Because air line ticket pricing makes no sense. Literally. I fly a lot (as in somewhere around 100K miles a year) and ticket pricing is pretty absurd. A one-way ticket can sometimes cost 3x what a round trip does to the same destination. Flying from my home airport (a small regional destination) can sometimes lower the price of the ticket, even though I fly one extra leg and 100 miles to a major airport.

United is by far the worst of the price abusers; one reason I no longer fly United. The last time I needed to make a route change, they wanted to charge me $250 for the change, and $1200 for the "additional fare". I bought a one-way on American for $350. Of course, walking away from the second leg is "against ticket policy" so as a good drone I was supposed to cough up $1450 to United.

In my experience no other airline gouges its customers as badly as United when it comes to these sorts of policies, so it does not surprise me that they are on this lawsuit. They are also on the bottom of nearly every customer satisfaction survey; maybe the two are related? Anyone at United listening? Hello?

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Took long enough. So long that "winning" no longer matters.

I think you have cause and effect backwards. "Liberals" run the schools in the ghettoes because the "conservatives" have all but abandonded the poor. The conservative attitude more and more is "If you're poor, you deserve to die, and don't expect me to lift a finger or spend a penny to help you."

The "conservatives" are all about preserving their own wealth and screwing everyone else.

The reality, however, is that the poor are often conservative white rural folks, who get equally screwed. And there are more rural white poor than urban ghetto poor.

So I stand by my earlier assessment; you have learned shockingly little about how society works.

This way lies feudalism. The rich have the good schools, the poor are uneducated, and the gap will never close, in fact it will only grow. Eventually you have a Dickensian world where the rich live in splendor, and the poor die in the streets, uneducated, unable to rise above their station, because it takes money to run a decent school system.

If you're really "nearing 60 years old" then you have learned shockingly little of how a society works.

Most of your rant aside. Texas is the 800 lb gorilla when it comes to school textbooks. Texas basically dictates the content of most school books, since Texas buys more school books than any other state, and thus imposes its will on the textbook publishers.

And last I checked, with the exception of Austin, most of Texas is definitely not "liberal". You have to wonder when "conservatives" find textbooks whose content is driven by one of the most conservative states too "liberal".

Unfortunately most modern "conservatism" boils down to "I don't like it, it must be liberal, and we all know that liberal is a bad thing."

Seeing as the state has laws that limit the teaching of contraception, do you really think they have a "human sexual health" class in public schools? Unless it's taught at church on Sunday.

OK, so show me one schoolboard that ripped pages out of a book because it didn't conform to a liberal agenda, whatever that is.

The law says:

"... childbirth and adoption as preferred options to elective abortion".

So according to the schoolboard, contraception == abortion.

But GT signed up for this. When I had my small business, we turned down big contracts regularly. You can't have a single client be 90% of your business, because if anything glitches,you're out of business. We would never take on a job that was more than half of our annual revenues, and we only took on one job like that at a time, filling the rest of the calendar with smaller jobs.

And by today's standards he would be a RINO, a carpetbagger, and probably a few other choice words. Let's not forget he raised taxes, let illegals stay, and a whole bunch of other things that are anathema to the current rightwing nutjob movement.

OOPS, 1968. Fat fingers strike again.

And you must not be thinking of the Russians famously defecating in the hallways of the Czechoslovak National Museum after ransacking it and destroying what they could not steal in 1967.

Tell me about reverence by the Russians for anything other than vodka.

But weren't CP laws enacted to protect victims? and to punish those that abuse said victims?

Since there are no victims, doesn't seem to me to even meet the common-sense definition of a crime.

Not really. These are backwoods weapons that see little to no maintenance. They don't get depot cleaning and parts aren't available. (Check out where and how the rangers operate).

I shoot bolt action rifles and after a while you need to strip the bolts and clean them. The Lee Enfields may not see that for years if ever, and they still have to shoot, since the Ranger's life probably depends on it.

So it's not "almost any brand" since few brands have that kind of reliability and track record.

it's going to be a hard decision.

"Progressive" is newspeak for "regressive". There's no practical way to pull off a "progressive tax" on consumption, unless you charge everyone the highest tax rate and then refund it at the end of tax year. Still, the wealthiest would find ways to exempt themselves from the biggest hit; buy that yacht in Ireland instead of New England. Hey, overseas purchases are excluded, right?