nky_harry

Here's a few old ones - I know what they are, anybody else? SCUBA FUBAR SNAFU Pet peeve of mine: when people use the word that is the last letter of an acronym. Example, I worked at a place and we had to charge our time to a DAN - Daily Activity Number. But people called it a DAN Number, which means they're really saying Daily Activity Number Number.

According to this: http://www.highlands-bluebirds.com/ssp/coaches HHS had 17 coaches Frosh through Varsity for 2011.

Ran into a guy I know who plays in a couple bands that have played Southgate House. He said that it will re-open at the old church at 6th and Monmouth. Target opening is March.

There was an article on cincinnati.com a few weeks ago about certain companies in the area that were wanting to hire but couldn't find the right people. "If someone walks in here tomorrow and can pass the (welding) test, I would hire them on the spot," said Mike Vogt, vice president for human resources at Mazak. http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20111120/BIZ/111200334/nkyupdate

Can't remember which company locally (GE?, P&G?), but just heard recently that they are developing their own, internal social media program for employees.

Wrong. There is very little doubt that the underlying cause of the current credit crisis was a housing bubble. But the collapse of the bubble would not have led to a worldwide recession and credit crisis if almost 40% of all U.S. mortgages--25 million loans--were not of the low quality known as subprime or Alt-A. These loans were made to borrowers with blemished credit, or involved low or no down payments, negative amortization and limited documentation of income. The loans' unprecedentedly high rates of default are what is driving down housing prices and weakening the financial system. The low interest rates of the early 2000s may explain the growth of the housing bubble, but they don't explain the poor quality of these mortgages. For that we have to look to the government's distortion of the mortgage finance system through the Community Reinvestment Act and the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housing-bubble-subprime-opinions-contributors_0216_peter_wallison_edward_pinto.html

High taxes do not equal increased revenue. When taxes are raised on the rich they just find ways/loopholes to protect their money from being taxed. Ninety years ago -- in 1921 -- federal income tax policies reached an absurdity that many people today seem to want to repeat. Those who believe in high taxes on "the rich" got their way. The tax rate on people in the top income bracket was 73 percent in 1921. On the other hand, the rich also got their way: They didn't actually pay those taxes. The number of people with taxable incomes of $300,000 a year and up -- equivalent to far more than a million dollars in today's money -- declined from more than a thousand people in 1916 to less than three hundred in 1921. Were the rich all going broke? It might look that way. More than four-fifths of the total taxable income earned by people making $300,000 a year and up vanished into thin air. So did the tax revenues that the government hoped to collect with high tax rates on the top incomes. What happened was no mystery to Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon. He pointed out that vast amounts of money that might have been invested in the economy were instead being invested in tax-exempt securities, such as municipal bonds. Rest of the article: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/13/back_to_the_future_part_iii_111305.html

Wrong. it's just what cammando said - too much gov't interference. Not to say banks aren't "greedy" (that's why they're in business, and is, in fact, the basis of free market capitalism - everyone looking out for their own self-interest), but the gov't in the '90's came in and told the banks they had to lower the standards and give mortgage loans to those that couldn't afford it. All in the name of the American dream of owning a home. VOR: I believe the American Dream requires the haves being forced to share the fruits of that very American Dream. That is communism. VOR: If we are going to ensure the American Dream to all citizens... Why should the American Dream be ensured to all citizens? This country wasn't set up to ensure that everyone succeed - only that the opportunity to succeed exists. Remember, the Declaration of Independence states that among our "unalienable rights" are "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" not that everybody is guaranteed happiness. I truly believe that is one of the biggest problems in our country right now: entitlement. Some people believe the existence of this country (gov't) is to ensure that they have the American Dream, which in today's society translates to a house, a car, cell phone, X-Box, etc. I'll bet to someone in Iran the American Dream would be the ability to choose their own leader and express themselves without fear of persecution/imprisonment/death.

I have never been a UK fan - quite the opposite - but I will root for and follow PT's career while he's a Wildcat. Congrats and good luck Patrick!

Hors d'oeuvre: Can't remember what they were called, but they were thin potato string-like things with cheese, bacon and ranch dressing on them. At Funky's Grill in Kenwood, OH. Entree': Ribs at Montgomery Inn Dessert: My mom's chocolate pie w/ meringue on top

If you don't mind, I'll offer my answer to your questions. "Do you feel everyone in America should be required to practice Christianity?" Absolutely not. It goes against one of the founding principles of this country - freedom of religion. "Do you feel we should use the Bible as our main/sole precedent for laws, rules, and values?" I think, in a way, historically, this question has been answered as a "Yes." This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. But, just because the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, etc. were based on those principles, do not make them expressly Christian documents, and therefore does not make ours an expressly "Christian nation." I really dislike it when I hear people say, "America is a Christian nation." I think it is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles - a very important distinction, IMO.

Whatever you do behind closed doors is your business! :banana:

I think Lowes, like all corporations, are bigots only about controversy. If they find out that something they are associated with is controversial with some group, they will disassociate themselves asap. Remember, corporations are not moral - they exist to create a profit and anything that interferes with that is a problem for them. Sometimes, like a situation like this, it's a no-win for them.

From the article: Calling the Lowe's decision "un-American" and "naked religious bigotry," Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, told The Associated Press he would also consider legislative action if Lowe's doesn't apologize to Muslims and reinstate its ads. This goes beyond acting as a citizen and protesting or boycotting. It is the government telling a corporation who they must advertise with.

I think a lot of the hype has to do with how the Broncos are winning - just when it looks like they are beaten, they come back at the last minute and pull out a win. I honestly think that if they had the same record, and Tebow had a 100+ QB rating, and they were not coming from behind, most people would shrug and be say, "Hmm, I guess Tebow can play after all." But when you combine his unorthodox QB skills, his faith, and "miraculous" comebacks, it creates a frenzy of extreme emotions, both positive and negative.

First time I've seen/heard anybody say that! Wow!

Same here.

Totally agree.

I'll probably lose some points from my man-card, but I like Southern Comfort. I sometimes drink it on the rocks, but usually with Sprite or 7-Up.

Cassandra: Wait, let me show you what I got at a garage sale. Wayne: What'cha got? Cassandra: Isn't that great? You've heard it? Wayne: Exqueese me? Have I seen this one before? "Frampton Comes Alive"? Everybody in the world has Frampton Comes Alive. If you lived in the suburbs you were issued it. It came in the mail with samples of "Tide".

Not sure what brand it was, but whatever they served at The Family Dog in Richmond on dime draft night, circa 1982-86. Didn't taste like much, but a buck could get you started for the night...

What about pumping the fist or chest-thumping as he's running down the field? What about high-stepping? And none of these directed at the opposing players. The point is where do you draw the line? The refs have to be told something, otherwise you get inconsistent application of a penalty that could cost a team points, maybe the game. If I put myself in the role of the rule maker, I have to think of a rule and it's application. What's the easiest, most fair and easiest to apply standard? In this case I think it's zero tolerance for celebrations. It's not that I'm personally against celebrations, or shows of emotion, it's just that if it's not tightly regulated it can get out of hand. Fact is, I think refs are using good judgment overall on Friday nights. You have to remember that we are discussing/debating an exception, not the norm. It's not like refs are going flag crazy calling these penalties. All is well! All is well!

I disagree. I think any premature celebration that happens before the player reaches the end zone could be construed as taunting. The player is basically saying, "I beat them so bad I can start celebrating before the play is even over!" I've always interpreted any premature celebration as an "in your face" taunt.

I saw an article toward the end of the season where PT said he wasn't playing in any all-star games - he wanted to get on with basketball season.

In football emotions run hotter, they're wearing protective gear and there's an opportunity very soon after the celebration to use physical violence (which is part of the game) to extract whatever vengeance a player wants. Celebrations must be looked at and treated differently in football, otherwise someone could get seriously injured due to a cheap shot.