Tired_Old_Man

That is a cute story and funny, BUT... It misses some important points. A service industry and a sales industry are very different. What would happen if we only paid for police when we needed them? Citizen: There is a robbery in progress at the 1st Bank on Main Street. Police Chief: But we only have 3 police officers on duty. Citizen: Call the ones who are due in on the next shift to come in now. Police Chief: Some are out of town and some are too drunk from partying last night. So the town probably has more police officers scheduled to work than they need for a normal day, just in case. Well, a 747 cost about a quarter of a million dollars. An airline would be crazy to schedule them to fly from point A to point B if it had no idea if they could fill them to a level near profitability far enough in advance. The can't send half of the plane from A to B and the other half from A to point C. The airline could buy two small planes, but the cost would be more than one 747 to buy and much more to operate, and the crew costs would be higher since a pilot would have to be trained to fly whichever plane was needed to fly that day, while the other planes sat on the ground. There is a reason for what seems like a maddening price structure. The airlines with the simplest price structure also have the simplest fleet structure and route structure. SouthWest and JetBlue have one model plane each, but if either attempts international flights, things will change. And so will their price structure.

I think the graphs that I posted above and the Link on the word "Sorry" pretty much shoot holes in the Texas is tops in teacher's salary theory.

The only thing that has changed is that technology has made it easier for the few to fool the many into thinking that their goals are shared.

I looked at the test without really reading your opening paragraph. I was shocked at the test being so hard. After re-reading the intro, I realized that many of the questions are no longer applicable to this century or the second half of the last either.

All it would take is to stop trying to define family so narrowly. Also, as long as the lower middle-class, the group that is most hurt by lack of health insurance/coverage can be convinced that government provided health-care is an evil socialist plot to take away our freedom, we will have these predicaments. What would be worse: No medical coverage or limited choice of doctors?

Sunta: Has someone been watching "South Park"?

Doesn't your DH's firm allow multi-gender polygamy?

Let another couple move in to your home and claim the female as your DP and the male as you DH's DP. Problem solved. :faint:

As does this one:

Sorry This Picture disagrees:

If the Republicans get creamed in this election, expect to see a purge of Gays that would make Lenin and Stalin envious.

First class is worth it if you want to "put on the dog". If you have tons of money or are a non-rev, then going first class is a good idea, but for the avarage person: NO WAY. I don't know what prices look like now, but years ago this was a typical set of prices. JFK to LAX round trip First Class: $3000 Regular Coach: $1400 Discount Coach: $400 Only last minute coach bookers paid the $1400. Most people reserved three weeks in advance, stayed over 7 days, etc., etc. to get the discount price of $400. A little aside: Did you ever see the Polaroid commercials by James Garner and Mariette Hartley? One of the prizes for buying the product was a 50% discount on some airline. Of course, when you read the fine print, it was 50% off the regular coach price. In the example above that would be 50% off $1400 or $700. You could have paid $400 without the prize.

I am always amazed that people can always be fooled by an argument which might sound logical, but is inherently evil. When I went to college, my Economics 101 professor required two text books. One was written by a typical Keynesian economist (the prevailing theory of economics at that time) and one by Milton Freeman (who later shaped much of Ronald Reagan's economic strategy). One of the more vivid examples of Mr. Freeman's the smaller the government the better attitude, was that regulation the fire-proofing and fire retardation of infant's pajama were not the function of government, but of the market place. He basically said people should not have to be forced to buy fire proof or fire retardant pajamas for their infants, that if people wanted fire proof or fire retardant pajamas, then they should make the decision themselves. If people do not want fire proof or fire retardant pajamas for their infants they should be allowed to buy pajamas that catch fire easily. It is a market choice. Of course, then only the poor will have to make that choice. They had the same battle here in Florida before Hurricane Andrew hit. The elected officials on one side of the aisle wanted higher hurricane protection standards and the elected officials of the other party claimed that it would cause the prices of homes to go so high that no one could afford to live in Florida. As soon as Hurricane Andrew devastated Florida, enough of the officials dropped their concern for Florida's growth and passed tougher housing codes, and even stiffer codes have been passed at least 3 or 4 more times since then, as Florida's population has been one of the fastest growing of all the states in the USA. Yes, it is a logical argument to let the people have the freedom of choice to decide on pajamas for their infants which will either protect the child from burning to death or allow the child to be burned and to have the freedom of choice to decide to live in houses that will either collapse or withstand hurricane's winds. But is it a humane argument? Are we not leaving something out of the debate? Think about the unsaid premise that is being left out. If you are a Democrat (or Liberal) you may have an easy time seeing it. If you are a Christian, you should have an easier time seeing it. Many Republicans will miss it. How can that be?

It was well known that the "O-rings" were low temperature sensitive. The issue that I raised was "Why was that rocket booster design chosen?" when other designs did not have the "O-ring" problems with their inherent potential for disaster? As soon as the Challenger crashed, the booster rockets were redesigned to remove the "O-ring" problem. Why couldn't the redesign have been accomplished before the tragedy? Those are two questions that the NASA administrators, the NASA engineers, the Morton Thiokol corporate hierarchy, the Morton Thiokol engineers and the mystery woman who was at the center of the contract award decision debacle will have to life with forever. I wonder; “How many of them sleep well at night?”

An argument can be logically true and factually true. An argument can be logically true and factually false. An argument can be logically false and factually true. An argument can be logically false and factually false. Many might say that I should have stated the above in a different manner such as: An argument can be logically valid and factually true. An argument can be logically valid and factually false. An argument can be logically invalid and factually true. An argument can be logically invalid and factually false.

I have quite a few posts that were e-mailed to me because I am subscribed to the threads. I was thinking of reposting what I have, but I was also fearful of stepping on people's toes.

Some people think in concepts and logic, while others only deal with emotion. If I explain to a person working at Wal-Mart the logic of keeping the estate tax exclusion from becoming too high, including that "it siphons money from the tax system to the benefit of only the 1/2 of one percent of the richest people in the USA, it hurts the churches and other charities, because people who used to give money to charity rather than keep it to be taxed, now keep it and also that it inhibits (or at least slows) the formation of a permanent aristocracy", they respond with, "but a 'death tax' ain't right" or “I'm tired of high taxes and now they want to tax me twice”. For years I have said that there should be two concepts under law: One would be for Matrimony performed by the church where the Federal government and all states would recognize than union as legal for the purpose of all regulations and laws like Social Security, probate, health-care, etc. The other would be unions performed my the state/government which would carry all the same benefits and rights as the first, but would not have anything to do with religious organizations.

There have been many great thinkers in this world. One transformed a country that had lost all hope and turned it into a great power although he himself was small in stature. By the will of his imagination and his insight into the depths of the hearts and minds of man, he turned a society into his image of greatness. Luckily the USA had the industrial might to put an end to his dreams before they became a never ending nightmare for the world.

You are right. I meant to say slacks for men and slacks, dress or skirt/blouses for women. I guess non-jeans, non-shorts could also have covered it.

As a Steeler Fan and a Dog Lover, I wish both you and "Steelah" the best.

We have a wonderful organization where I live call DOGS & CATS FOREVER. :clap2:

As someone who has flown as a "non-Rev" for 40 years and had to conform to the dress code, I am also glad that they have eased up. For coach, regular shoes and no ragged clothing. First class still requires slacks for men and dresses or skirts/blouse for women.

They want you to believe that BuSh never did Coca Cola (with a straw), I guess!

I read the story in the NY Times when it came out. If you want to pay the fee or if you subscribe to the NY Times, here is THE LINK.

I can't speak for Poodles, but I would bet my next meal, that she was trying to Open your eyes and mind, and only used a printout in BLACK AND WHITE to prove her point.