tvc184

I am not surprised it happened in Texas.    This was a story from a couple of weeks ago. This had nothing to do with WH other than it was one of their employees. It was beat up on another forum (hunting) where some people called for boycotting them and blah blah blah.   I see these stories from time to time and especially about police officers. Almost every time you find out that it was a rogue employee that didn't like cops or was too stupid to understand rules. In almost every occasion the corporate headquarters stepped in almost immediately (as in this case) and corrected the problem.    If I boycotted every business that has had a stupid employee then I would not be able to eat or buy clothes to wear. That WH probably has a manager (as many of those kinds of places which is why I am not surprised it happened in TX) with a lengthy criminal record and had his chance to strike back but then claimed stupidity (which I tend to agree with).    Assuming a national chain comes out with a stupid rule like on duty police officers have to disarm themselves to enter the property then I can see an issue. Having a stupid employee, while it might be an interesting news story, is not an issue other than to point out how stupid some people really are. 

  Yep. You have to read the entire statement to see the intent and not a single sentence.... which when it happens in the media we call it taking something out of context.    It is not meant for people protesting here even with arms as they have a constitutional right to plea their case in court.  For people that leave this country and become a foreign combatant should be no rights remaining and they have made a de facto statement giving up their citizenship or at least that should be the law. Apparently right now it only applies if they join another "country's" military and not a free lance or mercenary fighter for the same reason. It is a loophole in the law and I think Cruz tried to rectify it. If that was the intent (and I believe it was) then this law should be passed and it really just clarifies current law. 

  Not so fast. If the article is correct (and I read it on more than one website including the Washington Post to see how credible it was) then current law says that if you go to a foreign nation and take up arms against the USA, you have constructively given up your citizenship.    ISIS is not a country but they are rebels trying to be. It appears that by the a stretching of the law, Americans can go fight for ISIS against the USA or against our interests and because ISIS is not a country (yet), the law does not apply. I believe that the intent is to say that if you take up arms against the USA, you lose your citizenship period and not say that it only counts if you take up arms against the USA..... but it has to be attached to some known country.    I don't care if you are Catholics, Muslim, gay or atheist. If you leave this country's borders and join a fighting force against the USA, you should lose your citizenship and I think that is all that the bill is asking.    Under that idea, I am all for it because now it appears that traitors can get around the law by simply saying that ISIS is not a country but in every other aspect, it is the same as if they joined the Syrian or Iranian army. 

    Then let the contract carriers deliver a package as cheap as the postal service and letters for less than 50¢ to every address.    I still do not think it can be done. What happens if you eliminate them next week and half the country can't pay their bills without sending it FedEx at $10 for a letter and you have 12 bills to pay? 

I wonder what "inappropriate" or "relationship" is?   The TX law in such cases is very clear and there has to be a sexual act. The Penal Code is very specific and detailed on what is the crime and having a "relationship" or being "inappropriate" is meaningless. Without a sexual act, it might be and likely is a school rules violation but not a Penal Code crime.    If someone gave false information about the accusation (as defense attorneys are almost obliged to claim) then that person(s) needs to be held accountable. It is nonsense that someone claim such a serious charge and get away with it both criminally and civilly if it isn't true. On the other hand, if the accusations are correct.............    

Please do not use words that need to be disguised by using symbols such as &%@$ as it is against the rules of this forum. Also do not use people's names in unsubstantiated rumors or flame individuals, again against the rules of setxsports.com.    .......... and the Open Meetings Act (Texas Government Code Chapter 551) applies only to governmental bodies such as city councils, school boards, TX legislature etc., and certain private but public boards such as as some homeowner's associations and non-profit groups that receive federal funding. Unless the federal government is funding the STJFL, it does not come under open meetings laws. 

The question in the OP was about private industry operating more efficiently than the USPS.    I fail to see how they can and I think my numbers are correct or nearly so. While the contract carriers may be good at delivering a limit quantity of parcel post items, they hardly deal with anything near the quantity of the USPS.    I see a FedEx truck on my street about 15 times a year and a UPS truck about one a week. Even when I see those, they usually deliver to a single home and then leave. That is a far cry from stopping at virtually every address in the US six days a week. If they can deliver a first class letter at less than the USPS then let them do so, noting that the USPS delivers to all addresses for the same cost so a letter to Guam or Puerto Rico is still 49¢.  I am all for free enterprise and if FedEx, UPS and others can do that, feel free to jump on it.    Lastly, since you are talking about efficiency...................   To put it in perspective, $16 Billion per year even at the cost of taxpayer's money (which in this case everyone actually benefits), is 0.004% of our annual budget. So even if you are paying $15,000 a year in income taxes, only $60 goes to the USPS to make up for their shortfall. Just think of it, you will only pay $14,940 instead. I would bet that most people reading this forum are not paying $15K per year in income taxes so their cost for the USPS would be less and sometimes a lots less than $60 per year. So for $60 or less for an entire year (a bit over $1 per week) you get delivery of any number of letters and packages, usually to your front door and six days a week. If we give FedEx $16B a year in tax dollars, can they deliver to every address, six days a week, including Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, etc.? No wait, they would have to do it cheaper so they need to do it for a lot less.    I just don't believe it that it will be any more efficient in this case by contract carriers and even if so, only by a couple of pennies per item.  Out of all the stuff we pay for with our taxes, it seems like the USPS is the least offensive and has a benefit for virtually every person. Compare that to where other places our money is spent.    A comparison with Solyndra is meaningless. Solyndra was a private company that tried to manufacture a product that would be used by a minuscule percentage of people. I got nothing out of Solyndra and likely would not have if had they made it. I benefit from the USPS daily and I would bet that you do also.    And lastly, I ran FexEx for a 10 pound standard rate package from Houston to NY (no overnight or emergency delivery). It was $14.71. The same 10 pound package from the USPS Priority Mail is $10.65. Hmmmm............    Maybe if the USPS charged "private" for profit rates, they wouldn't be in the red. 

If the plaintiffs continue with their appeal, look for a possibility of the SCOTUS to take up this issue.    The 9th Circuit has in most recent years been the most overturned circuit in the US but I think the 6th Circuit might have overtaken them. This case looks ripe for overturning, if the high court takes it up. 

  The USPS is not intended to make a profit. With all that you stated, can a private carrier deliver a letter for 49¢ or less.    Looking at a news report from the NY Times, the USPS loses between $800 Million to $1.5 Billion a quarter. That comes out to a worse case scenario of $6 Billion per year loss. My proposal could save up to $8 Billion per year or them actually making a profit.    Also from the Times article, the USPS delivers about 38 billion pieces of mail per quarter. Raising the rates by 5¢ per piece, it will raise $1.9 Billion per quarter or almost $8 Billion per year, again more than making up for any loss.    So even with an increase of 5¢ per article, can FedEx, UPS and others deliver a piece of mail for 54¢? 

I've already posted the solution and I honestly think it would work.    Currently the USPS delivers six days a week to every (or nearly so) address. Cut the service to 3 days at each address. It will be Monday-Wednesday-Friday for half and Tuesday-Thursday-Friday for the other half.    You can cut about 35% of the local carriers (or maybe 50% but I was being conservative). No need to cut support staff such as large trucks that deliver mail between post officers, aircraft, etc. By cutting a third of the carriers, it would save enough to make it more profitable or in their case, breaking even is good enough since they aren't privately owned. From my quick calculations it will save about $8 Billion a year or about 20% of their current budget.    As far as the private industry doing a better job, I agree in most cases but is it true in this case? The USPS delivers mail for 49¢ for a first class letter (I think that is the current rate). I have never seen UPS or FedEx offer anything for 49¢ (much less cheaper if they can do it more efficiently) but maybe I missed it. 

No, I do not do that and I am not "you guys". You were responding to my comment and if you feel like using the search feature and finding where I have brought God into a conversation to prove a point, please do so. I do not use God as an excuse for anything and do not bring it up in political discussions.

This area is heavily industrial where people can make close to six figure salaries without a four year degree. A lot of it is simply supply and demand.

Beaumont ranks dead last in the USA or as the poll states, they are number one in the least educated. So Beaumont can rightfully say..... "We're #1 !!!"....."We're #1 !!!"....."We're #1 !!!"....."We're #1 !!!"....."We're #1 !!!".....

I can't believe that you invoke God as a political argument.    On the other hand, like the other trump cards, when you run out of options..................... 

You doubt the Democrats are worried because of the Bible?

    You want a legitimate answer?   The Supreme Court said that limiting how much you can donate to a political campaign is an unconstitutional violation of the right to freedom of speech. The Democrats don't like that ruling and want to not create a new law (which would also violate our constitutional rights) but to change the Constitution and limit free speech when it comes to politics. The Democrats say yes to changing the Constitution and limiting free speech when it comes to elections and the Republicans say no.    Ohhhh.... but let's not talk about free speech, let's call it what it has been called in this thread, bribery.   If you call it legal bribery as the title of the thread suggests, is less money just "a little bribery"? If you offer a cop $500 to drop a citation it would be a bribe but if you only offer him $250, it isn't? That is what the campaign finance laws say. You can donate to someone (bribe by the claim of this thread) and it is perfectly okay but you can only bribe to a certain extent. Tell me where that makes sense. The Dems don't mind donations and sure aren't turning down any money.... they only mind if you get more than they do. So it is okay to bribe people, just keep the bribing "under control".   There have been several such First Amendment cases that have thrown out campaign finance laws and in the most recent case (2014), the law (BCRA) allowed the "bribery"..... but you had to stop it 60 days before the election. Again, tell me where that makes any sense. Yes, you can put your money in electronic (television, radio, etc.) campaigning but you can't do it right at the end. Apparently the Dems think that bribery is perfectly okay to bribe 61 days out from an election but don't do it inside of 60 days.   And for that, they want to change the Constitution. 

I don't really believe or disbelieve these polls but I'll bet the Democrats are sweating out the election right now way more than Republicans. 

I am guessing that the way these decisions are made is by looking at resumes' (seen it a few times in my city as they have changed city managers a few times). On paper some people look good but then you start digging. Pick out a few that look good, name them as "finalists" and then start weeding them out.    I was listening on KLVI this morning (I think that was the station) and there was an interview with one of the people involved in the decision making up there. One of the things they were looking for was someone not carrying baggage. I think the way the guy put it was something like, "We are looking for someone that did not leave their last job under investigation or difficult circumstances". There seems to have been something on Chargois' packet that said he "resigned" from BISD and was looking for new opportunities or something to that effect.   While that may not be a lie, if that is what he wrote (and I think reported) then it seems at the least, disingenuous.  I think Detroit was looking for someone that wanted to be there, not someone just "looking for a job" after losing the last one. 

Hmmm.... the public is finally finding out about gumbo. 

Much was made of AZ and their new laws on immigration but current federal law allows local law enforcement to act as federal agents. As such, AZ never needed to pass their immigration law as the United States Code already allows exactly what they did.   Unfortunately 8 USC 1357 says that the Attorney General of the USA can enter into an agreement allowing local law enforcement to act in lieu of federal agents with training of the proper laws by the AG however he and his boss will not use this standing federal law. It was probably very effective which is why this administration will not use or enforce current federal law. In fact they fought it in court and when they lost part of it, they publicly said that they would refuse to enforce the laws in AZ.  

    That is true but when a state tried exactly that, it was contested in federal court and the Obama administration sided with stopping the states from doing it individually. 

I believe the article to some extent and that extent is that it is a person's opinion. I might be completely correct, it might be completely wrong and it might be (more than likely) somewhere in between.   It is like two guys that have been in the military and both fought in Iraq but giving different viewpoints or taking opposing sides in an argument all the while both of them saying, "But I have been there so I know.....". 

I won't be going until late October or early November.

  Okay, you're trolling. I get it.   You brought up Hawaii, you brought up Ukraine and you brought up people throwing stones.    I have asked many times what they have to do with each other or if you have a point. I can see by your response that you have none.    Not shocking however. 

  Yes, I can copy and paste articles also.    Is there a point to your thread? I have asked several times and you have yet to respond other than copy and paste other literature that doesn't answer anything. Is this just trolling or do you have a point?