Bolas

Take 'n Bake sounds good.

In many cases American cities and states pay crap wages, and the only thing that makes it tolerable to work for them is the "overly generous benefits" (such as health insurance) and pensions. Most of the city workers I know need to work second and sometimes third jobs to make ends meet. Retroactively cutting promised pensions, after the employees have put in the time, is no different than retroactively declaring "we think we paid you too much" and going into the employee's bank account and taking out the money. How much of a "happy camper" would you be if your clients/employers could decide, years down the road, they paid you too much and take back from you whatever they felt was "fair", after you have done the work you were contracted to do? Falling revenues may necessitate paying less than contracted for on pensions, but make no mistake, it is stealing from the employee, plain and simple. Of course, it is easy to do, as there is nothing the employee can do about it once they have done the work and are retired. I, for example, could not go back and "un-teach" all the students I have taught should the state decide to renege on their side of the contract. I think politicians get us into these revenue messes in large part because the public (certainly the American and Canadian public, and I assume it's true elsewhere) expects a certain level of service, and yet has been conditioned to believe they don't have to pay for it (or not pay very much). To get elected, politicians are compelled to promise to maintain or even increase services, while holding the line on or (more often these days) cutting taxes. It doesn't help that the political horizon only extends to the next election, so budgetary planning that's bound to collapse 10 or 20 years down the road will likely be somebody else's problem. So, it becomes prudent (for the politician) to push the problem into the future by maintaining services by offering a low wage now in exchange for a decent pension later. Don That same short term thinking is why Chrysler, GM, and the airlines got into so much trouble. Too many benefits deals made in the good years to keep costs low. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Well of course; but that wasn't the point (or implied point) that prompted my responding that way. I'll clarify: You suspend the kid who starts the fight, regardless of race or gender. Allowing one group to not do something because it may be distracting, upsetting, cause issues, etc. just has the potential to breed more resentment. "Dude. I can't believe they won't let us do/wear x. Just cuz those kids got in a fight." Is better than: "WTF. I can't believe we can't do/wear x yet they can just because they're (insert difference)" Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

One fucked up high school. In other words, what they're really saying is that some of the Mexican-American students are a bunch of violent thugs. Seems to me that if a Chicano student saw a shirt and said "Cool, but I'm still proud to be Mexican", and some white kid hauls off and slugs him for it, it's the white kid who's being a violent thug. If the school suspected that potential, then the school is saying that some of the white kids are a bunch of violent thugs. And at that point you suspend the white kid for starting the fight, and possibly implement the no country or heritage shirts policy. You've then got cause and possible resolution that favors no one group.

If that was the intention, make all remove their flag and heritage shirts, not just one group as that just fosters resentment toward others, and rightfully so. Or just wait until it looks like it may be an issue and then implement what I suggested above. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

If it was not true, no. Besides being immoral, it would also be illegal. I don't want to give the IRS reason to come after me and if they did decide to audit me, I want it to come back clean or just an hnest mistake I may have made. At the same time I use tax software to mitigate that as well.

You obviouly don't know how a central banking system works. There is much propognda in place to make sure you don't. It is a complex system here is a fun easy explanation. You can take to information and do some research yourself. Who do you think all the money came from and who do you think they owe it to? I watched that video. While the central bank in that video could trap someone/something in a credit/interest cycle, the solution is simple logic: don't borrow more than you can pay back.

You think religious leaders would lie? If they still were associated with the bishop and the pope, they'd still be considered Catholic. Besides, if a religious institution was treated like a corporation or company and actually offset its income with charitable contributions, even though it's not necessarilly tax income it still helps the community. This just gives them greater incentive to do so. However if they choose to give the clergy a bonus or raise (taxed) or buy new property (taxed), a portion of that money would be collected.

Which I also disagree with. There's no reason religious institutions unless they qualify themselves as strictly charities should not have to pay taxes. While it's been said the power to tax is the power to destroy I don't think standard corporate taxes would destroy Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, Judiasm, etc. in America. Fringe religions would still have to file, but unless they made over a certain portion and were not declared a charity, they'd not have to pay.

Interesting article, I knew about the social security piece and no matter how many fake dependents they take to minimize witholding they still have to pay that portion. As they are illegal, probably impossible to actually get statistics on all those not working or working under the table to see if they truly are paying more than the services the group as a whole uses. Why are you implying I don't? I know the illegal immigrant problem lies both with them coming illegally and those that hire them illegally. There should be measures to discourage both actions.

How will you accomplish this? It sounds great but unless your plane is solar powered, seems impossible. You should read more about sustainability, since clearly you don't understand the concept. I was thinking he was just buying carbon credits to offset the operation's carbon usage which isn't really neutrality. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Were they wearing "Fuck Mexico" shirts or similar the action could be deemed justified. It was an overzealous admin that caused more trouble then they were supposedly trying to prevent. If they wanted to fair, they should have required all country specific shirts be turned inside out or removed. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

How will you accomplish this? It sounds great but unless your plane is solar powered, seems impossible. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

This is not capitalism as there would not be groups exempt from taxes just as the inequality here is actual, not perceived. Had they charged taxes equally to all (percentage or some other method), they may have been able to pay off their debts, help their soldiers, and avoided a revolution. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Place kick or punt? Good thing I brought more than one... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

"Hey guys, wanna see how many dead dolphins I can kick this puppy over?" Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

This is interesting but fairly obvious and expected. Note the comment in the article--albeit from another news article--the guys fear they are not "in the same league" as the girls. Notice how this particular phrase--"in the same league"--seems to always be used in one direction only. It is always the men who are said to not be "in the same league" as the women--never the other way around. The study that I'd find really interesting would be one that put this to the test--partly because I don't know what its outcome would be: Specifically, first rate a group of both men and women by having heterosexual strangers of the opposite sex, who know them only by a photo(s), rate their photo(s). Take only the top 1%, by appearance, of both men and women. Then put a super-hot woman and a super-hot man in a room together--and see whether the guy is still really stressed or not. At this point--objectively--they are in the same league--they are both super-hot. But would that be reflected in their reactions to each other? Also see if the opposite of the original study was true. Take the top 1% men and put them in a room with the bottom 1% women and test the women's reactions.

Only in theory. In fact, though, our respective governments work for those who own the nation; and I don't mean the common folk. In the US, the country is owned by people with names like Rockefeller, Kennedy, Auchincloss, Walton, Forbes and Gates, and corporations like Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil Corp., General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., and military-industrial complex heavies like General Electric, Lockheed, Northrop and Boeing. In the UK, the country is owned (aside from the royal family, which is a given; the Duke of Westminster is possibly the single wealthiest Briton, much wealthier than the Queen) by the likes of Hans Rausing, Bernie Ecclestone, Lord Sainsbury, and Joseph Lewis, and corporations like BAE Systems, Alliance & Leicester, Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyd's, and of course (drumroll) British Petroleum. In each country, the government works to serve their interests, first and foremost. Republican or Democrat; Labour, Tory or Lib Dem, they're all bought, paid-for and put in place by See Above. Those who fail to recognize this are being naive. So what's the solution other than revolution? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Ha! Where was it, if it's still up? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3856120#3856120 ...and then he got HIS balls clipped! I went looking and found it already. "your a thief!" so much for grammar. That's the real reason. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

time I think it's been used outside of the Bonfire.

You owe me $20. Told ya. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Slappie!!! He's lost weight.

What's to say that isn't the case already and may have been all along. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

In an attempt to get this thread back on track. For purposes of discussion we will be using the whole quote.

I think the sides hurt more as I've wingsuited through them. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.