SkyDekker

So your standpoint is that all the call centre representatives were already working at their maximum, therefor the bank had to charge fees for the calls from the wellfare folk? I find that very hard to believe and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. And if you think that example was contrived or irrelevant, you must not be working in business.

Done

Cause if that is what the founding fathers wanted with the right to bear arms, they would have included that. But they didn't, so restriction shouldn't be there.

just call me Ronnie Barker

Since we can't decide on which controls, we should revert back to the constitution, which doesn't have any controls in place. Hence, there shouldn't be any controls.

That's what you get for sending the bailiff after me

Only true to a certain extent. Say you are growing your business and have noticed that you need a customer service rep to answer phone calls from customers. You hire the rep and for the first 5 months she is getting 15 calls per day with an average duration of 15 minutes. Your business grows and for the 5 months after that she is getting 17 calls per day on average. As an employer, how much is it costing me for her to answer those 2 extra phone calls per day?

I can only go by what you post on the forums yourself. Yup, most people feel that their situation is special and they should be helped by the government, while everybody else are sniveling babies. That statement is just funny. I am jumping to conclusions about whether or not you are responsible for buying your house? Later on in this same post you say how you decided to buy this house

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? Little Johnny is too young to learn anything unless spoonfed by his parents, but knew exactly what he was doing and should bare full repsponsibility for his actions under different circumstances.

I am about as anti union as you can get. I have been through bargaining sessions, CBA negotiations and have managed a unionized workforce. However I still feel you can't just blame the union for this. Their job is to get as much as possible for their members. management's job is to keep the shareholders, stakeholders and the company in mind. I feel management has failed significantly more in their duties. The egg didn't have a gun to the chickens head, they are both operating under mutual destruction. In my opinion, management didn't cave because of what a strike would do to company profits. They caved because of what a strike would do to their bonusses.

Greta thanks, now how about answering the second question? This is my new belief. I believe there shouldn't be any restrictions on gun purchases in the USA. The constitution is quite clear. Personally, I believe that the arguments brought forward by the pro-gun crowd are bordering on utter stupidity, but the constitution is clear. There is no restriciton on firearms in the constitution, so why are you okay with constricitons and restrictions of any kind?

I clearly wrote, if he loses his job and.... Try and keep up with your reading. I know you desperately want to bash me, but in your haste you may not want to forget to read whole sentences. I still classify them as mercenaries. I know there is a semantics argument there. Like Prisoner of War and Enemy Combatant.

Why, at least one pro-gun poster has stated I am right. I am surprised not more people are agreeing with me that there shoudn't be any restricitons. Why should there be restrictions on the sale of a tool, any tool?

No mercenary vibe. Just painting a scenario where he wouldn't be able to go that route if he were to lose his job with uncle sam. Jump to conclusions much? And to kelpdiver, this is whta he said: "How dare i work two jobs to pay for the mortgage I can barely afford. How dare I stay current on my payments which should belong to someone well above my income bracket."

I'm going on the premise that all we know is a very young kid shot somebody. As you may have noticed is that I didn't say this took place in this case. Just that you are creating that possibility and are sending that message.

Nope, just acting the same way as all these people on here who tell me the kid knew exactly what he was doing based on a newsreport.

I said incremental not marginal. the banks have customer service reps to deal with the other customers of the banks. So, once again, what is the incremental cost of that person, who is employed there already, to answer the question of a welfare customer?

You yourself have said you are living above your means. Why the anger to other's who do the same? What if you lose your job with Uncle Sam and the war in Iraq is over. hence, no more blackwater privatre gigs. Then how are you going to pay for your house? Circumstances change. I agree that many people bought well beyond there means. You admit to doing it yourself. You haven't gotten caught (yet), many others have. Just proves that people will make stupid decisions when left to themselves. People do need some form of protection against themselves.

So enlighten us, since you know it all. When does the state transfer the money and when does the bank make that money available to the "customer"? How much money does the bank make in that time frame? Still think the bank doesn't money from that alone? Still think that without fees the bank is working for the government for free?

I did answer your question. They certainly make money from that program without user fees for a phone call. Incremental cost to the bank for that phone call is zero. If you disagree, why don't you tell us what the incremental increase in fixed cost is for that phone call. All ears, but I doubt you'll answer the question. But, I am sure we'd all be delighted to see your math on this one. Didn't allude to anybody working for free, whether you are working for the government or not.

There shouldn't be a comma before and. You don't write very well, so you should probably refrain from it.

Wat message will you be sending when you let the Dad go free and put the child in prison? Well, that message will be that as an adult you can manipulate your child to kill anybody you suggest and the child will go to jail and you will keep your freedom. The message to other 11 year olds......there is no message to other 11 year olds. How many of them watch the news or read newspapers on a regular basis? (I am sure there will be a couple of people piping up about the incredibly smart kids they know that do....but I think most of us will be able to agree that it is not a common occurence.)

That's exactly why I have been saying that there should be no restriction on the purchase of firearms. The constition does not say that convicted felons or mental patients should be restricted from owning firearms. if the founding fathers would have wanted that, they would have put it in. I'll say it again, there shouldn't be any restrictions on the sale and purchase of firearms of any kind. If a person has the money, give them the weapon. Any nothing is more effective than a claymore mine in my front yard to make sure that trespessers stay off my property. Specially after one tries and gets blown up. I mean, what a great deterrent. If I want those, I should be able to get them. Like I said above, there shouldn't be any restrictions. I would have figured that between you and JR, I would have had your full support. Exactly, if that happened than obviously market forces will ensure that they would go bankrupt. I mean, who would go to that store and buy guns after knowing they don't do any checking and will sell to anybody? Finally, to the guy who talked about herd mentality. Obviously everybody that carries around a gun, specially when there are absolutely no restriction, is trained. I mean nobody would be silly enough to carry with them a deadly tool and not have training on how to use it in stressful situations. Just look on these forums. Most gun owners on here will tell you they are trained to the max and are amazing shots. They always know exactly what to do and would never miss in stressfull situations. If a bunch of gun carrying skydivers say that, then obviously all people that carry guns are well trained. I am for no restrictions whatsoever on any weapon.

What a load of ivory tower horse crap. They also make money from that same program, contributing to overhead costs and profit. Next time you buy a new product and you have a question about it, they should charge you for the phone call, since you don't seem to have an issue with it.

But that ends up punishing the child for actions it was not responsible for. It was not the child's fault the father was an incredible asshole that taught him to shoot and gave him access to the gun. Why punish the child? My view is that a child under 12 is not fully aware of all consequences and is too easily manipulated. The child should not be punished for that. It is quite clear that he does need some serious mentla help, but there are other ways to give that then to go through a court proceeding first.