Previous 11 - 20 Next
Not all the people who need them were involved in this. But grocery stores have a very slim profit margin. A one-percent uptick in shoplifting can make a huge impact. When you have a chain, you reduce the ability to charge higher prices in targeted stores to eliminate the shoplifting impact. It makes sense for chains, which have the efficiency to charge lower prices, to dump stores in high-shoplifting areas. They are replaced by independents who charge higher prices because of their lower efficiency. The net effect is that poor but honest people suffer the most. That doesn't mean the government needs to intervene. It means bad people need to go to jail more. Petty crimes have huge impacts on entire communities.
Talk to Navy SEALs about this and watch the heads start nodding agreement. Guys with big muscles have trouble passing standard BMI tests.
No, she's not. She knows exactly what she's doing. That makes her greedy and evil, not clueless. Same with him.
So if Mrs. Obama focused on, say, eliminating the soft drink lobby for SNAP instead of eliminating "food deserts", she might have a more profound impact? http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/04/26/coke-lobbies-to-keep-products-food-stamp-eligible/?subscriber=1
In response to:

Parents Call Textbook Anti-Semitic

kywriter Wrote: Apr 25, 2013 8:29 AM
I won't even address your oversimplification of the Native American issue except to say liberals could go a long way toward rectifying it if they pushed to dissolve the paternalistic and anachronistic Bureau of Indian Affairs and returned full control of tribal lands and money to the tribes. You see that one being pushed anywhere today? And yet amazingly, Native Americans aren't blowing themselves up in cafes to eliminate the white man. Hm.
In response to:

Parents Call Textbook Anti-Semitic

kywriter Wrote: Apr 25, 2013 8:25 AM
No they didn't. They bought their land and property over the course of about a hundred years, starting in the mid-1800s. They didn't kick out anyone; instead, the Palestinians who left did so because they had advance warning of the Muslim attack on Israel and anticipated returning after Israel had been properly chastised and returned to Islamic rule. The much-touted "right of return", therefore, is a bunch of fifth columnists whining because their side lost. The Palestinians are wrong on every single count. Period.
In response to:

Parents Call Textbook Anti-Semitic

kywriter Wrote: Apr 25, 2013 8:18 AM
I don't care whether it's anti semitic or not; that isn't the real issue nor should it be the question. I'd rather know who thinks a group of teens gathered in a restaurant could be a valid military target IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. I don't care if they're Hitler Youth or a bunch of candy stripers -- they are not a justifiable target. Technically, this should be a trick question; tragically, I don't think anyone in this case has figured that out. And that speaks worlds to the level of cognitive dissonance we are living in.
I just want to know where the heck they were getting money. They didn't have jobs; both were failed or failing college students; they did not come from moneyed families. So how did they afford a nice car, shopping at nice stores, decent clothing, rent, etc? For that matter, how did they pay for their bombs and the internet access to plan their bombs? This, I think, is the best evidence that they were getting help from someone.
Hm. Imagine these applied to Mrs. Obama and her daughters, and then say that.
Yeah, that's kind of my take as well. NCIS is an adult show, but hardly profane; the bad guys are punished, hard topics like Islamic piracy and terrorism are addressed, and people with clearly very different political takes are shown working together to get things done. I don't see the "hookups;" certainly it's no worse than other shows, and quite a bit better than most. Seinfeld, on the other hand, was seriously laden with sex and liberalism, though it was often funny. And what on earth does the writer mean about people going to Facebook for content they like? Does she mean Youtube? FB doesn't seem to fit the argument. NOT well done. Though I do think it's past time for a conservative cable channel.
In response to:

A Ruling on Racial Progress

kywriter Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 8:53 AM
It's not that they want to keep the law; it's that they don't want to say, oh, okay, this has done its work. It would signify the end of the civil rights era and our entry into a time when people are no longer banned from public participation due to unimportant differences. Imagine the vast numbers of civil rights activists and demagogues and organizations that could lose jobs and funding were this to happen.
Previous 11 - 20 Next