Andy9o8

Is not. Never was. You just personally find it gross. So did some post-Neolithic old men, who wrote it down. Great marketing campaign for the book, though; should be taught in business schools everywhere. Anyhow, that's the beginning, middle and end of the story.

All the girls say that Seems counter-intuitive I better shut up.

If Obama had a son, he'd call us creepy ass crackers. And maybe you is! I mean, "are". Hey, if Obama's mother was still alive, I doubt his children would call their grandmother a creepy-ass cracker.

From a standpoint of sound historical/political analysis, that's just silly. Do you really think a President Eisenhower (R) or a hypothetical President Thomas E. Dewey (R) would not have intervened in Korea after the North attacked the South in 1950? I guarantee you they would have. By the way, that intervention was done not unilaterally by the US, but by the United Nations via resolution. At least 17 other countries plus the US were part of the UN Allied military forces fighting North Korea (and eventually China), and each one of those other nations suffered fatal casualties. As for Vietnam, the intervention process there was started by Eisenhower in the late 50s-1960. Yes, LBJ expanded it massively, mainly as a strategic proxy counter to the USSR and China. From 1969 forward, Nixon (R), too, engaged in his own manner of escalation (research "Christmas Bombing", for example), again partly to strategically contain the USSR, and partly as a matter of "honor" (for which thousands more US troops died). But also consider: had Nixon won the 1960 election instead of JFK, and then been re-elected in 1964, do you really think he would not have eventually escalated US intervention in Vietnam the way LBJ did? Again, wearing my political scientist/historian hat, I maintain that he almost certainly would have.

It's a stupid rule if you're not a landlord. There are many decent landlords and decent tenants. But there are also asshole landlords, and asshole tenants, and each can be a nightmare for the other party. You don't say what kind or how many pets you have. Most pets are more or less fine, but some are real chemical weapons to carpets. Some dogs scratch the shit out of doors with their front paws. So if, hypothetically, the result of your pets being there is that the landlord has to rip out the carpets and pads, sanitize the underfloor, and then replace the pads and carpeting, and possibly repair scratched-up doors, that might easily cost him over $500 to do. So think of it as an insurance policy, where you're paying a premium for the possibility of a loss, even if it doesn't happen. Wait, better yet - you'll be in New Jersey - think of it as "protection". ----------------- ETA: It occurs to me you said that they accepted "your offer to pay them an extra $500." That means it was the end-product of a negotiation. Rather than just making the extra $500 non-refundable, did you initially offer to add the $500 to the security deposit, so that at the end of the tenancy you'd get it back if there was no pet-damage, but would relinquish it if there was?

"That ole dawg cain't hunt" and "He ain't worth shootin' on a cold night" are definitely not Canadian sayings.

Well, now let's flip the question: Nowadays, what percentage of AFF students - say, in the US during year 2013 - will likely have made at least one tandem jump prior to their AFF-1 jump?

That clearly has long since become irrelevant. She has made this into her own personal feud; and feuds generally are not so much over issues as they are over personalities, which is why they generally never stop - until somebody dies.

More biased slander; and you need to learn some history from, shall we say, more reliable sources. MacArthur roundly deserved to be fired. He deserved to be court martialed for insubordination. Had he had his way and we attacked the Chinese mainland in order to overthrow the Chinese communist government, the Soviet Union would almost certainly have entered the war on behalf of China. That would have been just great. You will note, if you take the time to read about it, that Republican President Eisenhower also pursued and achieved an end to the Korean War by political armistice, and not by military triumph. It worked, and that's why the Korean peninsula has been more or less in a state of peace (even if a hostile cold peace) since 1953. It's understood that most military brass tends to be politically conservative. It's only logical. But the 20th & 21st Century "tradition" of military brass kicking Democratic Presidents in the teeth behind their backs cannot be tolerated. There's no "war on generals", but there is a long-standing war by top military brass against Democratic Presidents, and that shit cannot be tolerated if democratic (small "d") rule by civilian government is to be maintained.

I, too, grew weary of the attitude and the same, old Q & A. The solution is simple, and it's one I've used for many years: never, ever discuss skydiving with whuffos, period; and to avoid others raising the subject, avoid letting new acquaintances know that you skydive. Works for me.

So anyhow, getting back to the theme of the thread, should be interesting to see if he's treated differently than Snowden. Maybe Gen. Cartwright should be hopping a plane to Nepal or whatever.

...which doesn't exist any more than there's a "war on Christmas", except in the minds of the fiction-writers over at FoxNews. But to answer your presumptuous question, No. Cartwright has been described as "Obama's favorite general", and he'd already ducked one bullet by being cleared of accusations of having an affair." The slander that Democratic presidents are enemies of the military is just that: slander.

Now that this thread is up, any wanna take bets on how long it takes for the vid to be taken down? The time to save the vid to your hard drive is now.

I have to agree that this was my immediate thought, too, when I read the "proof of ownership" quote. We'll wait and see how it shakes out, as Aphid suggests; but in the meantime it does ping my radar.

Hello. Here's a pretty good write-up by a business journalist that discusses, in some detail, the point I've been making: that business is business, and businesses simply cannot afford to keep on a "damaged brand". It bears reading in its entirety: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/28/racism-is-a-tough-sell-the-real-reason-everyone-dumped-paula-deen.html?obref=obinsite

As an aside, I urge newer jumpers not to think of canopies this way. Long story short, I think it contributes to a cultural pressure to downsize too quickly, with all the really crappy stuff that comes from that: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?forum=14;

This, right here, is the essential point the 4 dissenting Justices were trying to get across - that the VRA is still relevant because disparate effect still occurs. It's really the essential point of the thread, too. So to all of you, on both sides, who are getting yourselves all distracted and bothered arguing over the semantics of whether a democratic republic like the USA or a constitutional monarchy like the UK can or cannot be colloquially referred-to by the short-hand term "democracy": you all need meds for your ADHD. Ooh, look - shiny!

I saw her on a cooking show once. Was disgusted that she wore huge rings while handling food. Those things can get all sorts of nasty junk in them. She should be fired for demonstrating non-sanitary food preparation. At least that's current. Meh! Last cooking show I watched was the Galloping Gourmet. Wine in, and with, everything. At least the wine is presumably sanitary.

I rather doubt anything can be an "X of the century" just 13 years into a given century. Let's revisit this in another 80 years or so.

A classic case of one hand clapping. At least the White Queen thinks so.

Irrelevant. Low class people, of every stripe, tend to do low class shit.

Not necessarily. First, not all companies' consumer bases necessarily would react negatively. For example, there's a cruise line that runs Paula Deen cruises, and they're keeping her on because their customers are demanding it. Similarly, her cookbooks are zooming off the shelves, so maybe bookstores might think twice before pulling her books. That is customer- and bottom-line- driven. But it's not hard to suppose that a lot of African-American Wal Mart customers - who because of income levels represent a significant chunk of their customer base - might be offended by the word "nigger", especially if they choose not to analyze the facts too deeply. That affects bottom line, which affects shareholders. And that's not perception, it's reality.

I've known many creepy-ass crackers in Florida who I've found offensive - not infrequently in courtrooms.

So, you think its acceptable for your employer to fire you for something you did 10 years ago? Fair question. My answer is that it's very case-specific. Sometimes the best answer for the situation is No. We can all think up good examples of this. But if it's pertinent to your job and it affects, say, the employer's bottom line, the answer can sometimes be Yes. Let's keep our focus on Deen's case. At its most basic core, her principal job, to these employers, is public relations - marketing her public image in order to generate profits for their investment shareholders, largely through advertisers' revenues. (And advertisers - usually companies that have their own shareholdrs to answer to - are very, very skittish about potential effects of who they advertise with.) These are publicly-held companies that are invested-in by its shareholders. The first and prime duty that such a company has is its fiduciary duty to its shareholders. If it fails to keep this duty first and foremost, and the shareholders are even at risk of detriment, some shareholders WILL sue the company to force it to change its policies. To these companies, Deen's product is not her food stuff, it's her image. If her image becomes damaged - by anything - then her product is damaged. And business is business - a company simply cannot afford to keep on a product that risks damaging its bottom line. Not in their shareholders' eyes they're not. They're engaging in due diligence in order to carry out their fiduciary duty to their shareholders.