kapkomet

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 03:13 PM) I was giving serious though to a run for our local school board, before one baby came along. I was really wanting to see if it led to anything further, as I have a very vested interest in reviving the town I was born, raise, educated, and still live in. And even though your life's changed, you'd be good at it. Perhaps you could help lead change in the city your child's now in as well. Of course, there's this little thing called $$ that's needed to feed said one child.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:35 PM) Truth is in today's America - the middle is more and more being seen as "the Left." Because politics is being dominated by "the Right." I often wonder where I am in the order of things left to right. I'm probably left leaning but more middle than I give myself credit for. That is a good point. The spectrum has shifted. I think most people are 'conservative', but not the 'conservative' that the righties of American loudmouth media would want you to think. The reason I say that is most Americans are 'content' with where they are in life and do not want society to radically change. Therefore, by that definition, they're 'conservative'.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 09:18 AM) The are quite a few on the other side that come in here and all they do is Bush bash. You can take the time to post a substantiative arguement and they'll twist it, change the subject or ignore it. In fact, the whole Democrat agenda is to Bush bash. Why is it so hard to understand that when we see that garbage, day in day out, here and in the media, that we get fed up enough to respond to it with disdain? Prime example was with the MSNBC polls posted and discussed here. I post one that shows a clear majority in favor of capital punishment and a liberal swarm dismiss it as irrelevent. The BigSquirt finds one that shows a vast majority are against this UAE deal, and all of a sudden it's revelent enough to post. Squirt's poll sat out there for hours without a hint of relevence questioning. Where were all those people that dismissed mine. Same type of poll, same source, yet no objections whatsoever until I mentioned the previous poll. That's the rules they play by. If it fits our agenda it's relevent, if not it isn't. And it happens over and over again around here. I keep saying to these people that I could swung over to their side and some issues, but not when the main agenda is to bash Bush. That's all the Democrats have done since 2000 and they still haven't a clue as to why the Repblicans control the executive and legislative branches of government and well on their way to controlling the judicial branch. The Democratic party and their catering to the extreme left have no one to blame but themselves. You asked. There's my answer. YASNY, you raise some great points. But let me take it one step further. Let's go back to 1994. What was the "Contract with America?" I mean, really, what was it? It was a response to 1992 when Ross Perot scared the crap out of the 'politics as usual' crowd, and the "Contract with America" was a smoke and mirrors way to say "you don't need those third party people, WE can do it for you". That allowed for the two parties that exist today to gain a stanglehold on the system and shut out any chance for a really well planned third party candidacy. I think that has bred some 'hate' from both sides of the political spectrum because there's not as much room for 'centerism'. Each side must cater to the fringes of their party to get elected. Furthermore, when you look at our government today, it's FULL of POLITICIANS. America today needs real STATESMEN, you know, the ones that will stand up and solve problems, not politicize every issue so that they get re-elected the next term. We need true representation, not beurocracy. Our government has really turned away from this and it's become politicians looking for opportunities on both sides of the aisle. What happens if the Democrats gain control of Congress this election? The real answer? Absolutely NOTHING. It will be all the same crap. What happens if the Democrats gain the White House in 2008? Absolutely NOTHING. It will be all the same crap. The issues will be different, but at the end of it all, nothing will change. And because of the cycle we're on, and the power structure in place, 15 years from now, if people are sick today of the Republicans and sweep them out of power, the Democrats will get swept out of power the same way. It's all a bunch of whiney crap from both sides of the aisle. At the end of the day, though, it's a government of politicians, not a government for the people. That's why I'm ashamed of our American government today. The people have lost the power.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:25 PM) After editing out the whining, there is one good point buried in here, and maybe a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while, but I want to expand on it... WE as Americans who are the ones who made the foreign takeover of our own ports possible. Our lust for cheaper and cooler consumables, without being willing to pay more for American made products, which support the American workers are what is making this possible. One number you never hear about is the trade deficit, and let me tell you, it keeps hitting new all-time records. And let me tell you also, that ain't the Presidents fault, its our fault. Its that new Honda in the driveway, Saudi gasoline in the tank, Mitsubishi plasma screen on the wall, Sony Playstation 2 hooked up to it, Indian rug the floor, house heated by natural gas from UAE, etc, etc. Yes it is us who directly gives foreign investors the dollars to come back and buy up vital sectors of our marketplace. We can't have it both ways. We can't want cheaper and better products, while importing them at the expense of the American worker, all of the while expecting their to be $50,000 a year jobs for high school dropouts, all of the while not buying American products, and then not expecting all of the dollars from overseas not be reinvested. Its naive at best, completely ignorant at worst to think that companies would avoid trying to own the infastructure of the worlds largest economy, when it was that very same economy which made them rich in the first place! Bottom line, we Americans are greedy idiots who wants more money without working for it so we can buy all the cool s*** for as cheap as possible to impress one another. What a nice society. (notice no green).

UAE agrees to slow down and "revisit" the sale...

Like A Rolling Stone - Bob Dylan vs. A Day In The Life - The Beatles

Bloody idiot.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 11:12 PM) I alwasy think the main problems were the huge effects of 9/11 mixed with them ordering too many new planes and well obviously far higher fuel costs. Southwest was the one airline that semi put itself in a good position for this because they hedged there fuel well and have very affordable contracts till 2009, but following 2009 I anticipate that Southwest (the bench mark for all airlines in terms of profitability) may also face some problems cause the oil situation won't get better. The only time it will be better is when all cars are far more fuel efficient (and we are on the way to getting there, but its going to take more time before hybrid technology is in a high percentage of all cars on the road) and than of course when we finally replace oil with alternative choices. Southwest is the ideal model. Having said that, the pricing model for airlines has to change. They need to create artificial demand by reducing the master schedules. When they have higher demand, prices go up. It's pretty basic. If they do things the right way, they all could be profitable in 1-2 years, even with the high fuel costs. It *IS* a fine line... you don't want to reduce schedules too much, but you do want to do it in such a way so that the overall ceiling goes up about $15 per lane segment. That would just about do it.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 11:04 PM) The article said nothing of large planes. But whatever. And I am NOT saying there are not a lot of talented people at the airlines - I am sure there are, just like all industries. What I said, succinctly, is that the airlines as a whole did indeed sign those agreements. They can look in the mirror, good and bad, on that subject. Fuel prices and terror, on the other hand, were mostly beyond their control (except for fuel hedging). I agree with that. The problem with the airlines wasn't a lack of talent, it was the short-sightedness.

QUOTE(Chisoxrd5 @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 11:00 PM) Lol..I basically said the same exact thing as you Lawyers :banghead Yea, I ain't a lawyer either. I'm in finance... which is a little hoidy toidy accounting job.

Dude, give me a chance to re-read what I post.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 10:58 PM) What do I not have a clue about? Last time we had this argument about airlines, you tried to tell me that only a few airlines had armored their doors, which I then showed you was incorrect (they are all updated). Now, tell me what part of what I said is wrong? I'm not saying that every individual airline professional is responsible for the industry downfall. But I am saying, using simple logic, that the management of these airlines SIGNED these agreements that put them into this position. How am I clueless on that? You were wrong about that too, because the article was wrong. Well, only partially correct. They only modified the larger planes, which is about 15% of the fleet. And, the modifications were only very slight in nature, and that article only said "modified"... which doesn't necessarily mean anything. They put a friggin' lock on the door, put some composite on the back side of the doors, and said 'modified'. Yes, management did some things that in retrospect wasn't a good idea. Having said that, again, the climate is a whole lot different then it was even 6 years ago. There's a right way and a wrong way to run a business. The airlines got suckered, but to sit here and say that they are not talented at what they do is not right, either.

QUOTE(Chisoxrd5 @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 10:56 PM) He might have, I'm a little confused as to the specifics of what you are saying. He was employed at your company and quit on what date? Also what was the terms of the Covenant Not to Compete? They can vary from 1 year to 15 years in duration? He was rehired by one of your old clients? And since then has taken work away from your company? Btw I'm an accountant, but I deal with these quite a bit. Stupid accountant.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 10:06 PM) A cost structure allowed by said talent. Holy s***. Some of you amaze me. You don't have a damn clue, so quit pretending like you do. This is one topic I know my stuff about, and you all don't get it. I apologize for coming off like a pompous ass on this, but it irratates the crap out of me to sit here and see some folks ripping apart different things that you don't know what you're talking about.

There's a lot to that question and the details are fuzzy. It really depends on how the non-compete is structured and the terms of the "departure". You also need to ask yourself how much of a revenue hit it was to your business to lose this customer. If it's not that much, I'd just move on. If it's a major account - you risk pissing off the customer (who by the way goes back to the other business longer) to the place where you're not going to get the business anyway. It's going to be about your business and the other business, not this guy who left to go to the other place.

Send in the troops. You know, an eye for an eye... :rolly

CIVIL WAR! BUSH DID IT! (*sigh*)... it's not to diminish what's going on, but hopefully this little ploy will fail ...

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 08:41 PM) My wife has gone totally into heat for that Ace dude. I think it's payback because she's seen me drooling a little watching Sasha Cohen skating this week. Yea, but something tells me he's not iiiiiiiinteressssssssssted on the hotties of the world, if you know what I mean. And I'll put a disclaimer here right now - this isn't meant to flame anyone. Just stating an, um, observation.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 08:16 PM) Happily, at least for now, this wouldn't affect Cable...but there have been folks in Congress clamoring to give the FCC power to regulate Cable's content also. They sure have. Trust me, I know about this one.

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 05:57 PM) Ah cool. If anyone needs it bigger, I can upload it somewhere else, just need to find somewhere that allows larger images. Boz - you can just upload it to the server as big as you want it... although the image shack seemed to work well.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 05:38 PM) Hm, I bet you're still listed, then. Actually, Noamy is coming here next weekend so I think I'm going to have to cancel. . . You could see Noamy twice. Who cares about Heads?

That's all I have to say about that.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 05:54 PM) If piling on this one forces nothing else but extra funds directed towards actually taking concrete steps to secure the U.S. ports...then I could care less if it tore the country apart for months. Next to our southern border, I think our ports are probably the single biggest vulnerability in this country right now. You're exactly right on this point.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 05:21 PM) Please read previous 11 pages in thread for an explanation. You will find plenty of reasons why people are questioning this. It's not just this issue. It's all of them... I agree that this one needs questioned, no doubt. But there's crap piling on before people even knew what they were talking about, as per usual.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 05:09 PM) When a network runs a caption box asking if one party is "declaring war" on America, they have lost all credibility as a "news" source. They are now a 24/7 editorial service. You won't see stuff like that on CNN, or the networks, or in any major newspapers (in their news sections, not editorials or columnists), against the GOP or any party. Yes you will, and do.