1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Do We Need Corporal Punishment?

GOOD OL' BAD GUY Wrote: 19 hours ago (1:22 PM)
There is a huge difference between discipline and abuse. I am old enough to have been set on the straight and narrow by being on the receiving end of a well deserved whack across my knuckles with a wooden ruler by a teacher that would not allow the class to be disturbed. At the time I didn’t think that was deserved but my misbehavior ceased knowing how to avoid a repeat of the message. I was fortunate to have parents that would have added to that discomfort had they found out about incident. They would have thanked the teacher and legal action would have never entered their minds. The fact is adolescents are not able to digest the need for discipline, respect for others or responsibility for their actions. A whack across the knuckles or the posterior is a message that makes it clear what behavior unacceptable. One of the line items on my report cards was Citizenship and was considered to be just as important as ‘Read’n, Rite’n and Rithmtic.’ The lack of discipline in schools, poor parenting or the absence of a parent and perceived victimization are most likely the reason for today’s gang violence and/or other criminal activity. For that you can thank the liberal idiots.
Even where “must issue” is the law there are businesses, hospitals, schools and government buildings that have a no weapons policy. The logic of that escapes me and raises some questions. Just what is it that entering a building that turns someone into a psychopathic killer? What is it that those that put the no weapons policy into effect plan on doing to someone that would make them start shooting? Is it better to have an armed person that has their background checked, been finger printed and photographed or a thug that chooses to ignore the sign enter their facility? GO FIGURE!!
There’s no way to tell the real intent of the policy. Perhaps it really is because of an underlying bias against commercialization. Heaven forbid any mention or possibility that revealing businesses exist only if profitable would be a part of life or education. The important lesson is the “free” ride to school, the “free” education and the “free” breakfast and lunch are available only because of government not the taxpayer.
wmou, Good question. It took me 52 years to figure out that I wasn’t the boss, the next 6 years to regain that status and the last 5 years wondering if I had made it. My answer is: at the fed level but sometimes I wonder if it’s not the home level…
Ditto. Wait a minute I take that back, should have said DITTO DITTO DITTO!!!!!
The NO TAX spots on TV are an example of how little the nitwits in government know about how a business owner’s think. Offering zero taxes for 10 years is one way of saying get make an investment, train employees (that will be taxed), establish a customer base (that will be taxed) with no taxes. Once you are established a tax of unknown proportions will be imposed around the time leaving the state would cost more than the tax. The difference in government’s thinking and the thinking in business is plan for the next budget cycle and plan for the future. One example is the delays in the ZerObamacare rules of one year to encourage employers to add to their staff. They miss the fact that after the expense of training the cost of health insurance will make a pay increase less likely AND the employee can now sell the newly acquired talent elsewhere. If there was ever an example of a lose-lose for business this is it.
Tex, If he were successful that would make it necessary for the gun nuts to repeal the repeal. Rivera and those that think like him would have to defend themselves by throwing rocks or, heaven forbid the most formidable weapon of mass destruction, words of wisdom.
Stan, I took the same action and went one step further, i.e., don’t discuss personal or business issue on the phone. That’s particularly advisable when using a cell phone. At least for the time being you can be fairly certain that your mail remains secure.
In response to:

Boycott Burger King?

GOOD OL' BAD GUY Wrote: Sep 01, 2014 11:46 AM
There are lots of reasons not to eat at BK. For those that do the move will keep costs down and that will improve BK’s ability to compete with the companies that don’t move. Anyone that doesn’t believe that companies pass all expenses, including taxes, in the price of their product or service just has no idea of how businesses operate. The reason businesses exist is to make a profit for the shareholders not to finance government. A better use of protest efforts would be protesting the waste, fraud and abuse in government first before protesting over-regulation and multiple agencies that have the same purpose.
Anyone that thinks BK is not making a good move must not eat at BK or they don’t think that when BK pays less tax they will not need to raise their prices. Anyone that thinks BK, or ANY OTHER BUSINESS, pays taxes is either naive or stupid. There’s no getting around the fact that any tax collected by a business is a business expense that is PAID BY THE CUSTOMER.
1 - 10 Next