Hjeada

Are you in fear of being shot then? He lives in Chicago, of course he's afraid of being shot. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Negative. It means that eventually it all averages out. (yes, pun intended.) When I say all I mean the owner, the waiters, the customers (as a collective group, not as individuals). Only the "cheap skates" would lose out. Everybody else is either net neutral or wins. So you agree then that there wouldn't be a net zero increase for everyone then...you say it right there, only the "cheap skates" lose out, the rest either be net neutral or net positive. There very well could be a net zero for the collective group, but that isn't the same as a net zero increase for all...but, sure, as a COLLECTIVE group it is plausible to be net zero. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Please elaborate here, because I think your statement is off...a Zero net change for all would make the assumption that everyone is tipping equally, which, just isn't the case. No. It doesn't. It makes the assumption that ON AVERAGE there is an amount of cash people are willing to pay for goods and services. It doesn't matter a single bit whether an individual customer tips more or less, in the long run of say, 1,000 customers, it regresses to a mean percentage amount. Post a sign saying tips are forbidden at the restaurant. Add to the price of everything what that mean percentage tip is and pay the waiters more. ZERO net change in amounts. No tipping. Why would this work? Because EVERYONE involved has already determined the amounts and are already agreeing to them. Right now. The customer has a finite amount of money he's willing to spend for the meal (including tip). The waiter is already working for the minimum plus tips. The owner already has to figure in that the waiter and customer are willing to work or pay for what the amounts in question. That said, it would take a change in mindset of all parties involved so nobody felt they were being cheated. I find you speak in absolutes a lot...by taking an average, you are not attaining a net zero increase for "any" as you call out...there will be some that pay more in the new paradigm as well as some consumers that would pay less...that is the complete opposite of a zero net change for any...again, say the price for a pizza is $20 now, and on AVERAGE people would tip 15%, thus making the cost $23 for the pie...now you make that the new cost...great! Except the consumer that tips on AVERAGE $5 for that pizza is now encountering a reduction in the price, whereas the cheapskate that never tips, has a $3 increase...therefore you statement about not encountering a net zero for any is incorrect...as there is obviously a net increase for the non-tipper... BTW, taking the average amount people are willing to tip (base price of good + AVERAGE tip = new price) is the same as assuming everyone tips the same... Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Please elaborate here, because I think your statement is off...a Zero net change for all would make the assumption that everyone is tipping equally, which, just isn't the case. If you take tips out, one would assume that the wage must go up to keep the waiter/waitress/driver/etc at the same total compensation. If that is true, then the business owner would have to increase their margin in order to pay for the increase in wage for them to stay at zero net change. Now that the price has went up, the consumer will pay more for the good, but be alleviated from tipping, so there is the possibility that the consumer would have a zero net change...but that is making a HUGE assumption...not everyone tips, or tips the same amount. For the sake of argument, let's say the increase in cost for the good is 15%, then a net zero increase would only hold true for consumers that would have tipped 15%, however, it would be a net INCREASE of 15% for the non-tipper, and a net DECREASE of 5% for the consumer that averaged a 20% tip... Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Yes yes, we know, all Republicans are fucking morons and you are far superior to all Republicans...now that it's been acknowledged, do you think you can quit spewing this BS so the rest of us don't have to wade through it? Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Errr...wrong... https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.666 Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Are you serious, you do recognize that a person can be pro-life without being anti-abortion. Wanting a smaller, less intrusive government, and being pro-life doesn't make one a hypocrite anymore than being pro-choice makes a person pro-murder. Do you ever add anything of value to these threads, or is the constant drivel the best we can hope for? Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Where to start? Conservative political views have been defined as those advocating the conservative application of government. This is to say that government should be kept on a tight leash, and put to use only when truly appropriate. 'Conservative,' however, has become synonymous with the 'Religious Right,' opposition to abortion and so forth. In this case, the question addresses umbrage taken at a perceived lack of 'respect' for one's religious convictions. The question seeks to clarify whether one only one particular brand of religion is inviolate, or if any belief system is similarly sacrosanct. One problem that has been observed with regard to the discussion of religions is that it requires appropriate disclaimers and/or emoticons to distinguish between when one is being intentionally absurd or is simply describing the tenets of a particular faith verbatim. Credo quia absurdum and all that. Anyhow, the point is simply to determine what particular brands of nonsense covered by the dictum that one's beliefs are to be respected, and which may be safely ridiculed. Making fun of the ridiculous as defined by Islam is subject to murderous response, but that is an unique case. Islam, the nonsensical construct of a murderous pervert (RTFB), is singularly virulent. FWIW, Joseph Smith was not much (if any) better. BSBD, Winsor Lumping all that are politically conservative into the same group as those that are religiously conservative is inherently wrong and simple minded. While I understand why, and how, the stereotype of those who are politically conservative are also religiously conservative, has come about...it is no more accurate than lumping everyone on the left as social program teat suckers, or godless lost souls...my original point being, that for someone who touts being an intellectual, the arguments presented are nothing more than underhanded insults with great assumptions tied to them. As far as I know, believing in ANY God, isn't a prerequisite to ones political views. And while the fallacy of those on either end of the spectrum (whether political, or religious) may define the stereotypes, doesn't mean it defines the mass of those who vote or believe one way or another. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Nice implication that someone who has conservative views is akin to those that believe in mythical creatures...Really not so different as your previous implication that conservatives can't read...your constant belittling of those with views that don't align with your views is getting quite tiresome...you continually use personal insults, and frankly, it isn't flattering. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

From: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-18/fact-check-gingrich-obama-food-stamps/52645882/1 So, consider that white/caucasian compose 72.4% of the populace of the US, Black/African Americans are 12.6% of the population, and Hispanic/Latino are 16.3%...the percentages in your post no longer seem quite as telling as you presented. I think it is a pretty fair assessment that there are more minorities on food stamps per capita than caucasian/white individuals, but then again, I'm not a statistician. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

That's funny right there, I don't care who you are!!! Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Chutingstar is pretty spectacular, bought my camera helmet set up through them along with some other gear...best customer service I have ever received

Best one yet! Well played, sir, well played! Dudeist Skydiver #0511

My ex-wifes mom's ex-husband (I know right...lol) bought her a fax machine for thier anniversary...almost as good of a gift as the paper shredder he had given her the year before... Dudeist Skydiver #0511

I'm a big fan of a down payment first, ship the goods to a trusted rigger for inspection to make sure that the product is as advertised, then pay the remainder and have the rigger release the product once they have received verification that the seller has received all monies owed. Anyone that won't ship the product with a 50% down payment gives me enough reason to suspect that either I won't get the product, or it is not in the condition advertised. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

One package of sparklers, one roll of electric tape, roll tape tightly around said sparklers with "just the tip" (another fun wx day game) sticking out of the middle of the bundle, ignight and RUN! Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Still trying to figure that one out, if you find an answer, let me know... Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[replyUsing and growing Marijuana - wonderful. They surely will be fully aware of how to use weapons - softly, silent, full of peace and love - yep, let all those drug addicts (if medically indicated or not) - arm themselves. Hey, they have to defend their medicin, right? Give them weapons but, please! no passports!!! Let me see if I understand your view on this: 1) All people who smoke marijuana are dangerous criminals who shouldn't own a gun, 2) A person who legally obtained a permit to grow and use medicinal use marijuana should be denied gun ownership because they...obeyed the law and got thier permit legally... This type of generalization is about as good as saying all Repulicans are closet homosexuals that incite violence and that all Democrats are so leftist that they truely are communists that want the government to take care of everything...as you said, BRILLIANT! Dudeist Skydiver #0511

How do you see it making skydiving safer? Even if CA (or the entire country) legalizes it, don't expect the rules at the DZ to change. Alcohol is legal, yet not tolerated before takeoff. But the beer light may now get a green led companion. Kinda missed the point there... Dudeist Skydiver #0511

If I lived in CA I would vote to legalize it. There are many arguments on both sides, but as stated above, all things considered I beleive it to have less of a detrimental effect than alcohol. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Yeah! Where's the zero, some of us are completely incapable of getting laid once, let alone this 10+ crap...Thanks for finding my low for the day, now I can post in the high/low thread......... Dudeist Skydiver #0511

KaBOOOOOM! Holy crap, now ya see you, now you DON'T! Glad you were ok as well as the tandem passenger, could have been worse... Dudeist Skydiver #0511

+1...which would you rather do, look back on your life and say "I regret never trying that", or look back and say "I regret doing that, it was really stupid." I would rather regret something I've done than regret not trying it. Be safe, keep your head on a swivel, NEVER get complacent and keep safety top of mind prior to, during, and after every jump. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

+1 - beat me to posting this... Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Touche billvon, touche... Dudeist Skydiver #0511