I rarely eat fast food anymore, and when I do I never order combos and stick to the dollar menu or other individual items. Yesterday I was starving and had to get something really quick for breakfast and decided to get a breakfast meal from Burger King. The meal said it costed $3.99 on the drive thru menu but they asked me what size I wanted. I said I wanted a small size figuring that that was probably the 3.99 price. When I pull up to pay this is how the convo goes:
Lady- "That will be $5.88"
Me- "$5.88? The menu said it was $3.99"
Lady- "YOU ORDERED THE SMALL"
Me- "I know. So why are you charging me MORE for the small?"
Lady- "The small costs MORE. You should have said you wanted the value size (like I am an idiot for not knowing this)"
Me- "Just give me whatever is $3.99 like it says on the menu"
What has happened to all these fast food joints? It now costs MORE to get something thats considered a small size? Value size is supposed to be extra small and everyone is supposed to know that? Why cant things be like back in the day when you ordered a meal and they didn't ask what size you want, they just gave it to you at the same price every time. If anything, the only thing they asked was "Did you want to supersize that?" All you had to say was yes or no. You didn't have to invent creative names for different sizes. Things were so simple back then.
Screw Burger King
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
I am soo with the guy wanting these requirements
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/31/jobless.benefits/index.html
I read this article this morning and found it very interesting. It talks about whether or not states should drug test their citizens that recieve welfare, foodstamps, and unemployment benefits. If they fail a drug test then they have 2 months before the next test to get sober and pass so they can continue recieving their benefits.
I am all for this, with the exception of unemployment benefits. People on welfare or foodstamps that do very little to contribute to our system, and do more to exploit it should be required to be clean and we should have the right to use our means to make sure the money is not being spent on drugs, which the testing could do.
However, for unemployment, I don't think people should be tested. To recieve unemployment benefits a person must have had to have been previously employed. This means that they were paying into the system and putting money towards unemployment insurance the whole time they were working. These people are entitled to that money regardless of whether or not they are on drugs because they paid for that insurance benefit during the years they worked. People on welfare do not.
The argument was also made in the article that we should drug test people at companies like AIG or GMC that the US has bailed out because they are recieving government funding. I completely agree with this too. Those who take free money from taxpayers should be required to meet certain standards to recieve that money. And requiring that they be drug free is fine with me. I don't care who you are, a welfare recipient or a multibillion dollar company. If you take handouts from our government ,you should be required to do whatever our elected officials and the taxpayers deem appropriate to recieve those funds. If you don't like the rules then don't take the money.
What do you think?
I read this article this morning and found it very interesting. It talks about whether or not states should drug test their citizens that recieve welfare, foodstamps, and unemployment benefits. If they fail a drug test then they have 2 months before the next test to get sober and pass so they can continue recieving their benefits.
I am all for this, with the exception of unemployment benefits. People on welfare or foodstamps that do very little to contribute to our system, and do more to exploit it should be required to be clean and we should have the right to use our means to make sure the money is not being spent on drugs, which the testing could do.
However, for unemployment, I don't think people should be tested. To recieve unemployment benefits a person must have had to have been previously employed. This means that they were paying into the system and putting money towards unemployment insurance the whole time they were working. These people are entitled to that money regardless of whether or not they are on drugs because they paid for that insurance benefit during the years they worked. People on welfare do not.
The argument was also made in the article that we should drug test people at companies like AIG or GMC that the US has bailed out because they are recieving government funding. I completely agree with this too. Those who take free money from taxpayers should be required to meet certain standards to recieve that money. And requiring that they be drug free is fine with me. I don't care who you are, a welfare recipient or a multibillion dollar company. If you take handouts from our government ,you should be required to do whatever our elected officials and the taxpayers deem appropriate to recieve those funds. If you don't like the rules then don't take the money.
What do you think?
I may have screwed up my SA trip!
I was flipping through channels today and came across a show based off the book "1,000 Places To See Before You Die". The place that they were focusing on was Machu Picchu in Peru. Naturally, if one is lucky enough to visit one of the 1,000 places that must be seen before they die, they are going to want to do it right. Since I know I wont be able to see all of the 1,000 places before I die, I want to make sure I do each place I can see right. When I was in Peru I went on tours with a guide the first couple days throughout Cusco and the surrounding ruins and into the Sacred Valley. When it came to Machu Picchu I chose to pass on those tours and go through Machu Picchu on my own becaus the guides were boring and the other tourists would ask some of most stupid questions ever. I hated waiting for those people. Even though I decided to go to Machu Picchu on my own, I still could have gotten a private tour guide. I chose not to because I wanted to hike to the top of Waynu Picchu, which is the tall Mt. behind the ruins.
This is a picture of me with the view at the top of Waynu Picchu.
Now in the entire episode of the show they did not say you have to do this or you have to do that. Not until they got to Machu Picchu that is. Do you know what they said you had to do and is an absolute must at Machu Picchu? Nope, it was not hiking to the top of Waynu Picchu. They said you HAD to get a tour guide to take you around and show you everything! So the one thing I HAD to do when I was there, according to this show, I decided not to do haha. Now I really hope those people are as dumb and lame as they look and sound because that would suck if I did not do the ONE thing that was a MUST at Machu Picchu. Hopefully the only reason they said that was because they didn't go on the hike to Waynu Picchu. Otherwise, I have an excuse to take another trip to South America ;)
This is a picture of me with the view at the top of Waynu Picchu.
This is a picture that shows Waynu Picchu and where I was.
Now in the entire episode of the show they did not say you have to do this or you have to do that. Not until they got to Machu Picchu that is. Do you know what they said you had to do and is an absolute must at Machu Picchu? Nope, it was not hiking to the top of Waynu Picchu. They said you HAD to get a tour guide to take you around and show you everything! So the one thing I HAD to do when I was there, according to this show, I decided not to do haha. Now I really hope those people are as dumb and lame as they look and sound because that would suck if I did not do the ONE thing that was a MUST at Machu Picchu. Hopefully the only reason they said that was because they didn't go on the hike to Waynu Picchu. Otherwise, I have an excuse to take another trip to South America ;)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)