The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy - Page 288

Oliver_Wendell_Ramone · 03-02-2006, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
There was an interesting (to me anyways) article a few weeks ago in the Houston Press about the various ways low income people can get screwed looking for quick cash: Pawn shops, rent-to-own places, check cashing places, tax refund anticipation loans, buy-here-pay-here used car places.

There's talk of state or local legislation to stop the payday advance scams. The lower income parts of town are crawling with them.

Thankfully, our strip clubs are well protected by the state constitution.

dtb · 03-02-2006, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I live next door to a Target. It's too damned convenient.

Is it more or less convenient as an unintended pregnancy would be inconvenient?

Replaced_Texan · 03-02-2006, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dtb
Probably STP, but...

Ohnoyoudi'int.

No worries. It's a popular website.

ltl/fb · 03-02-2006, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Sure. Phil can sit in the back and worship crystals for all I care so long as Ed or Frieda or someone back there will fill the goddamned thing. It's not like I have a deep personal relationship with my pharmacist.

But going to another pharmacy? Uncool. Same thing for being told to come back in an hour, or tomorrow, or whenever the "pro-choice" pharmacist is in.

2. You've gotta have one person there willing to touch the BCPs.

I'm happy for the elucidation on this stuff as Target is way out of my way and parking is a bitch. Though ncs, who it seems can always find on-street parking, disputes this. The accumulated junk-food wrappers maybe are blocking my view.

Replaced_Texan · 03-02-2006, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
There's talk of state or local legislation to stop the payday advance scams. The lower income parts of town are crawling with them.

Thankfully, our strip clubs are well protected by the state constitution.

This article sort of suggested that that type of legislation needs to happen in Texas too. It seems like a pretty vicious cycle and one easy to fall into, especially, I guess ironically, if your credit is pretty fucked up to begin with.

The article sort of followed one woman's credit history in what they called the "fringe economy" and I suspect her story is not atypical. There were quite a few letters to the editor sneering at her cycle of debt, but I imagine affulent people get into the same sort of trouble with more legitimate credit card debt, which is at least regulated.

ltl/fb · 03-02-2006, 06:37 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060302/.../food_warnings

I would think the problem with the state laws could be solved by food manufacturers simply not supplying certain foods to CA because of the overly burdensome labeling laws. If the people of CA want the products enough, they will repeal the laws. Don't see why we need to get the feds involved and preempt and all.*

*Um, I should not need to tell you that I am not really serious about the whole market thing here.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-02-2006, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I imagine affulent people get into the same sort of trouble with more legitimate credit card debt, which is at least regulated.

One might make the observation that these fringe credit organizations are able to exist precisely because the regulation of legitimate credit card debt makes it impossible to profit by extending credit to certain segments of society.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-02-2006, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060302/.../food_warnings

I would think the problem with the state laws could be solved by food manufacturers simply not supplying certain foods to CA because of the overly burdensome labeling laws. If the people of CA want the products enough, they will repeal the laws. Don't see why we need to get the feds involved and preempt and all.*

*Um, I should not need to tell you that I am not really serious about the whole market thing here.

If you federalize food regulation in the first place (hi FDR!), this is what you get.

ltl/fb · 03-02-2006, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If you federalize food regulation in the first place (hi FDR!), this is what you get.

"Small federal gov't" Republicans extending Federal control? This isn't an inevitable outcome.

Sexual Harassment Panda · 03-02-2006, 08:14 PM

Dubai Ports deal to close tomorrow or Monday.

45 days? ? No, no, no - we said "4 to 5" days.

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-02-2006, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Don't know if this has come up already, but now anyone who is pro-choice is now supposed to boycott Citibank, Gateway, Iams pet food and South Dakota tourism, all because of the recent SD bill. I don't buy Iams, don't have a Gateway computer, and am not planning a trip to Mount Rushmore, so I'm ok there, but I do bank at Citibank because it's private banking through my firm, and would be a pain in the ass to switch, and I probably would not get the same deal. Sometimes these boycotts do require some thought - especially if you wonder whether it will really have any effect.

I thought Gateway moved to San Diego.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-02-2006, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
"Small federal gov't" Republicans extending Federal control? This isn't an inevitable outcome.

once you've conceded that it's a federal issue, you might as well ensure the rules are consistent.

Spanky · 03-02-2006, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
And how do the owners of the companies figure out which part of a decline in sales is related to the boycott of the week and which part is because of their competition, etc.? I'm not disagreeing with you, merely asking a practical question regarding the effectiveness of the actions.

When it comes to child labour there is no competition. If it is something like birth control, they can see what their sales are like when they have birth control and when they don't. Plus, they can always do marketing surveys. These companies are pretty good at figuring out why and why not their products are selling.

Spanky · 03-02-2006, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Don't know if this has come up already, but now anyone who is pro-choice is now supposed to boycott Citibank, Gateway, Iams pet food and South Dakota tourism, all because of the recent SD bill. I don't buy Iams, don't have a Gateway computer, and am not planning a trip to Mount Rushmore, so I'm ok there, but I do bank at Citibank because it's private banking through my firm, and would be a pain in the ass to switch, and I probably would not get the same deal. Sometimes these boycotts do require some thought - especially if you wonder whether it will really have any effect.

If you are boycotting those stores just because they are headquartered in South Dakota that is really stupid. If that is not the case, what do Citibank, Gateway and Iams have to do with Abortion?

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-02-2006, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Thoughts? Seems to me this is an important step, but what do I know?

Either Bush is doing his utmost to destroy the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or he just doesn't give a rip. Either way, he's going to look bad when Congress declines to back him up, and it's not going to help relations with India. More.