LastPommerFan

no. but changing jobs isn't stealing. are you trying to equate them?

Lots of companies hesitate to fire people all the time. Maybe not some of the really huge ones, but I know my dad will hold on to drafters and architects long after the work dries up to avoid screwing them until they can find another job. nfreeman is correct when he notes that it's not always a war.

So you do not put your family in the optimal position? Example: I have Job A I have an offer for Job B I think I might get an offer for Job C For me and my family: Job A < Job B < Job C If I'm certain I'm going to get Job C, I'll stick around in Job A for an extra two months out of courtesy. If I'm not certain, I'm taking Job B. Now, if Job C comes through, and it's better for my family, I'm definitely taking it. I understand it hurts Employer and Coworkers at B, but my family is more important. If I refuse Job B in hopes Job C comes through, and it fails to materialize, now I'm stuck in Job A and my family is worse off because I wanted to be courteous. I've made this mistake, I wouldn't make it again.

Nor do I, despite my Marx tattoo and Chairman Mao Posters. My argument would be more along the lines that doing what is right for your family is so important that if it occasionally works to the detriment of an employer, that's ok.

Why?

vegetables are good for you!

couldn't you take the boston job, then leave for the NC job 2 months later?

This is why I always prefer a basket of chips and multiple dipping options. queso with chorizo is tops.

$ to show Boobs <<<< $ to show Dragons

It is if you stop and have a beer in nearby Fairport with some of your internet friends.

Best I can tell, all of the machinists in the United Steel Workers still do.

Like so many things. Poverty and inequality if economic opportunity are the root causes. I think I've said this before, but I really believe we are currently reliving the turn of the last century. Robber Barons and progressivism colliding in epic fashion.

Before I write anything else, can you clarify this statement. Are you saying that African American violent crime is higher, not only because of poverty, but also because they are Black.

Until Verizon breaks the internet.

I imagine we still won't negotiate for hostages. We've always negotiated for POWs. Problem is, asymmetric warfare blurs that line a lot.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3374#comic

First, become a man. It's totally not fair, but we just have it easier. Second, recode your DNA to be built like a pale Ethiopian Marathoner. If that's not an option, smile more. 100% of body types look better when attached to a smile. It's a fact. I'm extra lucky that my usual weight (140) is light enough to be easy on my knees and feet. on the other side of the coin. I am completely unsuited for hockey and football. Not that it's ever stopped me.

' Because I have a crazy metabolism and I'm always hungry. When I'm running high mileage weeks, 6,000-8,000 cal/day is just about perfect for my distance. I thought I'd have a problem when my mileage dropped a lot and my intake only dropped a little. But I may have dodged a bullet.

It takes effort. For instance, before I go to bed I have two bowls of cereal topped with brown sugar....and heavy cream.

But what about the NFL in LA? $3B? $5B?

I typically consume anywhere between 2000-8000 calories a day and I run anywhere between 0-50 miles per week. The past 6-8 months I've had a pretty solid streak of 4000-5000 calorie days and zero running. My weight didn't move at all, and I just had my physical, LDL is half the recommended limit and HDL is double the recommended minimum. It's possible that this is my super power. Still, even with my health apparently fine regardless of my best attempts at sabotage, I feel like I have more energy and better focus when my mileage is up. Maybe tonight I just sleep in my run shorts as a reminder to put a few miles in in the morning.

I would like to clarify that I very clearly stated that I am certain that you take your Oath seriously. I will add that I thank you for your service. I also agree completely that the Bill of Rights acts as a check by the people upon the Government. Particularly 1, 4, 6, 8, and 10. However, it is not my opinion that your arms are more likely to act as a threat to my rights and freedoms than they are to act as a protector of yours. That is a fact. A belief that you, another citizen, or any group of armed citizens has the capability to defeat the Government of the United States in an armed conflict is delusional. That is the argument against the continued deaths resulting from the 2nd Amendment. 87 American Citizens died today as a direct result of the commercialization of that Amendment. 87 Americans lost their lives and we will do nothing about it in the name of protecting this demonstrably false idea that somehow a band of comparatively lightly armed protectors, who have usurped the Supreme Court's constitutional authority to decide what is and is not acceptable under the Constitution, will rise up and defeat the Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, National Guard, FBI, CIA... I'm not being purposefully aggressive, although the language of this particular topic of debate does lend itself easily head in that direction. So I do apologize for any insult to you or your honor. We do fiercely disagree on this topic, but I think having the divergent ideas stacked against each other is a useful exercise.

I think the quote you are attributing to bob bergdahl is a fake.

Absolutely. Keep an eye on our government. But when you talk about changing things by the sword, don't frame it as a defense of the Constitution, it wouldn't be. It would be a revolution to replace the constitution with some new system that doesn't grant the federal government supremacy and require the president to use his authority to ensure domestic tranquility. Go ahead and use Jeffersons words as you've quoted here. They are not, and never were, the law of our land, duly created by the people. My Constitution holds that role.

Absolutely! but they ad dollars go to the eyeballs. If the Sabres were playing in that game last night, they might have reached a 40% rating and competed with LAs numbers. But Chicago had more TVs tuned into the game than Buffalo has TVs. Even 100% rating wouldn't have been #1 in terms of eyeballs.