rhaig

I start with a little butter or bacon fat, about half an onion, and a bit of salt. Let it get translucent, then add beef, garlic powder, chili powder, and a little bit of cumin (carful... too much cumin and it will taste like dirt). get it good and brown (crunchy bits) and turn it off. Take the tortillas, warm them (I prefer soft corn tortillas) on a hot (skillet), spoon in meat, veggies as needed, some salsa, and I like a slice of avocado. Use cast iron... everything tastes better in cast iron. -- Rob

I base prices off my grocery store. I won't dispute that price varies from your location or from national average. I pay $0.99 for a large tomato, and wouldn't use all of it on 12 tacos. I pay $2.89/lb of beef. Do you really think there is a pound of tomatoes on 12 tacos? And I forgot the cheese. 12 tacos worth of shredded cheese is about a buck. (I can get pre-shredded cheese for $6 for almost 2lb) Sour cream? Well, we're comparing to the taco bell dozen for $10. The taco supreme dozen is more. But you brought it up... I'd probably use 2/3 of an 8oz package of sour cream on 12 tacos. I don't buy them a lot, but they're about a buck and a quarter here. So call it $1 worth. There you go... I'm up to $10 now. And that's all beef. Not TVP like you'll get at taco bell. And check your math. Even if I use your prices, 1.5*3.89+1+1.75+0.75+2+1+1 (last two are cheese and sour cream) that's $13.55, not $18-20. -- Rob

12 tacos for $10 at taco bell. 1.5lb ground beef $4.50 1 head lettuce $1.00 one Tomato $0.50 1 onion $0.50 assorted spices $0.50 (guess) 12 taco shells $2 total: $9 I don't see the problem here. -- Rob

so you're saying that taxing things that aren't necessary for life is going to cause an unnecessary burden? With that provision, sales tax becomes essentially an optional tax. Don't want to pay it, then don't buy the things that are taxed. All the other necessities that I can think of already included federal tax on them. (fuel, communications) Compare two families with monthly food budgets of $500 and $1500. The lower income family buys produce, uncooked meat, and spends 10% of their grocery budget on luxury foods. They prepare their meals at home. The wealthier family spends $800 at the grocery store and spends 25% of their grocery budget on luxury items. The other $700 is spent at restaurants. Assuming (for calculation simplicity) a 10% tax, the lower income family paid $5 in tax on groceries that month. The wealthier family pays $90 in tax on their groceries. For that to hit the lower income family harder, the wealthier family in this example would have more than 18 times the income of the other family. -- Rob

It's not exactly a fair tax. It hits the low income earner at a vastly higher rate (percentage of income) than higher income earners. did you see the part about some items not being taxed? no... you didn't, or you chose to ignore them so you could trot out this old saw. -- Rob

national sales tax. Don't tax food items unless they're sold ready to be consumed. Don't tax clothing and home electronics/appliances during certain times of the year (once a quarter for instance). Drop all the write-offs and deductions. States already collect sales tax. States already send money to the federal govt. -- Rob

*** please... the IRS is bloated and our tax code is so complex it's nearly impossible to comply fully. There are plenty of ways to collect taxes without the huge bloated machine that the IRS has become. -- Rob

The guys I know have publicized their use of drones in the Philippines after the typhoon there last year. Their use here is kept quiet. -- Rob

Some SAR folks I know are ignoring that completely. I guess they'll deal with the fallout if it happens. -- Rob

You are right, it doesn't make sense when you don't quote everything. Just for fun: English You are right, it doesn't make sense when you don't quote everything. French Vous avez raison, il n'a pas de sens si vous n'avez pas tout citer. Catalan Tens raó, no té sentit si no s'inclou tot. Filipino Tama ka, nakakagawa walang kahulugan kahit na hindi kasama. Esperanto Vi pravas, ĝi ne havas sencon, se vi ne mencii Spanish Tienes razón, después de haber hecho no tiene sentido, incluso excluidos. Back to English You're right, having made no sense, even excluded. -- Rob

look... taking lessons from kallend on not stating any opinion or making useful contribution to the conversation. Don't blame me for your inability to use a search function or your absence of reading comprehension. There's the reading comprehension PA you're so accustomed to using. I knew it would come out soon. -- Rob

look... taking lessons from kallend on not stating any opinion or making useful contribution to the conversation. -- Rob

blah blah blah... how many posts do you make every day where you avoid any answer to a question? You're just stirring shit, I thought I'd point out your inconsistency. Everyone else can see it. Your weather looks nice today. Go enjoy it. Have a nice day. I've got the clouds you had yesterday, but it'll keep the heat down. Perhaps I can get out and enjoy the day after all. -- Rob

*** http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4641987#4641987 "Yet I heard few or no complaints from the right when GWB or Reagan did it. " -- Rob

so are you going to complain about Obama sidestepping process and congress, or are you going to keep taking the same inaction that you complain about? Or option 3, type strawman in all caps like a freshman who just got their email account in 1989? -- Rob

Here's an idea, how about we make a law that says you have to not have been declared (by licensed physicians) mentally incompetent in order to buy a gun? We could even put a system in place to make that check available to dealers via a phone call. -- Rob

If you can't see it, it's because you don't want to. You aren't looking at facts. Keep letting your TAs teach your sections. "Your" students will thank you. But hey... have a nice weekend (what's left of it). -- Rob

STRAWMAN! Where did I say it was OK? All I'm doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of the ODS sufferers. this is where you would typically assert lack of reading comprehension for the person you are replying to. You complain about lack of action: "Yet I heard few or no complaints from the right when GWB or Reagan did it." But then you make no complaints when our president does the same thing. You are taking the action you complain about. (the inaction) The closest I come to implying your compliance with the situation is "Don't pretend like it's OK now just because someone else didn't complain when it wasn't OK before." That statement does not state an action or opinion on your part. It is an imperative not to take an action. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant to my post. I simply pointed out that you are taking the same action you complain about. Can you not see that you are acting just like those "ODS sufferers"?? -- Rob

And you know, if that's how laws changed under this administration, I'd be ok with that. But on more than one occasion we've seen our President declare that certain laws won't be enforced, or changing (through policy redefinition) the enforcement parameters of laws. It is not ok for this president to do it, and it is not ok for any other president to do it. OK, but THIS president is a mere piker compared with Reagan or GWB in this regard. Yet I heard few or no complaints from the right when GWB or Reagan did it. But the whining is incessant when the brown guy does it. You're justifying the wrongdoings of our president based on the same actions of prior presidents. You are taking the exact same action you are complaining about from those on the right when previous presidents violated their oath. You're not complaining about the president you support when they take actions against their oath. Classic definition of two wrongs don't make a right. It's not OK now, it wasn't then. Don't pretend like it's OK now just because someone else didn't complain when it wasn't OK before. -- Rob

don't trust them. They make up everything. -- Rob

And you know, if that's how laws changed under this administration, I'd be ok with that. But on more than one occasion we've seen our President declare that certain laws won't be enforced, or changing (through policy redefinition) the enforcement parameters of laws. It is not ok for this president to do it, and it is not ok for any other president to do it. -- Rob

At least you were taught proper use. I'm amazed to find teenagers (boys and girls both) who fear using a small pocket knife. Yeah, I suppose pens and pencil sharpeners are to blame. To me it's a great tool. The original multi-tool. -- Rob

True. That training is more likely to be available to school aged children though. Driver's Ed courses, shop classes, outdoor youth programs. It used to be that gentlemen carried pocket knives. I'm currently the one in the office someone comes to if they need a pocket knife. Nobody else carries a knife. They're not commonplace anymore. And it seems nobody is taught how to use them. Driver's ed was probably not on Rodger's agenda. He likely had a driver where most kids are learning to drive. Gun safety? That's right out. Apparently guns are evil, not the people who use them. So parents don't want their kids taught about them. Would Rodger have snapped if he'd had a gun safety class? Probably... It's not about the guns. It's about the violent actor. Who in this case killed as many with a blade as with a gun. -- Rob

Secondary but indicative. The self-contradictory content was the really ignorant part. I guess you missed that though. and we move on to the next step in the formulaic Kallend method of internet argument. Take the omission of response to something (anything) and use it as evidence of reading comprehension problems. (careful with that word "ignorant". it'll get you banned unless the mods agree with you, then all the rules don't apply) -- Rob

spelling and grammar trolls.... the weakest sort of internet argument. -- Rob