Pendejo

Not withstanding the bs that is starting between a couple of the posters in this thread, I would like to point out a couple of things if I can about how things work in a finance office at a car dealership. First, every lending institution that I have ever seen who signs up with a auto dealership for indirect lending puts a “rate cap” on the amount of spread the finance manager can make on a loan. They do this not because they are caring people who are looking out for the consumers best interest (no pun intended), but rather because they do not want the person to refinance at a lower rate elsewhere before they get to make any money on the consumer. Second, most of the major lenders have an internal scoring system. That system takes into account the credit score of the person, their time on the job, time in their home, if they own or rent their home, if they are self employed, the amount they are borrowing vs the current wholesale value of the vehicle, debt to income ratio, and a lot of other little things. I know that it is easy to point fingers at the finance manager and say he has ripped someone off, and, in some cases that is certainly the situation. But in some cases that is not true. If the person you are describing used an accountant who told them to only report income that they had to, like income that is paid with checks and what not to the business, then the persons debt to income ratio would be all out of wack. That can cause the lender to view the person as a higher risk and push up the rate. In Goergerussia’s case, the finance person lied (sorta). FMC (Ford Motor Credit) like GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation) have a policy where that the dealer does not get charged back after 90 days for any rate spread that is made on one of their loans. They still get charged back for the warranty and insurance the customer might by if they cancel it, but not the rate. Thats actually a really good example of the finance person being less than honest. There are certainly people out there who will take advantage of their customers, that goes without saying. But in truth, it happens a lot less that most would believe. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

Given that according to you we will not see the Presidency change hands it really shouldn’t matter should it? Or don’t you remember our argument way back in the day about the secret code and how I said I would be reminding you of your comments about the United States no longer existing before the end of our current President’s term.... Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

did you pat yourself on the back and call your mom to tell her about your cleverness? Nope, I prefer instead to have fun with people who make statements without thinking them through. In general, I certainly agree that smoking is a bad I idea and does nothing good for a person. In general I also think that there are lots of other things that people do which are a bad idea and do nothing good for them. What I do not agree with, is anyone deciding what a person can or can not do in the privacy of their own home (so long as that activity is legal). And thats really what is being done in the situation. It’s a shame that we as a society allow our dislike of a group of people to cloud our judgement regarding discrimination. Because in truth, this is discrimination. The hiring practice is flawed to the core as stated by one of the other posters. The fact that a person can stop long enough to get the job and then start using tobacco products again without any fear of retribution, is the best example I have seen thus far. For me, it isn’t so much about the actual policy about smokers. Its where that policy can lead to later. As I said in another post in this thread, when they start down the path of taking things, rarely do they just stop with the one thing they are taking today. Sometimes it takes a long time before the additional freedoms are taken (all in the name of protecting me from myself), but after the precedent is set its just a matter of time. By the way, the insurance excuse is nothing more than another ploy by an insurance company wishing to limit their exposure (which is confusing about them being able to start again without issue don't you think?). In todays climate of universal health care I find it comical that some would support such a thought. Given that line of thinking, would then the universal healthcare system be for all who do not use tobacco? But then I guess I am just making this more messy than it really is, cause you know... Using your brain to think a subject all the way through is just messy lol Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

+/- 5% is very small compared to what is normally considered a "Fair" range for equivalent work within a same pay grade. - complaints for a 5% difference in pay for the same job (as a starting salary even) would be laughed at. this difference in pay would need to be a bit more than that (for higher paying jobs) to provide motivation for someone to give up such a disgusting addiction So then if they hire all their women employees at 5% less you think it would be laughed at? Wow.... Thats all I can say about that kind of comment... Just wow.... Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

Perhaps in your scenario, but not in the one I proposed. In the one I proposed, all new hires are hired at 95%, and all new hires are eligible receive healthy lifestyle bonuses if they qualify (i.e. meet healthy lifestyle requirements). Employees would be able to choose whether or not to seek those bonuses. It's positive incentive, not negative incentive. Of course, optimumly, the unearned bonus monies would be spent covering extra costs due to unhealthy lifestyles, and, hopefully, meaningful education/opportunities to adopt more healthy lifestyles. Nice misdirect about women and minorities. Women are born women, transsexuals notwithstanding, and minorities are typically born minorities. That's completely different from choosing to be a smoker, meat eater, etc. In your scenario the winner is big business. If the entire labor force took a pay cut of 5%, then, those companies gave the bonus’ to only those who met the “companies” criteria, that would mean that a large percentage of the income that was paid out would be kept by the company. Even if 80% of the people in the work force woke up tomorrow and changed their life style to live what is deemed a “healthy lifestyle” that would mean that 20 percent took a 5% pay cut. Then, just like in the other examples I have given, we get to argue about who decides what constitutes a healthy life style. Considering that for the most part they can’t decide what is actually good for you (depending on what week you ask them about) I think that would certainly be an interesting conversation to sit in on. You say I am trying to make it look like a bigger mess than it really would be, but I think you are underestimating peoples power to attempt to work around and abuse a system like what you are purposing. Thats why freedom is what I prefer. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

Nice try with the misdirection about the males. What I said was about hiring female workers in that age range. And in the United States (which is where we are talking about), you are much more likely to contract HIV from same sex. Now, please misdirect again by attempting to prove me wrong. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

I agree that homosexuality is not a choice, but that isn’t what I said is it. I said same sex acts. The decision to have sex is a choice, and, there is a much greater risk of contracting HIV through same sex activities. There is the crux. Since it is more risky, then it can be grounds for not hiring a person based on the logic you have displayed thus far in the conversation. And that is the part I disagree with. For me its about freedom. I don’t like it when they take those freedoms away. While I agree that smoking is certainly not right thing to do, I also feel the same way about a lot of things that others do. But so long as it is a legal act then an employer should not be allowed to discriminate against any group of people for it. Since you seem to not like the examples I have given thus far lets look at another one. Should an employer be allowed to not hire women between the ages of 20 and 45 years old as they are considered in the prime age range to become pregnant and could cause their insurance rates to go up? Should I, being male be asked to pay a higher rate just because these women decide to have a child? Or, should the condition of employment be based on the fact that if they become pregnant that the company can just automatically discharge them and then disqualify them from insurance coverage? Just so we can keep a level playing field, we will assume that the company does not have maternity insurance. But, as with any group policy, if there are complications from the birth the insurance kicks in and will pay for the complications (either with the newborn child or the mother). Now certainly other than in extreme cases the decision to become pregnant is a choice. So why should I be forced to pay a higher rate just so these women can have a job? Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

That was my meaning behind asking if certain parts of this discussion sounded familiar! (you just said it a lot better than I did damn it lol) Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

Thats part of the issue. It should not be legal for them to do so. Even though you felt that my example was one sided, it is possible that an employer can look at it from that perspective. In both cases they would be wrong. It is just a matter of time before someone challenges this and wins, then, the tax payers get to pony up the costs of that legal battle again.... I noticed that you didn’t address some of the other posts about where this ends. Do you feel that they should be able to make it part of the hiring criteria for someone who is working in a desk job to have a weight limit put on it? And if not, then do you feel the added health costs should be passed on to the overweight person? If that is the case, then should employers not also be able to pass on the added health costs associated with HIV to people who engage in same sex acts? See what I mean? It gets messy (at least imo it does). And then there is the whole debate about who gets to decide what is “to risky” a behavior. Can you see some conservative telling you that video games in your off time are bad and therefore not hiring you? In history, after the government starts down a path they generally do not just take that one thing, they keep going until someone screams loud enough. I think this is just another example of that. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

The new hiring criteria is based on discrimination of one group of people. Just because that group of people happen to not be popular (or very bright), does not justify them being discriminated against. The fact that they are still allowing those who are already there is an example of that discrimination. That is no different than saying they will not hire homosexuals based on the additional risk that they “might” bring to the health insurance plan. In both cases it is not a 100% chance that the person who is being employed will bring any difference in cost, only the chance that they will. And in both examples it is an intrusion of a persons private life away from work. If what they are doing is a legal act then I feel that it should have no impact on their employment. If it is an illegal act, then it should have an impact. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

What is wrong with an employer being able to choose who he hires based on smoking or other factors, there are very few protected groups, do you really want to see smokers given the same protection as say veterans or disabled people. I think that all people deserve the same protection regardless of how I feel about those people. It is immaterial how I feel about people who use tobacco, what does matter is that they deserve the same protection as everyone else. If you get outside of that, you then have to decide who gets to decide who deserves the protection and who doesn’t. Sound familiar? Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

You are deflecting from the point of my post. Its nice to debate that someone should not have to pay for someone else’s poor choices in life, but that was not (as I am sure you are well aware) the point. It is about preventing someone from telling you that a condition of employment is that you cannot participate in a legal act. Which will become interesting if the bill were to pass allowing pot as legal, don’t you think? You can justify it with the “I don’t want to pay for your mistakes” argument, but that does not change the fact that this is an employer dictating what an employee can or cannot do when not at work. I believe your example about non-smokers paying for smokers health issues, is as ridiculous as someone with no children saying that their tax money should not go to pay for public schools. I mean really, if I have no kids why should I pay for something like that? Silly isn’t it.... A person can say that about almost any situation where insurance is concerned. I remember a time when an employer of mine banned smoking on the company grounds completely. His reasoning was that his insurance was cheaper in doing so. Interesting thing is, now (with smoking still banned) he is paying the same as the quotes he received recently with smoking allowed on site. The moral of the story is that thinking that the employee’s or the employer will save money from this long term is unlikely. The people who will save money long term is the insurance companies. But heck, thats just my opinion. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

What I find irritating most about things like this is that the employer is telling the employee what they can or cannot do when not at work. I could care less if they have a policy that a person cannot use tobacco, eat, drink, or even talk at work. But it troubles me that they feel they can intrude into a persons home life. Please note that what they are keeping someone from doing is a legal activity. Where exactly (as some have also pointed out) does that end? Are we really going to justify allowing an employer this power over its work force in the name of “feeling its better for the people” as our reasoning? To me, this isn’t about a person being able to use tobacco products or not. Its about making my own choices. Yes I realize that a person does not have to work there, but that isn’t the point. The point is the precedent that is set by something like this being allowed, and, in come cases, promoted. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

The only thing that really scares me about it (nuclear powerplants) is people like the author/s of the paper that this article was written from in the original post, and their impact on how others think. There is a very lax and almost flippant attitude with regard to its safety that appears to be an attempt to instill that it is safer than it really is. Statements like the facility can store the spent rods on site indefinitely, while technically correct, are not really an option. Yes, they can store material at the facility, but the issue is that the facilities are running out of room (hence the supposed need for Yucca). I do agree that if the wonderful people in Washington DC would remove their collective heads from their asses and see daylight, this is a good option, but that isn’t going to be the case anytime soon (or so it seems anyway). Using the best demonstrated technology (with regard to the waste) we have available it could be done in a much safer way than it is today. Reworking the material is a really good option in my opinion. Sticking it in the ground and hoping that nothing happens is really not the best way to go. If you look at other similar ways we as a country deal with hazardous waste it will certainly give you reason to shake your head in dismay. Take a close look at the hazardous waste landfills and you will see why people in my line of work call them future superfund sites. This is not to say that some of the material wont need to be stored somewhere, just that we really need to look hard at how we do it, and the long term issues associated with doing so. If I didn’t know better, I would have to think that the authors of the article were people who have a vested interest in nuclear powerplants being built. To me, this is a really good example of people trying to take the easy way out. It also scares me that people will look at the information and just agree because of where the information came from. A long time ago there were people who were supposedly educated that taught others that the world was flat. Just because that information came from someone who was educated didn’t make it correct then, nor does it make it correct now. I can go on for pages about it, but thats the readers digest version of why it scares me. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

According to the argument that he and I had about a year ago, it is supposed to happen sometime before the next president takes office. I am still waiting for the day after so I can say what I think about that kind of arrogance. You know, the kind where they think that if someone as smart as god even needed a code in the first place, that they, in their infinite wisdom could find something that someone as smart as god hid in the first place... Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

I remember our debate about this subject and I'm waiting for the day that I get to remind you about it (like I said I would). What I am interested in hearing on that day will be how the "code" inside the bible changed (or something). Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

While on a Delta flight over the weekend I was bored and started looking through the Skymall magazine. Close to the back of the magazine there is a advertisement for guess who.... It was kind of interesting that they claim "as seen on CNN, Letterman" and so on. While anyone can advertise where they please, I think that that kind of name dropping (they made it sound like they were the one's that were show cased on the programs) is sad, but par for the coarse i guess. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

I know this guy who can take care of that (me, its one of the things we do where I work). You are right about the leaching in the ground. Look at it like this.... If you set a a part on the ground that has been electro-plated with Chromium (hex or tri makes no difference), does that make the ground contaminated and cause it to carry a D007 waste code? The answer is...... NO!!!! Most people don't realize that the material has to leach into the ground (and almost all the soil on the earth has metals in it so relax). Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

If I'm helping them work on their "A" license card then I charge (its part of your student program). If its not a jump that is specifically working on the card then no I do it for free..... I remember a lot of people putting up with me when I was a low timer and like the idea of giving back what was given to me. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

That was kinda what I thought you were aiming for. In that case the video is.... ABSOLUTELY FREAKIN AWESOME!!!!!!! Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

I think it looks great! Are you advertising your company or Krupee (spelling)? If its for your company I wouldn't change a thing. If its for Krupee(still spelling) Then I would spend less time in the beginning (you use almost 17 seconds) on your logo. There is only one section that I caught that shows the Krupee (is that spelling right) name, and by the way the matrix effect with the script is one of my favs. Please realize that what I'm saying is not that your vid isn't awsome, I'm just asking what you are advertising. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

I do pretty well, but I would have to say that Quade is REALLY good.... So whats your question? Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

Gang, I started on the video last night. It will take me till the end of the month to have it ready. For all of you that haven't ordered one yet, I am trying to have them all shipped by November 30th so please get your orders in as soon as you can!! Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

I read the quote you used.... But the graphic right underneath it shows 19.7..... It and the other numbers I was looking at are in gallons not percent... Thats what had me confused. Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

According to the Energy Information Administration the number for total consumption was 21.2% in 2004. Did the numbers from then to now really change that much or are we talking about apples and oranges? (Please note that the numbers I am talking about are for total oil consumption. Oil both refined and not refined). Pendejo He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!