SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Whoda guessed that would not work out well?
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1545028568

Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 12/16/18 at 22:36:08

Title: Whoda guessed that would not work out well?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/16/18 at 22:36:08

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/12/starbucks-new-bathroom-policy-not-working-out-as-hoped/

Ahh, progressives, always wrong, never in Doubt.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/12/starbucks-new-bathroom-policy-not-working-out-as-hoped/

Title: Re: Whoda guessed that would not work out well?
Post by MnSpring on 12/17/18 at 07:11:10

Reminds me of the time,
the Super Smart, Superbly Educated, Above Average Intelligence, Mensa like, UL, Progressive Socialists,
decided it was a good thing.
To put $310.000.00 of Free, Solar Panels, on a old roof surface.
Subsidy provided, and we all know that Subsidy money just grows on trees, it does NOT come from Tax Payers, or Elect rate payers.
A-Yep, it just grows on trees.

Where the return in savings was about, 4,000.00 + a year.

After only 5 years, Yes ladies, 5 years, It had to come off, because the building needed a new roof surface.

Well, the Maplewood Community Center, ONLY had to pay, 13,000.00, EXTRA, to take them off, before a new roof could be put on.
Let’s see, 22,000.00 savings - 13,000.00 = 9,000.00 saving.
Cost to install, (Oh Yea, it was, FREE money), $310,000.00, - 9,000.00 = $301,000.00 IN THE HOLE !

So glad the, Super Smart, Superbly Educated, Above Average Intelligence, Mensa like, UL, Progressive Socialists, were making the decisions.
Just think, if it was actually someone with a BRAIN !

Now, that they are seeing as how it is totally obsolete, and will ONLY cost 20,000.00 + to put back up.
The Geniuses decided not to. (And put it in storage, at a cost of ?)

Title: Re: Whoda guessed that would not work out well?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/17/18 at 09:40:05

Just another place where they just didn't go far enough.

Title: Re: Whoda guessed that would not work out well?
Post by verslagen1 on 12/17/18 at 10:01:36

5B784566647F7871160 wrote:

Your numbers don't make sense or are evidence of poor decision making.
$310k should equate to $310k+ in electricity over 20 years and usually the break even is less then 10 years.
$310k/20=$16k a year in electricity. You state only $4k a year. If so, somebody made a really bad deal.

Title: Re: Whoda guessed that would not work out well?
Post by MnSpring on 12/17/18 at 11:24:39

362532332C2127252E71400 wrote:

If so, somebody made a really bad deal.

The exact figure was, 4,428.00 Average savings, in a Year.
Don’t know what the total elect bill was.

So the 310,000.00 of, 'Free money', to buy and install.
22,140.00 was money Saved, because of the installing the panels.
The panels were put on a roof, that would need, re-roofing.
They was room for places on the ground.
They were not placed over a metal roof, that would have had a 50+year life span.
They were placed over a roof, that would have to be re-roofed.
That time came 5 years later to re-roof.
And it cost 13,000.00 to take the panels off, so it could be re-roofed.
310,000.00 spent, (Oh it was Free)
to get a 9,000.00 in saving elect costs.

Yep I agree, “…somebody made a really bad deal …”

Title: Re: Whoda guessed that would not work out well?
Post by Eegore on 12/17/18 at 15:11:15

When I was in Norway it took me two days to figure out why so many places, like coffee shops had blue lightbulbs in bathrooms and such Nightclubs had strobe/intermittent lumen bulbs.

Its pretty difficult to hit a vein under a blue light, very difficult under a strobe.

Title: Re: Whoda guessed that would not work out well?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/17/18 at 18:50:52

very difficult under a strobe.

Even more so if you're an epileptic.
So, what are you saying?
Because Starbucks just yielded to SJW pressures and stopped demanding that the people sitting in the space THEY rented and calculated the return on each square foot of in order to have a successful business, that THEY are to blame for their restrooms becoming a problem?
It just COULDN'T be the societal septic tank fillers who use the facilities for actual CUSTOMERS who are to blame...

I guess it's okay to walk past the guy who is taking the money for the cover charge. Who. Do the owners of the bar think they are, expecting people to pay just for entry?
Of course lefties won't be able to connect those dots. Considering how difficult it apparently is to understand that
Illegal aliens drop a baby and that baby protects them from deportation, unlike a woman married to a CITIZEN who will not Be deported,, baby or no baby, so, a baby , not being Necessary to avoid deportation, isn't an ANCHOR baby.

Seeing such intellectually capable people so unable to grasp the obvious is distressing.

Title: Re: Whoda guessed that would not work out well?
Post by MnSpring on 12/18/18 at 14:02:28

527270786572170 wrote:

When I was in Norway it took me two days to figure out why so many places, like coffee shops had blue lightbulbs in bathrooms and such Nightclubs had strobe/intermittent lumen bulbs. Its pretty difficult to hit a vein under a blue light, very difficult under a strobe.

Great Idea.
Yet would Never work here.

Ya see, Eric Holder would be in the ER waiting room.
When in comes a Druggie, who couldn’t shoot up, because of the pulsing blue lights.
Eric tells him he can get a lot of money, because that Coffee Place deliberately sabotaged his, ‘right’ to do Drugs.
So Eric Sues the Coffee house for 3 Million, settles out of court for 1 Million, and gives the druggie 10% (100,000.00).
Then buys a 4 Million Life Insurance policy on the Druggie.
Which he collects on, in 3 months.

(That Fast and Furious Scandal was just dime time, this is the Big time)

Title: Re: Whoda guessed that would not work out well?
Post by Eegore on 12/18/18 at 16:10:06

"So, what are you saying?"

I am saying that it took me a few days to figure out why there were blue lights everywhere.

"Illegal aliens drop a baby and that baby protects them from deportation, unlike a woman married to a CITIZEN who will not Be deported,, baby or no baby, so, a baby , not being Necessary to avoid deportation, isn't an ANCHOR baby."

Except that a married non-citizen can be deported. According to the provided definition if she had a baby it would be an anchor baby because the provided definition stated only that an anchor baby is a product of a Non-Citizen mother. You can keep saying what you are saying, and I can keep agreeing with you, and somehow you want to keep complaining and throwing insults.

People can agree with you, and read things differently. But I am sure you will find another way to take offense to it.

Title: Re: Whoda guessed that would not work out well?
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/18/18 at 20:36:04

Except that a married non-citizen can be deported.

Not for just being here.
Unlike an illegal alien.

Keep scooting the goalposts.
Keep redefining things.
I'm not offended
I'm just tired of people pretending that an ANCHOR baby, for the topic of
Illegal immigrants
Is a baby born to an illegal immigrant.

A foreign person
Married to a citizen
Is
Not
An illegal alien.
So, FUKKING STOP ALREADY and know you're wrong.

Title: Re: Whoda guessed that would not work out well?
Post by T And T Garage on 12/19/18 at 06:30:27

66797F7865625363536B79753E0C0 wrote:

Desperation posts. How sad.

Title: Re: Whoda guessed that would not work out well?
Post by Eegore on 12/19/18 at 16:20:24

"A foreign person
Married to a citizen
Is
Not
An illegal alien."

That makes more sense but you haven't said that. Uou said the criteria exists because a married Non-Citizen Mother can not be deported, and because of that she could not have an anchor baby.

But she could be deported, so the definition is flawed. No amount of personal attacks and complaining changes that.

However stating that the definition of anchor baby applies exclusively to illegal immigrants, and can not apply to all Non-Citizen Mothers could potentially make a better argument. A concept easily communicated of we use adult language.

So are you saying that a Non-Citizen Mother can only have an anchor baby if she is in the country illegally?