• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

161,680 Excellent

About cprenegade

  • Rank


  • Location
    over the Rainbow
  • Gender
    rather not say
  1. Sorry Matt, I must have been formatting my post as you were yours. You may want to merge them.
  2. This type of cancer is usually very aggressive. Best wishes for as speedy a recovery as there can be.
  3. Yeah, I kind of feel the same way, but I would have to understand Delta's policy further to determine if she really has a valid complaint. I went on to their site and they themselves even recommend you purchase an 'extra seat' for personal comfort and suggest you contact Delta sales support for assistance. So yes, based on that, I would be a little pissed off if they didn't honor that as well. Why offer it, even suggest it, if you aren't going to honor it? Now it may be on the fine print of the contract that Delta can rescind that extra seat in the event they need it for another passenger. In that case, the fault is on Coulter for not understanding the full contract of her ticket. And we know airlines have a lot of leeway in what they can and can't do regarding seating. Either way Coulter handled it poorly, what a surprise. Maybe someone who makes as much money as her should just consider upgrading to first class from now on.
  4. Not really. The free market would let the failure or success of their product determine whether they were retained or not. This was simply a record company executive deciding he did not like what the band had to say in an interview. So much for free speech.
  5. That was my immediate thought. Easy picking of low hanging fruit. If it had been Metallica who sells out 50,000 seat stadiums and stills sells a lot of cd's in the online era you can bet it would have been overlooked.
  6. It's a feature being offered with the new model year. It's part of their high end package.
  7. Not a whole lot has changed over 40 years from when that movie came out. There are still a share of idiots out there who see racism in just about everything that happens.
  8. I have seen this floated in a few circles. It is ridiculous and not even logical. At the time that this happened, Hillary and democrats were thinking they were on the way to a double digit win. What purpose would this serve? People did learn something from Watergate.
  9. I won't deny that the polarization within the country has taken a dark turn. The media has brought some of the distrust on itself, but Trump is exploiting it. I do believe had that meeting been offered to Clinton, or for that matter anyone else in previous election cycles, they would have explored it. The difference is that experienced politicians with experienced and knowledgeable campaign staffs would have been able to keep it secret. Trump's amateur hour campaign staff and family had no clue. Maybe that's why the Russians approached him. They knew he was easy pickings. As for the Trump supporters, you are right. They will go down with the ship, defending him all the way. I know a few people who are Trump backers and they simply won't admit that the guy is not capable of handling the job.
  10. You don't have to imagine, it is reality. The bigger question though is why did it happen? More republicans voted against Trump than voted for him in the primaries. He just happened to get the most votes out of a crowded field. An even bigger question is how did he win a head to head general election? The easy answer is that outside of democrats, nobody liked Hillary Clinton. There is something to that. But you still have to ask why did someone as inexperienced and as wacky as Trump manage to win the independent vote. I think it has to do mostly with the building disgust towards politicians. The Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations each built on the polarization of the electorate and each made promises that went unfulfilled. People got tired of politicians in general and some welcomed a Washington outsider that might be different. Well, he is different. The problem is they backed the wrong outsider.
  11. I don't think that's true. It's not like MLB where you have a guaranteed contract. If you look at the legal print in your offer of employment, benefits are at the discretion of the company. They can be changed, or eliminated at any time. Even your position is not guaranteed. Companies lay people off as a reduction in force all the time. When I first started working for my company health care was provided at no cost to the employee. Eventually that changed. Now every employee pays a portion with the company picking up the rest. That was never part of my agreement. Usually if companies pull back one benefit, they compensate in other ways such as an increase in 401k matches, or in todays world paying more into an HSA. Under the ACA, companies with more than 50 employees either have to offer health insurance or pay a penalty. But even with that offer, they can make employees pay up to 9.5% or their salary towards health insurance. You could try suing a major company, but good luck with that. People have sued my company for what they believed was wrongful dismissal. Some have gotten settlements, but in the end they never did anything but break even. In order to be successful suing a major company with their corporate lawyers you will need a fairly decent lawyer yourself. If the company decides to settle, the compensation will be fairly low with most of it going into the lawyers pocket. It isn't worth the trouble. Less taxes may spur a company to hire more people, especially if the extra income is invested in expansion which would require more personnel. If The government were to remove the burden of health care from employers, they may use the extra profits to invest in expansion, but you would have to consider that for the government to take over a single payer system, it will require more revenue to cover that. Some of that revenue is likely to come in the form of additional corporate taxes designed to help pay for a single payer system now that companies no longer will be expected to shoulder some of that burden. The money saved by not funding employee health care will end up going to the government so that they can fund everyone's health care. The employee is not likely to see much if any increase from that supposed savings.
  12. Do you really believe that is what would happen? Employers relieved of obligations to pay into health care will magically put that money into wage increases for their employees. Sure. That will happen. More than likely what would happen is that taxes will go up to pay for health care and employers freed of health care expenses will simply pocket more profit. So the money out of pocket to pay for health care will come from the workers in the form of tax increases.
  13. Unless there are legal repercussions, and I'm not just talking about some hefty fine easily covered by the Trump empire, then what difference does it make. Does anyone believe Trump cares about public relations? The guy has been making his own public relations disasters since he started running for President. Unless this leads to his removal, all this story will be is another bragging point for him about how the "fake" news media tried but couldn't bring him down.
  14. Most of the opposition to body cameras for police comes from the unions. Most cops welcome the body cameras as video proof against the false allegations often put out by neighborhood gatherers after a fatal shooting. Now the cost is a different story. If you are going to require long time storage of all police camera video for every officer in big city departments, somebody has to pay for that. That would be the taxpayer. It's easy to call for every cop having body cameras. It's a no brainer until you put the bill out there. I wonder how many city residents would be willing to have a few more bucks taken out of their pay to fund them. It's the same as with everything else. The idea always sounds good until someone brings up the cost and who is going to pay.