Agreed.

I've never worked for a software company of this sort, but I have worked support for internal customers (in a very large organization) and have worked retail in a couple totally different industries.

The public in general are filthy, disgusting, greedy, lying bastards. They will make a giant mess and act like they didn't do it, whether it's coffee on the floor or piss on the toilet seat. They will tell you anything and threaten you with everything to get what they want, even when they fully know that they don't deserve it.

And yet, individually, most of them are quite nice, decent, honest, pleasant people.

I am not in the ISP business, but since you didn't tell us what you're using Access or Excel for, it's darn hard to tell you how to replace them.

I would think that you would need billing, help desk, and network management products.

I can't argue too much, but 100 years ago was 1912. Not exactly the dark ages. People were doing science as we would recognize it today, and they knew about stuff like germs, hand washing, and much more.

But your experience 10 years later might be much better. WW I led to quite a lot of medical advances. It would still seem primitive, but you would recognize it as "modern medicine."

Neither Hostess nor McDonald's forces you to eat their products.

Eat what you want. If you want free range apples, eat free range apples.

If you want Twinkies and Big Macs, eat Twinkies and Big Macs.

Personally, I eat a lot of produce AND the occasional Big Mac. Maybe once a year I buy a small package of Twinkies.

Or, maybe McDonald's will continue to evolve their menu (chicken, salads, and real fruit smoothies for example) to meet their customers' demands.

Ronald is no clown.

I'll take a pile of retirement money that my company can't pillage over one that they can any day.

Anyone working in the private sector today who thinks they've got a guaranteed pension is living in some sort of fantasy land.

I just don't agree with your argument, because splitting up funds among all employees isn't a rational use for funds.

There's only so much money in the pot. When executives in a failing company drain the pot into their own pockets, they accelerate the failure and make it harder to prevent it, because the company has fewer financial resources to do the things it needs to do in order to survive.

It doesn't matter if the pittance of a multi-million-dollar salary split up among all the employees wouldn't be noticeable. If the executives give up a million dollars a year of salary, that's a million dollars that can be put to productive use - whether research, finances, or keeping twenty people employed that your company needs but can't otherwise afford.

And yet, none of that is why most people are so outraged by exorbitant executive salaries at a failing company. They just think that if your bad judgement means people are losing their jobs and the company is failing, you shouldn't be living high. If the company is doing poorly, the people running the company should feel some pain. To do otherwise is bad for image, bad for morale, and immoral.

In a sufficiently under-served and rural area, they will. Small towns don't work like cities.

My feeling is that if you want to really "slap" the Republican party, writing in Ron Paul isn't the way to do it. Those votes will never even be reported in any meaningful or consistent way.

The votes for Johnson, however, will be. He's on ballots in 48 states, and poised to be a factor in at least a couple swing states. I think Tuesday night is going to have quite a few talking heads talking about him and his impact on the election.

You realize Johnson was a GOP candidate too, right? Long-term Johnson supporters are furious at the treatment he got from the GOP. It's that treatment that has made me stop considering myself a Republican and start considering myself an independent.

A two-term Republican governor who is STILL popular in his home state - a predominantly Democratic state - belonged in the primaries and the debates a lot more than a pizza executive with no governmental experience at all, and at least as much as the governors of Massachusetts and Texas.

Why would you write in Ron Paul when (in all but two states) you can vote for Johnson? Makes no sense for me.

First, who the hell is "Barry"?

I assume it's your cute nickname for President Obama. If you want to be taken seriously have some respect for the office if not the man. I'm no great fan of him either but that's just immature.

Second, why don't you look at the Libertarian and Constitution parties, see if either of those do it for you. I'm voting "third party" this year and it's a great feeling to vote *for* someone instead of *against* someone.

The problem is that, in the current political system, there is no way for the vote-counters to tell the difference between principled abstention and laziness.

So if you want to take a principled stand against the two parties, pick one of the other candidates you like (or can at least stand) and vote for them.

We don't have "none of the above" to work with, but almost all states have both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, and I think all of them have at least one of them.

I got a call at 8:30 last night asking me to support Judy Biggert (R for congress from my Illinois district.)

I told them that until receiving that call I was undecided, but that they had fixed that by calling me at 8:30 at night.

If you aren't friend or family and you call me after dinner something better be on fire.

I will gladly accept bribes to vote according to your instruction.

There's no way for you to check, but I promise I will vote the way you tell me. I'm clearly a very honest person.

There are more than two people running for President.

If you don't like Obama or Romney, you'll probably like Johnson, Stein, Goode or Anderson. Figure out which one and go vote for them.