😂 You unbelievable ijit! 😂

I give you verified facts and figures…you scream “NOT!!” And send back randos whining on the interweb about low minimum wage high rent and fake food costs that all got much worse Jan 2017-2021. Typically, you have no facts or statistics to offer because they don’t support your position at all.

Whining about their low wages at entry level jobs, which is a thing conservatives fought hard to keep, never rising rock bottom low wages and ever increasing rent. Now you blame Biden for low minimum wages your party wants even lower and refuses to raise. Under Biden, wages are rising at 4.4%, double inflation and double the rate they increased under Trump, but now mostly at the low end instead of 99% of gains going to the top 1% and nothing (or cuts) to hourly workers under Trump. Profits are record setting too, driving a significant portion of inflation. 😂

Lying about $45 worth of food costing $100 (unless those drink cans are >$10 each not $2, the two old spices are $25, the hidden meat is filet mignon and another >$25 not $10 chicken, you pay $10 for fresh OJ not the $3 I pay, and the card has a gift card inside).

I live in rural Northern California, where everything is expensive…that’s well under $50 in groceries here. 😂 🤦‍♂️

Liars.

Bidenomics staved off a recession/depression everyone predicted after Trump, cut inflation faster than any other western country, raised wages twice as fast as conservatives targeting the low end, and created more jobs than the last 4 Republican presidents combined in 3 years, all while delivering record corporate profits and a strong market.
Trumpenomics was a disaster that lost 3 million jobs, lost actual earning capacity for most (wages rose slower than inflation), had the first ever negative gdp in our lifetimes, caused massive inflation, and lowered our national credit rating for the first time….failed on every metric used to gauge the economy.
And never forget he tried to end democracy, killed 1 million Americans, and IS A RAPIST.
Sleepy grandpa wiped the floor with him from his basement despite all your MAGA fervor and outrage. 😂

Thanks for the laughs. You liars are always hilarious when trying to make a point you know facts and reality don’t support.

Best - Bone in Rib Eye temp - whatever you want but most places wont go above medium. For a real treat on a great piece of meat try pittsburgh style

Worst - (Flavor wise) Filet Mignon Why so many people order this is beyond me. Yes its tender, but thats it. Might as well just get a burger.

My favorite six words in steak:

Ruth's Chris. Filet mignon. Medium rare.

drool

I can't wait for father's day.

Depends on what you're into. In terms of tenderness, Filet Mignon basically trumps because it's insanely soft, even when cooked up to well-done.

If you want a flavourful steak, go for anything with a "Bone In". That would be a rib-eye, bone in rib steak, T-bone, etc. Typically they're more flavourful steaks because they tend to be "fattier", and fat = taste.

The "baseball" and "coulotte" steaks are typically beef for the sake of beef, usually not going to be the focus of your dish, it'll be something that gets topped off with blue cheese or garlic butter as another type of flavour.

Flank, Skirt, "hanger" and most other types of steaks are also not typically the focus of your meal, but will usually be cooked up for other parts of it. (Order steak fajitas at a restaurant? 90% chance it's one of these three steaks.)

The key factor to almost all of them though is marbleization, which refers to the amount of good fat that's weaved its way through the cut. It may look gross when raw because it's honestly like a buncha white shit on your steak but once that's cooked up that's where the flavour comes from.

My personal choice for a steak is the Bone-in wing steak. It's effectively a giant slice of prime rib roast that's been cooked up like a steak. Very tender, lots of flavour, and at the end, as long as you don't mind looking like a neanderthal, you can actually just chew the meat off the bone for some of the most tender / tasty steak you'll ever have.

>> ^blankfist:


No, to extend your metaphor again, you chose to walk down the street and they shoved a crappy piece of steak in your gullet and forced you to swallow. You also chose to be alive on that day, so they fed you. Then you refused to pay filet mignon prices.
See how stupid that line of reasoning sounds? That's how I feel whenever someone says "You chose to live in this country/state" and "if you don't like it, move!". It's like telling blacks to move out if they don't like the burning cross in front of their house. Essentially this is the statist equivalent of Godwin's Law, but way, way, way worse. And ends the discussion for me.


You're not extending the metaphor, you're ignoring the metaphor, and creating a new one that doesn't represent reality.

A little Econ 101. Conventional market economics concerns things that are both rival and excludable. A resource that is rival can only be used by one person at a time (e.g. I'm eating this steak, so you can't eat it too). Excludable means it's relatively easy to keep someone else from using the commodity (e.g. put your excess steak in a freezer behind a locked door).

Animal control service is not excludable. If a rabid dog is in LA, and someone pays to have it removed, you get the benefit of that service just by living nearby. If you don't have a standing policy of removing all rabid dogs wherever they pop up, then you've got a problem everywhere, since rabid dogs don't care who paid for "animal control service" or not, they're just going to wander around spreading rabies randomly.

Animal control service is the steak. You're eating it by virtue of living in an area that has it. To refuse to pay for it is to demand a free lunch, not a refusal of the service.

If you want to really refuse the service, you need to move someplace where they don't practice animal control, or convince California to stop doing it completely.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
To extend your metaphor, the expensive steak restaurant down the street decided to shove their low quality steak down your throat and charge you for the prime filet mignon. Sure, you weren't hungry and didn't even ask for the steak, but now you have to pay for it. And they want to write down what you've eaten.

But that's not what happened. You moved to California. You got a dog. You weren't forced to do either of those things.
Metaphorically, that's walking into the steakhouse, and ordering a steak, and now you're refusing to pay the price on the menu.
Your reasoning? You think the decor they chose for the restaurant is more expensive than you think it should've been, the heating/cooling system was too expensive, their waiters have health care benefits that you think are too generous, and you think rather than buying their meat from a sustainable farm, they should buy their meat from some factory farm, and therefore you feel you shouldn't be "forced" to pay for things you didn't personally choose.
Except, you chose to come into the steakhouse, and ordered a steak from them...


No, to extend your metaphor again, you chose to walk down the street and they shoved a crappy piece of steak in your gullet and forced you to swallow. You also chose to be alive on that day, so they fed you. Then you refused to pay filet mignon prices.

See how stupid that line of reasoning sounds? That's how I feel whenever someone says "You chose to live in this country/state" and "if you don't like it, move!". It's like telling blacks to move out if they don't like the burning cross in front of their house. Essentially this is the statist equivalent of Godwin's Law, but way, way, way worse. And ends the discussion for me.

>> ^blankfist:

To extend your metaphor, the expensive steak restaurant down the street decided to shove their low quality steak down your throat and charge you for the prime filet mignon. Sure, you weren't hungry and didn't even ask for the steak, but now you have to pay for it. And they want to write down what you've eaten.


But that's not what happened. You moved to California. You got a dog. You weren't forced to do either of those things.

Metaphorically, that's walking into the steakhouse, and ordering a steak, and now you're refusing to pay the price on the menu.

Your reasoning? You think the decor they chose for the restaurant is more expensive than you think it should've been, the heating/cooling system was too expensive, their waiters have health care benefits that you think are too generous, and you think rather than buying their meat from a sustainable farm, they should buy their meat from some factory farm, and therefore you feel you shouldn't be "forced" to pay for things you didn't personally choose.

Except, you chose to come into the steakhouse, and ordered a steak from them...

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, again let me repeat: If you want to argue semantically how services I don't want are a benefit, that's fine, because Mussolini built roads so I guess you could argue also in favor of fascism that same way.

And my argument to you (since you're literally ignoring what I just said) put simply is that you're demanding a free lunch, and calling the requirement to pay for things fascism.

What free lunch?

Animal control services, which animal control cannot physically selectively deny to just you.

We pay insanely high taxes in this state and city, so I'm sure that should cover my fair share of whatever compulsory service animal control offers me.

So you're not demanding a free lunch, just demanding a discount because you think the price asked is too high.

I'm not demanding anything except that I don't want to register my dog with the city. Seems clear. You are oddly obtuse lately.

Right, you're demanding to be exempt from paying the fee, and exempt from complying with the law.
To extend the metaphor, not only do you object to paying for the meal you've eaten, but you object to the idea that they make any record of what you've eaten for their books.


To extend your metaphor, the expensive steak restaurant down the street decided to shove their low quality steak down your throat and charge you for the prime filet mignon. Sure, you weren't hungry and didn't even ask for the steak, but now you have to pay for it. And they want to write down what you've eaten.

>> ^dag:
Sure she looks nice, but just remember that once you strip the skin off people, we all look like the same bloody mess of of sinews, muscles and fatty tissue.
That's how I like to imagine attractive people. It keeps things real for me.


And yeah, filet mignon kinda looks like ground chuck, but guess which one tastes better...

I hate to say it, but foie gras is perhaps the most delicious thing on the planet... imagine a filet mignon... now think of a filet mignon that is 100x better and that is foie gras.

>> ^quantumushroom:


No gay marriage advocates have proved there's "no difference" between the sexes. It is odd that despite never providing any proof of this claim, you still repeat it.
There is no proof that President Obama was born in Kenya, and certainly no proof he is a communist.
Only in Lunatic Fringeland does graduating from Princeton summa cum laude mean you’re a dumbass. I guess then notable conservative Princeton graduates like Samuel Alito, Donald Rumsfeld, David Petraeus, James Baker, Frank Carlucci, George Shultz, John Foster Dulles, Meg Whitman, Malcolm and Steve Forbes, George F. Will and John Stossel must be even bigger dumbasses. Yet Sarah Palin, who needed six years and four different schools just to earn a bachelor's degree and John McCain was fifth from the bottom in his class rank, they are brilliant. NOT!
It is interesting how you so often whine about the lies told by the “liberal MSM”, yet when the rightwingnuts and regressive media tell lies, you gobble it up like they are serving you filet mignon.

Doesn’t it bother you that you are being played for a chump?

But I REALLY like bananas!

In reply to this comment by MINK:
I just disagree. there IS such thing as "good" music, and there is such thing as "crap" music. but there's some different issues getting mixed up here, so let me explain...

The comparison to filet mignon and bananas is pathetic. Man did not create bananas. Nobody had the choice of creating a totally new plant and decided on the banana. The banana is not art. You could even say the banana is a higher form of food than filet mignon, because god/evolution made it over a period of billions of years. That has nothing to do with 2unlimited making a pop song.

anyway. i could write a book about this but... consider this question:

is it possible to study music?

if you answer yes, then please stop with your postpostpostmodern "it's just my opinion" bullshit. There is a theory of music. It works. Pop sells because it uses the theory very well. Bad songs don't use the theory well. The theory is scientific. If you study it you will write "better" songs. Some people have better intuition, but you can study it.

Some writers, for example Elton John, churn out the same stuff over and over, and i personally can't stand it. But it is good music. I would prefer if he innovated more, and i vomit at the thought of having to endure one of his concerts, but i have to accept that he is a master songwriter. Not just because of his popularity and durability, although that's a pretty good indicator.

You are getting confused by genres. There is good pop and bad pop, good techno and bad techno, good classical music and bad classical music (but we kinda lost all the bad classical over time, because it was bad, so now it looks like all classical music was perfect)

You might not like these modern repetitive drum sounds, but your african ancestors did.

You might prefer Kylie to Celine Dion, but they both make good quality music. People use the words "bad" and "good" to encompass all things, but i would argue that there are fundamentals at work, and then your preference is a thin layer on top.

Peronally, I call Celine Dion "bad" but i am expressing an opinion on the way she does not innovate, she goes for the easy win, and i think innovation is essential because it's how we got to the great music we have today. But hey, not everyone wants to contribute, some people just want to cash in.

Bjork is right that if music makes you happy, you should listen to it and enjoy it and not worry about snobs.

BUT

She, and the commenters above, are wrong to dismiss the idea that you could actually educate yourself and improve your taste

Taste isn't a lucky dip of equally valid choices, it is a scale from bad taste to good taste.

A person with good taste usually likes many genres, but chooses the particular songs and artists carefully. He/she usually plays an instrument or sings or has studied music or has had parents who constantly played good music in the house. Coincidence? Or education?

I am not just being technical here, music has many facets which take more than 15 seconds and an IQ of 56 to appreciate, and the music industry and media distort the supply of music, and governments don't seem interested in teaching music, so look at the crap we get.

In summary, i just can't stand it when people say it's all a matter of taste. It is not that simple.

it should be noted that bjork has never made a shitty song in her life ... so is she just saying that's it's an accident that she was born with the same tastes as millions of people? Or is there something fundamentally powerful in her music that makes people change their tastes... to move their tastes closer to hers, because they learnt something without even noticing. Does she just write whatever frequencies she feels like? Or does she use a piano with strings tightened to frequencies which are mysteriously "good" and accepted by billions of people?

Does anyone "prefer" the 6.34572/42 time signature?? No.

Would you accept that the reason you don't understand some music is because you are ignorant? You say you "don't like it" as if you've taken the time to study it and come to a knowledgeable conclusion. I guess you haven't.

You just say it's all about taste because you can't be bothered to learn anything.

I just disagree. there IS such thing as "good" music, and there is such thing as "crap" music. but there's some different issues getting mixed up here, so let me explain...

The comparison to filet mignon and bananas is pathetic. Man did not create bananas. Nobody had the choice of creating a totally new plant and decided on the banana. The banana is not art. You could even say the banana is a higher form of food than filet mignon, because god/evolution made it over a period of billions of years. That has nothing to do with 2unlimited making a pop song.

anyway. i could write a book about this but... consider this question:

is it possible to study music?

if you answer yes, then please stop with your postpostpostmodern "it's just my opinion" bullshit. There is a theory of music. It works. Pop sells because it uses the theory very well. Bad songs don't use the theory well. The theory is scientific. If you study it you will write "better" songs. Some people have better intuition, but you can study it.

Some writers, for example Elton John, churn out the same stuff over and over, and i personally can't stand it. But it is good music. I would prefer if he innovated more, and i vomit at the thought of having to endure one of his concerts, but i have to accept that he is a master songwriter. Not just because of his popularity and durability, although that's a pretty good indicator.

You are getting confused by genres. There is good pop and bad pop, good techno and bad techno, good classical music and bad classical music (but we kinda lost all the bad classical over time, because it was bad, so now it looks like all classical music was perfect)

You might not like these modern repetitive drum sounds, but your african ancestors did.

You might prefer Kylie to Celine Dion, but they both make good quality music. People use the words "bad" and "good" to encompass all things, but i would argue that there are fundamentals at work, and then your preference is a thin layer on top.

Peronally, I call Celine Dion "bad" but i am expressing an opinion on the way she does not innovate, she goes for the easy win, and i think innovation is essential because it's how we got to the great music we have today. But hey, not everyone wants to contribute, some people just want to cash in.

Bjork is right that if music makes you happy, you should listen to it and enjoy it and not worry about snobs.

BUT

She, and the commenters above, are wrong to dismiss the idea that you could actually educate yourself and improve your taste

Taste isn't a lucky dip of equally valid choices, it is a scale from bad taste to good taste.

A person with good taste usually likes many genres, but chooses the particular songs and artists carefully. He/she usually plays an instrument or sings or has studied music or has had parents who constantly played good music in the house. Coincidence? Or education?

I am not just being technical here, music has many facets which take more than 15 seconds and an IQ of 56 to appreciate, and the music industry and media distort the supply of music, and governments don't seem interested in teaching music, so look at the crap we get.

In summary, i just can't stand it when people say it's all a matter of taste. It is not that simple.

it should be noted that bjork has never made a shitty song in her life ... so is she just saying that's it's an accident that she was born with the same tastes as millions of people? Or is there something fundamentally powerful in her music that makes people change their tastes... to move their tastes closer to hers, because they learnt something without even noticing. Does she just write whatever frequencies she feels like? Or does she use a piano with strings tightened to frequencies which are mysteriously "good" and accepted by billions of people?

Does anyone "prefer" the 6.34572/42 time signature?? No.

Would you accept that the reason you don't understand some music is because you are ignorant? You say you "don't like it" as if you've taken the time to study it and come to a knowledgeable conclusion. I guess you haven't.

You just say it's all about taste because you can't be bothered to learn anything.