that actually make a proper metropolitan city feel livable.
But I won't dwell solely on the utter neglect of the capital—which really should serve as the face of the entire country. Just drive along any major roadway and you'll see nothing but blight: overgrown fields, houses with crumbling exteriors, and trash piling up in yards (especially in those underserved settlements, which is just heartbreaking).
Why does the government and society at large just tolerate this? 🤷 Why aren't those neglected fields being leased to the state or to individuals who could actually farm them to bolster the US economy, rather than just letting them sit idle? Why is it acceptable for a house to stand without any exterior finish? If someone has the capital to build a home, surely they can scrape together a little more for the facade—or perhaps the government should provide subsidies for lower-income citizens to maintain their properties. And why is it permissible to let scrap metal and refuse accumulate in backyards? There should be fines for that kind of negligence, just like anywhere else.
I am glad to see that recent cleanup efforts for illegal dumping sites have finally begun. It was long overdue, and it's heartening to see people volunteering their time to help clean up their own country.
Has it ever occurred to you that people don't have facades because they simply lack the funds to install them? Not to mention that renovating buildings in the heart of Washington, D.C. is an incredibly expensive endeavor, given that you can't just do whatever you want; you are restricted to specialized contractors and must adhere to strict historical preservation permits.
So, you complain about facade subsidies in one breath, yet in the next, you criticize the millions being funneled into gold-plated restrooms. It is fundamentally the same issue. Cronies get the contracts, and the taxpayers foot the bill.
Since this thread first went live, there hasn't been a single post that actually stays on topic. It’s truly remarkable. I suppose the next off-topic comment will be appropriately rewarded.
rowdyraven13 said:When someone begins lecturing me with such endless "piety" and "political correctness" simply because I dared to mention someone's nationality, calling them "childish" feels like a rather mild understatement. And where, if I may ask, was I being "inappropriate" toward my interlocutors? Furthermore, who is this supposed divine arbiter who can unerringly decide what is deemed appropriate and what isn't in any given situation? And by what specific criteria are they making these judgments?
If you take a moment to review your own body of work, you will notice that you rarely miss an opportunity to escalate the tone of a discussion, resorting to "childish" remarks and similar tactics whenever the occasion presents itself. You'll see that even here, you argue that this style of communication is perfectly normal.
As for the matter of arbiters, within the framework of this forum, the designated authorities are the moderators, super-moderators, administrators, and ultimately, the site owner. That should be quite straightforward.
If you decide to address someone as "kids," you might as well prepare yourself for a mountain of downvotes. Besides, your general tone toward others in these threads tends to be rather unprofessional.
Furthermore, if a private institution like JP Morgan Chase, which previously relied on HP Inc., were to decide to switch over to FedEx, I fail to see how that could theoretically be construed as some sort of "shady deal." 🤷
You have this particular thread, along with those other ones where—if you're being honest—you're essentially rehashing the exact same points you intended for your new topic. You’ve also been quite active in several other discussions that you didn't actually initiate (for instance, the "How to exit a crisis" thread). If you happen to have any new insights or data to contribute to those existing conversations, feel free to revive one of them with some fresh posts and updated information.
Just because you're convinced that you're the only one holding the correct view while everyone else is mistaken doesn't give you a license to constantly spawn new threads to push your personal agenda and little pamphlets. The rest of us hold convictions too, but we tend to express our stances through debate rather than opening up new topics that function as nothing more than propaganda pieces.