Mark M

They seem like they are smiling at each other a whole bunch...

I keep reading from cons on Y!A that since Obama's use of "lipstick on a pig"--a common phrase that I use or hear on a regular basis--came so close after Palins "lipstick" joke at the RNC he must have been calling her a "pig". How long must I wait to talk to my wife or anyone else about lipstick before you will stop thinking it's a reference to Palin and/or pigs?

McCain just gave away one of his clearest, most appealing advantages over Obama! No matter how much I like Obama, I had no real argument for an undecided voter on that--McCain IS more experienced. Now with Biden vs. Palin, he has opened up that issue again for us to argue. It means he has play defense on what one of his biggest strengths. Not a smart play...

I have built up a lot of available credit over the years on several cards. However, for various reasons, I tend to use one card at a time over a year or so, pay it off gradually and then start using a different one. Sometimes, like right now, I might carry close to the limit on a given card, though it is a fairly small percentage of the total I have available. I know that "debt relative to credit available" is a detrimental item on credit reports, but is this analyzed over my entire credit portfolio or on a account-to-account basis? I have good credit now, but I want to maximize my score and need to know if I should change my usage habits.

If I make prior arrangements to pay any shortfall on the sale of my existing house with the bank, can I avoid having it affect my credit? I am considering a move from an overheated market where I am upside down on my mortgage to a stabilized, cheaper market where I'll be able to afford a cheaper mortgage plus make regular payments to settle any shortfall. I've heard that banks won't consider a short sale until you're behind on payments. Would they consider it if I'm a good credit risk with solid income and room to pay off the difference? I am assuming that if I can scrounge the $ beforehand, I'm best off to offer a seller 2nd to a buyer to make the bank whole, right? I need to move for a job, and the market where I live is DEAD.

I spend of lot of time flying in little regional jets these days and I keep wondering why these planes taxi to the far end of a runway at major airports that are designed to accommodate wide-body jets? It seems to me that airlines could save a lot of taxi time and a lot of dead time on runways would be eliminated if they taxied only as far as necessary for a safe distance to get airborne instead of starting at the end. Is there a pilot or ATC who can shed some light on this?

I want to book an award ticket on a Continental flight that has a Delta codeshare flight #. I have a FF account with both Delta and Continental. I don't have enough miles in either account for a free flight, but if I combine them, I do. Does any know if I can apply miles from both programs to buy a single ticket? Seems like it should be possible since it's the exact same plane...

I am finding the whole political debate pretty funny. I also am wondering if some obscure Bulgarian scientist had made "Inconvenient Truth" and won the Prize, would people demonize his winning it?

For the record (since people here always make their assumptions), I am a liberal, but I have no affection for Al Gore. And I certainly don't think he should have won a Nobel Peace Prize for basically making a movie about how cool he is with a PowerPoint presentation about the environment thrown in. I agree that the information presented is important and relevant (i.e. global warming seems real enough to me), but I'm not sure it rises to the level of the Nobel Prize.

She is based out of NE/Boston and I just got a hold of her new CD and love it. Anyone seen her live? I'm considering checking out a show out later this month.

I am going to Quebec this weekend and mon francais is rusty. Can someone clarify the correct usage for me? Thanks.

So often on this forum, I see questions that are obviously right out of a history or gov't textbook (some, I think from mine 20 years ago!). I think it's great that kids these days have the Internet as a resource for knowledge, but does it seem weird that the can just get on Y!A and have someone directly answer their homework for them? I, for one, learned it by actually looking it up!

Don't misunderstand. I'm not judging those who post their homework questions or those who answer them. Ask and answer away...I just wonder how getting the info given directly to them without any research is a good thing. Any opinions?

Though I was raised Catholic, I long ago dispensed with beliving in Jesus as God and then God altogether, but as a student of both history and politics, I admire the campaign concept. The God of the Old Testament is very much a heavy-handed overlord type who threatened believers into behaving. But the Jesus figure is a clever turn because it offers a figure that humans can relate to and emulate. The basic doctrine says, "I am God, but I am also you. If you act like me, you can strive to become a god-man also". Putting aside whether you believe in it (if you're atheist, I assume you don't), do you admire the sales ptich?

I will respectfully ask for no hateful rhetoric from Christians. I am trying to ask a secular question about a religious idea. I will likely get it anyway, but I had to ask...

I am reading about how the US envoy keeps calling out NK on their announced test--"the US will not tolerate a nuclear North Korea and "it can have a future, or these weapons or not both" At what point will be realize that this sort of rhetoric is exactly what intices them to do it? The whole point of why they do it is because we say they can't! Or are we secretly trying to encourage them to test it so we have an excuse to use military action? I guess I wish we were a little more skilled in diplomacy these days...

I see that Former Rep. Foley is in rehab for his alcohol problem. Is that really the "problem" he should be rehabbing from. How about "pervert" rehab first, then get off the sauce?

I have been watching closely Q's & A's along this line and I am disappointed with what I've seen. I am not anti-Semitic. I have many fulfilling relationships with Jewish people and even while being atheist, can respect the Jewish religion. However, none of this changes the fact that I believe that the Zionist movement, the establishment of Israel, and Israeli agression since then are the primary causes of most of the world's instablility. In short, I think the 20th Century Israel was just a bad idea from the start. It has nothing to do with being anti-Jewish culture/people/religion.

Can I get some reasonable (i.e. not hateful or defensive) input from Jews and Gentiles alike?

I have no idea how many illegal immigrants who come would want to do so legally and I don't care. The point is that we have no real immigration policy to enforce. Either you give immigrants wishing to come legally a fair and reasonable opportunity to do so (Ellis Island ring a bell?) or you set a limit on how many legal immigrants you'll accept and then enforce restrictions on the rest. The "Land of Freedom and Opportunity" doesn't have the same ring if you add, "but only for those of us who are already here" to the end, but at least it would be a coherent policy. My true challenge for the "close the border" types out there is what would you do if the gov't actually made it reasonably doable for even 1/2 the immigrants who come to do so legally? Would you still be singing the "it's not that they're immigrants (read: not white), it's that they're illegal" tune?