eym_sirius

Here's how it's "not the dog's fault". It's the OWNERS who are able to consider the consequences of their actions, not the dogs. The onus is on the OWNER to control his pet. The pet has no knowledge of ordinances, laws, etc. The BREED chosen is the responsibility of the OWNERS. If they cannot control a large dog -- They shouldn't own a large dog. If a dog can climb their fence - They should have a fence that the dog can't climb -- or else -- Don't have the kind of dog that can climb a fence! It's not the dog's fault that he climbs the fence or acts on instinct. It's the OWNER whose responsibil

You're right. I can't imagine that it is worth it to own a dog that could possibly attack a child. The parents should sue the dog owners for everything that they have now and everything that they WILL have! There should be real jail time for negligence! While the dog should be put down - That's the owners' fault, too! Animal owners should consider the responsibilities that go into domestic pet ownership. It is a serious JOB to be a pet owner! It's not about breeds. It's about responsible ownership. That's not to say that the choice of breeds shouldn't be a part of a responsible pet owner'

Such Grace!

There was a much-loved post office employee in Snellville, GA, who, after telling him, "thank you" he'd say, "Thanking YOU, sir!!" (or Ma'am) with a big smile on his face. He died of a massive heart attack one day. He was in his forties. It's unclear to what degree his response played in his early demise. But it was HIS response, not what he was told to say.

The cheapest place is one that does JUST emissions testing and doesn't do emissions testing as a pretext for doing extra work on your vehicle.

I think that the answer is in the development of rechargeable cells (for lack of a better term) that store energy. Batteries are inefficient, but they provide the proper general model, in contrast to the internal combustion engine. With regard to your suggestion about natural gas - I think that a "rocket scientist" is exactly who needs to figure out how how safely configure a pressurized gas system so that it could be used in on-the-road vehicles. Highly volitile gas, pressurized + rear end or head-on collisions - Think about it! Remmber what happened to the shark in "Jaws"??? On the other h

Regarding the economy - No one would disagree with the fact that the economy is evolving. It may be growingslowly here and shrinking/disappearing there. To call the economic term, "stagflation" (a stagnant economy in a period of inflation) "growth" is not an accurate representation. The economy is growing, but at such a slow pace as to be stagnant. certainly not robust. The devaluation of the dollar will undoubtedly bring about higher prices -- everywhere!! Like it or not, the economy is naturally cyclical. It has this shape O This is how most people picture their careers -

Gas taxes. The STORY about Republicans is that they won't raise taxes. The reality is that, of course they raise taxes! And the taxpayer PAYS for government decisions in ways other than taxes - Like High Gas prices. The whole gasoline price problem could be addressed by Congress. They could, RIGHT NOW, bring the price of gas at the pump down, if it were to be in their interest. But they are being paid off by the people who are making big bucks off of the commodities trading of crude. The high price of oil is affected by the way that the commodity is MARKETED!!! Change the way that o

If "hubby" is your word for husband, there's "no problem" with your using it. It's not socially less acceptable and it doesn't diminish you or the person whom you're referencing. It's a slang term of endearment.

I understand what you're saying and to a certain extent, I agree. I don't mind the word, "pleasure". Look at it in this context: Training manager:" If you continue to say, "no proplem", you will no longer work here and therefore won't receive the money that you need for the things that are pleasing to you. In this way, it IS "your pleasure" to serve the customer according to company guidelines." When a server says, "it's a pleasure to serve you" - It's not a lie in the context of "I'm pleased to have a job that pays me money. Serving the customer is my job - Therefore, I'm pl

You're illustrating my idea of what the problem is - a lack of consideration (thinking about) regarding social graces. I think that most people who regard "no problem" as an improper response aren't dismayed, disappointed or disgusted. I don't have an expectation of a reply. But I do come to a conclusion about the level of social adeptness of people who are not sufficiently skillful to accept the thanks from one who extends that gesture. "No Problem" is a way of deflecting thanks, as opposed to accepting it. So you put your finger on EXACTLY what the issue is - the use of l

That would be just downright rude, assuming that they heard the "thank you".

The issue here may be the quickly fading art of graciousness through conveying considerate gestures. A person who has been thanked for a deed or a service shows graciousness by a reply of "you're welcome". It's ingracious to say, "no problem", because the implication is that you're refusing to accept the other person's thanks. It's an automatic response. Try this on (for those who always say, "no problem". When (what you're being thanked for) WAS a problem, when you did go to extra effort -- do you say, "you're welcome" then? Or do you still say, "no problem" because you're just not a

I don't think that it reflects poorly on the profession - why would it? This is an individual and he is representative of himself.

Right. If they can do background checks for firearms with a quick turn-around time, why not for verification of citizenship/social security registration? There are tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue out there! No single source of income, on one side of the ledger, or reduction in spending, on the other side, will alone right the ship. But a strategy that incorporates both sides will add ballast and help mend the sails for the future. THAT's what we need - a STRATEGY, as opposed to a gimmick.

Good to see you, Bwitchy! TEAL? I guess I never paid much attention to color-coded memberships, because I don't remember teal.

This was beautifully articulated by you, TabbyCat! Well Done!

Maybe, in addition to requiring a verifiable ID and Social Security number for hiring someone, a similar constraint could be placed on those renting apartments or other housing and for any cash transaction for real property, making the landlord of other person personally accountable if they do not verify ID's with a Government database (kinda like gun purchasers have to do now). With no place to work and no place to live, where else is there to go, but home? But again, I don't really care as long as the status quo doesn't remain --- the status quo. I'm fine with EVERYONE being a citiz

Uh-uh! You take that back! No way I'm nicer than you. Even regarding immigration reform! Edited to add: LPPT, you're one of the nicest people I know!

Yes, perfect sense. The onus gets put on the employer, not on ICE or INS, to comply with the laws. No job - the worker has to go back home or become legal - but here's the caveat to this solution: or to the streets to a life of crime. The bad part of this equation is that there would be some who, unable to work, would try to live on the streets. It might be a really bad scene that no one wants to really talk about. Y'know what, though --- you don't hear politicians having these discussions and bringing these ideas to the table -- Wonder why????

I respectfully disagree with that last statement. A person cannot be compelled to testify against himself and a policeman must have probable cause to think that a crime has been commited before he can arrest someone. There's no such law as "not having ID" and there's no legal requirement to have your ID with you at all times. So if you travel across the country with your hubby and you forget your purse, you can't be arrested just because you don't have your ID with you. The policeman would have to arrest you on some other charge (I won't speculate) and hold you until your identity could be ver

It should be handled through IRS because let's face it - Anyone who hires a worker and pays him off the books is breaking the law. The worker is supposed to pay income taxes for the income that he receives. My suggestion is that if the company is made responsible and they will lose all of their assets and the hiring manager will go to jail if a single worker is being paid under the table, then undocumented workers will not be able to find work. I really don't care if the above is the solution or if they are all allowed citizenship! The present status quo is clearly unacceptable and I c

That won't work. They will just go invisible and continue to work for cash. They won't go back, just stay undocumented. How is that any different from the status quo? You'd never get anyone to register unless in the registration it says, "This makes you an American Citizen". Maybe on the back it could say, "Just Kidding"??? My way says that if an employer pays cash to an employee, off the books, the business is closed down and sold at auction. The only way to handle this is through the IRS, not the INS.

I'm really fine with enforcement according to the existing law or changing the law to streamline the process for citizenship. We've about gotten to the point where enforcement is no longer an option! We have to detain an individual, upon arrest (at taxpayer expense) and then send him back to his homeland (at taxpayer expense) only for him to come back to the USA to repeat the process (at taxpayer expense). It is simply unbelievable, the number of individuals who are presently in our jails an are awaiting deportation. "Hold for ICE" or "Hold for other agency", the tag will show on the indiv

I have the opinion that as long as politicians are able to accept monetary gifts in exchange for their votes, we're screwed. All of the TALK in the world won't matter a bit if the Congressmen are accepting payoffs and trading pork-project votes with each other. I think that the poorly attended meetings speak volumes regarding the "what's the point" attitude of the voting public. The fox is guarding the henhouse, so it really doesn't matter if you replace one fox with another! Regarding - regurgitated rhetoric - that makes me wanna throw up! I mean that people simply parrot what they he