KelnonsReader

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

@tanpukunokami Every year. Can't imagine not celebrating America in the 4th. Fireworks, cook outs, family and friends. Every year as long as I've been alive.

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

@philthatremains

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

@hskenncutter In an almost 200 year relationship, we couldn't figure out how to get along with each other for 4 of them. And those 4 years ended 81 years ago.

I don't know why we'd stay stuck on about 2% of our relationship being bad instead of the 98% that was good.

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

It's almost like they want us to forget the 81 years since then. 81 years of working together, solving problems together, and advancing together.

Yes, we fought a brutal war against each other. Nobody forgets that. The question is - Do we then move forward in the world or keep the war going in our hearts? Both Japan and the US finished our entire war with each other in 1945, we didn't keep it going in our hearts. And that's why we've been successful, together, since then.

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

The fact that you think the South is the same or more racist today than it was in 1965, appealing to authorities while only utilizing a subset of them because they confirm your bias, ignore a wall of examples, and then consider yourself objective, proves you aren't qualified to have a conversation on the topic.

You support racists, support openly racist policy, and think that makes you not a racist. Heck, you couldn't even answer a simple question - When?. Because you also recognize that would hold you to an objective standard.

Ignorance doesn't look good on you.

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

Man, you really are ignorant, aren't you?

You bring up stuff like being unhappy at the destruction of historic monuments, acting like that isn't a normal platform of the GOP going back to the 1800s, when they celebrated great confederate (DNC) generals right after winning the civil war. Oh no, they have held a consistent position on the Confederacy for 160 years, must be a party switch!

Doing things that hurt specific subsets of your constituents while claiming it helps them isn't a good thing, no matter how much Democrats try to twist themselves harming minority communities into something beneficial for them. Keep the black community poorer, smallers, and less engaged is still bad even if you call it welfare and choice instead of pointing out the obvious, observable outcomes.

Perhaps you'd like to look into LBJ's own statement on why he signed the Civil Rights Act after the democrats did the longest filibuster in American history trying to stop it.

You say some of my examples are prior to the supposed "party switch", but was the date yesterday, because otherwise, you're going to have to pick a solid date. After the Civil Rights Act (the most commonly cited time)? The DNC still fought for segregation in the South long after that, i cluding the famous, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever". Was it the 70s? You'd have to explain the south still being solidly blue for decades after. 90s? The south put Clinton into office. Early 2000s? Sure, you could say the parties started switching their influencial areas, but then you'd have to argue it was a 40 year wait for the South to have suddenly gone red, and it wasn't solid red until the 2010s. So 50 years? But then you'd still have to explain Joe Biden eulogizing an exalted cyclops and recruiter for the KKK. 2020s? You'd then have to explain left wing campuses bringing back segregated graduation ceremonies. So you're basically left with, "it happened yesterday!"

And then you'd still have to explain the DNC continuing policies explicitly pushed in order to both keep, specifically, black people down, and to quote LBJ, "Have those n*****s voting Democrat for 200 years."

This is why the party switch narrative, while pushed heavily by people with political reasons to claim, "We totally aren't that same party;" doesn't hold water. Far simpler things explain the gradual shift of geographic bases for the parties - Migration, the south becoming significantly less racist over a period of years, the GOP moving to be more inclusive of working class issues, etc.

Actions matter, and the DNC has continued to push policies that have impoverished the black community and destroyed the black nuclear family. And usedul idiots like yourself call it, "Doing good stuff for your constituents.".

But then again, maybe you earnestly believe destroying the black middle class, engaging in eugenics of black people, and destroying the black nuclear family are things you want. Seems pretty racist to me.

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

@shaunvlog_ If it's brown, lay down. If it's black, fight back. If it's white, good night.

Basic rules of bear safety assuming you don't have like... A reasonable weapon.

And, yes, the advice with polar bears is "just die".

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

@sakebu_cheese_ I don't know, I figure we sorted out all our issues with each other between 1941 and 1945. Now that we got no issues left to sort out, might as well be best friends.

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

@tuuu28283 There were 0 mistakes in your English, because you spoke our universal language - love of America!

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

@JapanEmbDC Thank you for the trees! We appreciate them!

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

@reddit_lies Openly refusing to tell parents about an activity, spearheaded by mental illness, that leads to an over 40% suicide rate, means they are not only failing as an educator and a first reporter, but as a human. All for the benefit of their ideology.

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

It is far from a consensus. It's presented as one often when people with an agenda talk about it, but that isn't the case.

Of the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act, a single one switched parties to the Republican party over the rest of their career, and he specifically switched over the racism of the Democrat party.

But let's be more thorough, and evaluate some core components against modern party ideals.

Which party has insisted that certain races are inherently less capable than white people on the basis of skin color? That's a requirement of DEI hiring requirements - If you believe the people are equal and should be judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin, you don't need that.

But maybe that one "feels" wrong to you. Which party pushed and continues to push welfare policies that destroyed the black middle class that was growing at a rate faster than the white middle class in the 1950s? And destroyed the black nuclear family, which had less fatherless homes than the white people in the 1950s, which is one of the greatest indicators of the child being at least middle class (a 2 parent household). That would be Democrats again.

Alright, which party pushes Planned Parenthood, which was formed by Margaret Sanger, who explicitly stated her goal was to reduce black birth rates (in much more unkind words)? And continues to disproportionately kill black children in the womb? Still the Democrats.

Which party pushes minimum wage, something explicitly created because white labor was considered inherently more valuable than black labor in order to keep you black men from being able to climb the ladder of employment and experience? Still the Democrats.

Ok, which party uses welfare expansion, minimum wage expansion, etc, things explicitly that supress minorities, as reasons to keep electing them in not only elect them but as a cudgel claiming that makes makes them "not racist"? Still the democrats.

And who argued in the 1860s and today that if we got rid of our permanent, underpaid, racial underclass things like, "Who will pick your agriculture (be it cotton or strawberries)? Still democrats.

But hey, CNN says the parties switched and Republicans are racist, so must be true.

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

As someone with a long American lineage, I'm not. I'm neither proud nor disappointed. A lot of guys who never had slaves, which covers my ancestors, fought because the union was there and burning down their farms. On the other side of my family, we got drafted into the union. It wasn't ideological for either side. Both sides were poor and fought because they had to.

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

@piccolan @nathanrizzolo @jimstewartson Or, option 3 - The left claims they switched for fake moral points as they now fight to keep their low cost labor against the federal government.

Again.

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

Your inability to understand motives does not indicate the other people are bad.

Creating incentive structures that make poverty comfortable lead to a lower quality of life for everyone, including the poor, long term. Because it incentivizes staying poor and the number slowly grows of the poor. Strike one. Feeding people junk food and calling it nutrition assistance is an outright lie that lowers their health, making those who need the help more likely to continue needing the help. That's strike two. The lower quality health outcomes lead to a higher reliance on medical services, which, if they are on SNAP, taxpayers are also likely paying for. That's strike three.

I legit don't care if someone wants to buy their kid a treat, as I often see it cited, once in a while. That large pack of cookies in the original post is $9. Likely enough cookies that if you bought it monthly, that's a cookie every other day, at about 30 cents a day. Which is manageable on basically anyone's personal out of pocket budget with minimal planning, and would be giving them regular cookies, not once in a while.

It's like when people say they don't have money to buy their kid a Christmas gift - If they worked at all and put aside $2 a week, they'd have over $100 to buy their kid a gift every Christmas. Make it $4 a week and you've got birthday and Christmas covered with fairly good gifts for kids. And it has the added benefit of teaching them budgeting skills and delayed gratification, two of the biggest skills that will help them get out of poverty.

I'm assuming you want them to get out of poverty, right?

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

@egalbraith_ @MoodyWeatherASD @AndyRileyish @amazon It's unironically faster to get a response putting them on blast on social media than it is to DM a company (usually). It sucks, it's stupid, but I also don't have 3 hours to listen to elevator music trying to do it the nice way.

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

@DontWalkRUN Did the word "deferred" confuse them? It's not forever

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

@RepShriThanedar His father is an American. Whereas, you moved here with India to tell lies that if you knew how Google worked, you could avoid.

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

If they had held the interest at 0%, it would have taken you about 380 years to pay off. With your $32 payment and 6.5% interest, you would have owed the current national debt in 300 years.

Also, if you don't pay at least $1571 on your new balance since you weren't covering interest before, if you still have a 6.5% rate, you'll keep going deeper in debt.

The fact that you don't understand these concepts makes me question if your degree was worth the money you paid for it. Luckily, it's your debt and not mine, so good luck.

[KelnonsReader @ReaderKelnon]

Home owner checking in. Every few months? Ehh. As a running total? Yes. In the last 4 years - Roof replacement, $22k. Deck replacement (same storm that lead to the roof) - $18k. Encapsulation -$15k. Replacing the subflooring and floors (because the encapsulation team screwed up, currently dealing with them in court) - $26k. Replacing countertops and dishwasher (from the subfloor damage dropping them) - $7k. Replaced an old AC - $10k. Other odds and ends fixes - $10k.

Thats $108,000 in 4 years on a house I paid $160k for 10 years ago. So $2250 a month in repairs for the last 4 straight years. Ideally, I'll be getting at least $33k back (hopefully after lawyer fees) due to the damage done during a poorly executed encapsulation. So if we toss that out, $75k in 4 years or $1,562.50 a month.

Yeah, $5k every few months is about right, lol. That said, HOPEFULLY, I'm about out of issues that I have to fix for a while.

But let's say I was renting this out, at the $100 a month profit level initially given in the example. It would take 90 years to cover the repairs I've done in the last 4 years. Since most of these fixes are longer term (roof, AC, subfloor, etc), I'd probably be happy to rent the house out, if I didn't want to live in it, for $600 a month profit. That's a 15 year recoup, which is statistically longer than the AC will last and shorter than the roof will last.

But at $100 a month? Pay me the market rate for the house, which is now over $300k, or live somewhere else. I'm not going to take 90 years to recoup 20-30 years of wear and tear.