fuggled

Man, it was windy in Dallas on Sunday and I burned through charcoal pretty fast. This was all on my 18.5" WSM. Props to whomever recently said "there's always room for sausage." I managed to squeeze a couple pounds in there between my turkey and 2 racks of spare ribs. I used to do the 3-2-1 on ribs, but I think I like them better with just 5-6 hours straight on the smoke. I don't want them completely falling apart and they have a nice bit of "chew" to them still this way.

Also convenient that the clip starts with the reporter saying, "and if I could ask you Madame Vice President..." What came before the "and"? Could it have possibly been a question better directed at the Romanian President that would explain the VP's hesitation. I guess we'll never know.

Obviously...

Rereading my post, it may not have been clear. What I meant was, if Russia wanted to retaliate against Austria they would have to go through NATO airspace and that's not something they're going to do.

I never claimed you would. Is that a requirement? Have we drawn a redline on any Ukrainian soldier, pilot or equipment passing through NATO countries? The concern I've heard around jets is having NATO pilots flying in Ukraine or using NATO facilities/bases to stage and launch from. An Austrian model avoids those aspects.

This has probably been discussed at some point, but I haven't seen it. Why couldn't the jets be positioned some place like Austria and have the Ukranian pilots fly them from there? Austria isn't part of NATO. Russia isn't going to directly retaliate militarily without going through NATO airspace. I assume someone has already looked at this and decided it would still be too provocative.

Well, I don't want to speak for @Aqua Buddha, but if someone doesn't have money to throw away I'd advise them to get a used Toyota or Honda minivan with 50-60K miles on it for ~$30K, like these: https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/42256274-1178-48e5-b5fd-c8159fc80d8d/?results_page_number=1&search_instance_id=98d3748d-38bd-41ed-bb2f-3bfd1418693a&search_zipcode=75083&vertical_position=1&web_page_type_to=shopping%2Fvehicle-details https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/215d0057-3f5d-4e30-9e21-3509205215ab/?results_page_number=1&search_instance_id=98d3748d-38bd-41ed-bb2f-3bfd1418693a&search_zipcode=75083&vertical_position=8&web_page_type_to=shopping%2Fvehicle-details And I'd advise their second vehicle be a smaller sedan or compact in the ~$20K range for one spouse to commute with like these: https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/09a34b40-a6cf-490d-9bc4-5c5c13d5bdd4/?results_page_number=1&search_instance_id=80ce3956-715f-4aa0-92bb-25ae67c2d44f&search_zipcode=75083&vertical_position=16&web_page_type_to=shopping%2Fvehicle-details https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/2b89e16b-7246-4cd6-b986-eaadd47e7d27/?results_page_number=1&search_instance_id=80ce3956-715f-4aa0-92bb-25ae67c2d44f&search_zipcode=75083&vertical_position=19&web_page_type_to=shopping%2Fvehicle-details Point being, anyone who is saying a family needs $100K in vehicles because "that's what the market is now" isn't really trying. I can easily get to half that budget for reliable transportation. Anything beyond that is just what I want (and it's fine if someone wants more than that).

I found this part interesting:

Here's a good summary of the situation: https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/is-poland-sending-fighter-jets-to-ukraine/

I don't necessarily disagree with staying out of the way, but you've said this at least 3 times and it's not accurate. Ukraine has been working on a Membership Action Plan into NATO since 2008. They amended their constitution in 2019 to define their strategic pursuit of NATO membership. In 2017, 70% of Ukrainians were in favor of joining NATO. It would be more accurate to say Ukraine has been invaded because of their interest in joining NATO.

Too many assholes to keep straight. CPAC is where Papa John claimed Biden caused Ukraine as a smokescreen. It should probably be on the list.

There's probably an option where he just claims victory. Maybe they secure the eastern regions and say, "attacking kyiv was a diversion and it worked perfectly, we've successfully stopped the atrocities in Donbas."

You should feel a little proud. You've obviously raised a decent human. And I suppose you haven't told him about the ledge yet.

Actually I think there's some truth to this perspective. But it's not because Putin would be scared of Trump. It would be because Trump would be helping to further weaken NATO, the UN and other institutions along with the USA's reputation as a trustworthy ally. Putin would happily wait while those targets get softened. When your enemy is shooting himself in the foot, don't interrupt.

Bolding is mine. I can see the logic in omitting Putin. Punishing him and all the oligarchs equally could ramp up the "we're all in this together mindset" and lead to increased solidarity. Omitting him is a way of isolating him and stoking resentment. Plus, I doubt Putin is really motivated by his personal financial gains or losses in this situation.

What color is your skin?

Sorry if this is a late reply, but there are a number of mobile mechanic services out there and a bunch probably offer a "used vehicle inspection". When I bought a used car ~5 years ago I could schedule someone to come meet me at the dealership and look over the car. I think he even had a mobile jack to get under the car. I can't remember which service I used, but it might have been yourmechanic.com.

Are you also going to apologize for the misrepresentation of the message? Or, if I'm being generous, that you just misunderstood the passage?

I'm genuinely curious, why are you lying about this? Are you intentionally trying to deceive others in order to prove CRT is "evil"? Or have you not actually read any of this and therefore have no idea whether it's true or not? Either way, you are spreading lies. First, I can't find a single reference attributing that quote to "Stamped from the Beginning". Every reference quotes this from "How to Be an Antiracist," a completely different book. This makes me seriously doubt you've read either. Second, that is not a direct quote. You've lifted those phrases from the middle of a sentence and completely misrepresented the author's message. In the original text, "white people" are the object of the sentence. You've misquoted this to make them the subject of the sentence and change the meaning. This is shameful, lazy and transparent. Here is the full quote: The point is that racist ideas have an inherent seductive quality to them because they imply or state directly that the majority is good/better/worthy, and that makes these ideas move invasive. All people want to feel good about themselves. The danger of racist ideas is that someone can connect with that reinforcing message of goodness without ever realizing that the other side of the coin is exclusion and denigration of others. The author is not criticizing white people, he's warning about the dangers of racist ideas. Care to comment on why you would disagree with any of this? Furthermore, the passage really ISN'T EVEN ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE! The point of the passage is that the author found himself in a destructive loop. Racist ideas had helped him think less of himself, which led him to try less, which made him less successful, which proved those racist ideas right. The passage is all about the author's own enlightenment and how he had sold himself short without even realizing it. What about this perspective do you find evil? Why wouldn't you want every young person in America to reflect on this? The fact that you could read this and come away with such a self-centered interpretation is alarming. You must either completely lack self-awareness, or you must be so focused on championing a cause that you completely miss the powerful and valuable message.

Rule of thumb in early retirement circles is you need to have saved 25x your spending. So if you spend 100k per year, you need 2.5MM saved. Retirement planners talk about replacing your income, but ignore that. It's really about replacing your spending. That 25x would theoretically allow you to safely withdraw 4% annually forever basically. But keep in mind that the math evolves, so read up on "safe withdrawal rates." If you're just starting to read up on this, Mr. Money Mustache is a good blog to get a bunch of the basic concepts. Regardless, the first step will be to figure out how much you'll need to spend annually. If you don't already know what you spend annually today, start there.

Just curious, why the aversion to financing? I was prepared to pay cash on my last car a couple years ago but told the dealer "I'm open to financing with you if you get me a good price on the car." I did end up financing with them and just paid the loan off in full before any interest hit. It just seems useful to keep that in your back pocket as something you can throw at the dealer to sweeten the offer.

Try Deep Cuts at Coit and Belt Line. There used to be local ranchers at the Dallas Farmers Market too, but I haven't been down there in a while.

FYI, Southwest is running a credit card promotion right now. Spend $5K on a new card and get a Companion Pass for 1 year plus 30K points. If you get this, it doesn't preclude you from still earning enough points to keep the Companion Pass active through the end of 2023. Here's a referral link if anyone wants it: https://www.referyourchasecard.com/226c/NVGHUWVCN6