BC_chick

On desktop Tab Delete also works.

Chris Alexander is talking 400,000 too. It's not just Liberals. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/chris-alexander-announces-tory-leadership-bid-wants-canada-to-boost-immigration-to-400000-a-year

TimG just denies anything that doesn't fit his bubble of reality.

Yep, like transgenders and climate change. All fake.

You'd think, but in American media, not so much.

The reason I think it's a good idea to award compensation to this woman is that maybe it'll make our justice system take a proactive approach to providing care to jurors involved. Maybe if this woman had been helped with emotional support throughout the years, she wouldn't have a basis for monetary compensation. ETA - I do absolutely believe it's possible to have PTSD from sitting on a jury for a trial like this.

Everyone is presenting this phenomenon as one of brotherly love, but I think it's more of a middle finger and STFU to Trump's Make America Great Again. That aspect of it is not getting its deserved commentary.

I didin't do my civil duty by reading the newspaper. I didn't watch graphic images for days on end and heard testimony about what it looks like first hand to rape and kill an 8 year old. The story stayed with me but it's not PTSD. Otherwise, you'd have a point.

Or maybe we can start taking care of the jurors the way we do for the paramedics and police involved in these types of crime. What's wrong with that?

It was an exaggeration for effect but yes, this story is why I won't let my child walk home alone.

This was one of the most brutal stories I've read and I have never forgotten it. Even before the juror's grievance brought it back into the spotlight, as a mother of a school aged daughter, I often thought about it. The story single-handedly is why I will walk my daughter to school until she finishes university. If reading a few articles had that kind of affect on me, I think it's 100% plausible to have PTSD watching graphic images for days on end and hearing detailed testimony about every detail of the crime.

In her defense she said half his supporters are a basket of deplorables, so that cuts it down to 22.5%. Secondly, apparently her figures were pretty close.

Oh, did you think that was a stupid thing to say? What a coincidence...

Trump and Melania remind me of Woody Allen and Soon Yi.

I agree with everything you say here but you'd be surprised, there are many who don't see any warts on Hillary at all. Not all, but many do dismiss everything against her as some 'vast right wing conspiracy'. I think those are the posters who are frustrating the Trump supporters.

You have such a diplomatic tone in your moderating. Thread drift noted.

Normally when you claim something and someone counters that claim, you're supposed address the counter-claim, not repeat yourself. Maybe you just don't understand the concept behind cost-benefit (don't worry, a lot of people don't), but I'm only going to counter your claim one more time. If you want to keep repeating yourself again, I'm not going to respond ok? Yes, CC fees play a role in determining price and/or markup of a product and yes, some cards charge 4-5% in fees, however: 1) Since nobody knows what card a customer will pull out, markups on determined on *average fees* which is around 2-3%. 2) Credit Cards increase revenue. Since they are a variable cost and overhead is mostly fixed, the increased revenue = more profit. 3) Price determination is NOT cost alone, profit targets are also a consideration. Whatever losses are incurred by CC fees, is offset by the increase they bring to the table in profit (see point 2). In conclusion, credit-cards have a tremendous cost benefit and whatever cost they have on the bottom line is offset by the increase in revenue and thereby profits. Their overall impact on price is therefore not material.

They kissed and made up a long time ago, Betsy.

You're misusing my use of the economies of scale. I was saying that increased revenue plays a role in keeping prices competitive which is the concept behind economies of scale, not that all stores are functioning on economies of scale. Think of it this way, we've established that cash comes at a cost to companies and given our inevitable cashless society, that same mom and pop shop who has to pay all those fees is still benefiting from the customers it would otherwise lose by not offering credit cards. As for things like Square, they work out to roughly 2% average and you'll find more and more mom and pop shops using them (though I think their software still needs a lot of tweaking).

I don't dispute that the costs of credit-cards play some role in pricing given that the company considers its overall expenditure (fixed and variable) as well as profit targets to come up with the markup on inventory. However, I strongly dispute that they will have any material impact given that fees average around 2-3% of gross credit-card sales (anyone paying 4-5% needs to renegotiate their contract or find a different company to work with). Also, as it was pointed out to you, cards do bring a lot of value. As Bonam pointed out, there are direct costs involved in safeguarding cash. Cash is easily stolen by staff even for companies with the strictest of internal controls in place. That puts a strain on the company's overall expenditure and you're not arguing in good faith in you dispute that. As I also pointed out earlier, there are intangible values such as increased revenue when offering credit-card sales. It's well known consumer fact that people spend more on credit, and also, cards are easier to carry around than large sums of cash. So consider a company with little change in its fixed costs and how much they would benefit from increased revenue. From a managerial accounting perspective, increased sales translates directly to more competitive pricing. Economies of scale.

I think this is where I seem to veer differently than the rest of the board. No, I honestly do not hold other women accountable for my husband's fidelity and I don't consider them equally guilty (and I speak from experience from a previous relationship in which I was cheated on). My husband's vows to me are HIS responsibility and nobody else has a responsibility in ensuring he doesn't break them. If I were the type to stay with a serial adulterer then maybe I'd misdirect my anger at the women, but I'm not. Second, even for argument's sake, if I were to stay with him and go ahead with an investigation to root out the 'gold diggers' I'd quickly pull the plug once I saw that the investigation has changed course and is instead leaking stories to the press in order to paint the women as slutty floozies. It would have been nice to have at least one person acknowledge these actions wrong *in spite* of their support for Hillary and frankly it's disappointing to see so many feminists blame the other woman and/or outright deny their allegations. That is politics I guess. Not unlike Trump supporters.