Benjamin Franklin
-
Posts
1,629 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Benjamin Franklin
-
-
-
My money is to valuable to me to waste $15 bucks a month to listen to music that claims no commercials, or to listen to Howard Stern. I can live through some commercials on a radio station (and TV too)
Commercials don't usually have an effect on what I'm gonna buy, they merely suggest an option to me
I pay more than that when you count my TiVO subsription. And having lived 3 years or so with no TV or radio commercials, I can tell you that I'd gladly pay $100 a month not to waste my time on commercials. Hell, who am I kidding? I'd probably pay more than that.
-
what a joke, the entire point to satelite radio and having to pay was so they could get away from FCC broadcasting standards and be commercial free cause their revenue would come from subscriptions, now they are making you pay and throwing in commercials?
I will keep my free radio and put up with commercials, or I'll just put a cd in the cd player and go truely commercial free, well atleast until they decide that they should start putting recorded commercials on cd's too.
My time is too valuable to spend listening to someone tell me what to buy.
-
I probably should have just PM's Jack in SYR but has anyone looked into the kit to convert a factory installed XM tuner (on a GM per se) to Sirius?
I have had XM for over a year and I can now say "Commerical Free my @ss"!!!
It started with them promoting other shows on their other channels for a few seconds at a time, which was ok. Now they are playing real commercials on their music stations. BULLCRAP!
Has Sirius stooped to the same level?
XM has a few music channels owned by Clear Channel, and Clear Channel runs commercials on those stations.
Sirius doesn't run commercials on music stations.
Sirius runs commercials on its licensed stations (ESPN, Disney, and the like) and also on its talk stations. Howard Stern, who runs more commercials than the other hosts, runs about 5 minutes of commercials an hour (as opposed the 19-21 minutes he used to run). I guess that the talkers deserve a break every hour--you can't force someone to talk for 5 hours straight.
-
Wow. That's pretty cool. I'm not sure if there's much truth to it. That type of project would cost a lot of money, and we're busy spending a lot of money on Iraq's infrastructure.
-
I used to use Accuvue. Recently, I changed optomitrists and he recommended that I shop a little. To that end, he gave me 4 different brands to compare over a couple months. In the end, there was no comparison for comfort: the Night and Day contacts were the best. Expensive though.
You can sleep in them (I have, but like others, prefer not to).
I used to use 1800Contacts, but the effed me once and they can lick my nuts now.
-
-
I just did a search on Realtor.com for homes in Amherst (which I assume is one of the more affluent Buffalo suburbs) vs. homes where I live in Montgomery County PA (outside Philly).
The price difference was not as much as I expected. In both places, you can get a nice 2500 sq ft home for about 300K. Still, you definitely seem to get more in Amherst than where I am--maybe the difference for equivalent homes is 100K.
Given the Philly economy--not a powerhouse, but still pretty massive--it's no wonder people would be willing to move here, get maybe 25% less bang for their housing buck, but have a higher salary and more job security. In and around most big cities, if you lose one job, there are often several others to take its place. In Buffalo, you often can't say the same thing.
-
People upstate are on crack. NYC is the financial capital of the world. WNY is an unemployment pit undergoing a youth and brain drain.
Do the math. WNY isn't funding NYC--that's ridiculous.
-
-
-
What's hard to understand is how any sane person who professes enjoying life in a free country could agree with a law that would force someone to remain married to a person they hate.
If you hate the person, don't get married to them. And if you think you hate them once you're married, give it time and it will undoubteedly get better. A little commitment to marriage would be a good thing.
It’s also hard to understand how little understanding of domestic violence those same people possess. As if battered women don’t have enough problems getting out of abusive relationships. Now we have nutjobs who want to make it illegal unless what? They can show bruises? Gimmie a break!
Abuse would be one of the few valid reasons for divorce.
Keep trying. No one has punched a hole in this yet.
-
It's not my job to answer that question; the government isn't expressing a concern about WHY two people marry. Still, the end result of most marriages, and the thing that the divorce ban protects, is families and children. That's what matters.
Why two adults marry is their business--they just can't divorce.
In the drafts I've seen, the Constitutional Amendment would be limited to a divorce ban.
-
What's so hard to understand: it would be law for everyone to abide by, but the primary beneficiaries would be kids.
People who are sterile, infertile, or don't want to have children would just have to follow the law. No one forces anyone to get married, and when you do, you commit to do it for life. If you don't want to make that commitment, don't get married. It's pretty simple.
-
By the way, the divorce ban is hardly new. It's the law in Ireland and worked fine there.
-
-
-
You're trying to change meaning and that's a slow process and it just isn't going to happen. You're acting like marriages pre-1960s were all rosy and happy. Fact is, they weren't. Women with abusive husbands had no recourse or exit strategy. Men likely cheated more within their marriages. It's better to let it dissolve than for it to become a ruse.
No. There's an exception for abuse situations. Pre 1960 kids WERE happier. Families DID stick together. The abusive situations are terrible, but with today's awareness about abuse, women could get free of the abusive husband, even with a divorce ban. (Any divorce ban would have a provision for abuse situations.)
Your argument doesn't make a dent in the pro-divorce ban platform.
-
I'm not crazy about that idea. I just don't think you can penalize everyone just because of a lot of stupid people. My parents had me when they were 19 (weren't planning on it happening, either) and working low-paying jobs in Western New York. They cared about each other and about me and my brother, and worked really hard to better themselves, raised kids who got straight-As, coached Little League, ran Scouts, ended up buying and renovating rental properties and are out on the other side now and enjoying life, and still very happy together.
Now the circumstances surrounding their marriage and having children were not optimal, and perhaps their success defies the statistics, but why should a situation like that be considered worse than that of someone who can financially support kids but has no time for them (something I often see)? You can't judge that, and to suggest it would be possible would result in fascism.
Exactly--sounds like your parents did the right thing. Other young parents would have bailed. Keep those "other" parents together and maybe they'll raise good kids like you. At least the possibility is more likely.
-
-
How many of those "broken home" children's parents where never married. I bet more of those problems come from children where the dad was just a sperm doner. I suggest sterilization to everyone at birth and it is reversed if you prove you are smart enough and have the financial wherewithal to raise that child. That will never happen but the country would be a much better place in one short generation.
That's a tough problem--don't hijack this thread. I'm just focusing on the simple one: the divorce ban.
-
I'd like some data on the "wide support" you claim. Would people without kids be allowed to divorce? Who decides what the "right reasons" are? We can't listen to the majority that feel gay marriages are wrong, but you and your "wide support" can tell me what the "right reasons" for marriage are?
No--marriage is for procreation. Although people can marry and not procreate, once you get married, it's final.
As far as wide support, all you need to do is look at wedding vows. No one vows to get married "for a few years" or "until we hit a rough spot." People intend to stay married. How about a law to enforce it.
If you are really concerned about the children, why don't we sterilize anyone that has a child but needs public assistance to survive. If you can't afford a kid, don't have em. If you can't stop having kids we will help you stop. If you are a drug addict...sterilized. Repeat criminal...sterilized. Only good parents should reproduce.That's ridiculous--let's stay in the realm of reality and not in some ORwellian fantasy.
-
It's amazing to see what happens to people when they are forced to live together. Suddenly, that marriage will turn into a commitment, and the child can connect to two parents instead of one.
-
Now that the gay marriage thing is dead, I have a suggestion.
Why don't we take a stab at a problem we might be able to solve: broken homes. Children from single homes are more likely to commit crimes, do drugs, have out of wedlock children, contract an STD, and be on social welfare than children from married homes.
The solution to this problem--one that America is probably ready for--is to ban divorce. Before you go all apespit on me, there would be provisions for cases of abuse, but they would require a Court Order and hearing. This would insure that people get married for the right reasons, and can't get divorced for the wrong ones. There would probably have to be some laws forcing married couples to cohabitate; otherwise people could "divorce" in practice without doing it in name, just by moving out.
To be honest, I cribbed this idea from a local paper, but apparently, it's gotten wide support.
The pentagon acknowledged that detainees
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Flip-flopping on an issue doesn't relieve the administration of its earlier ridiculous position on the Geneva Convention..