Elite_Marksman

Have more numbers to back that statement up or are you just guessing that the rest of his family and friends did so much better?

You keep saying that...planning on proving it at any point? It's already been shown that Cheney's stock was in a blind trust before he took office. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Must breathe BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA How many times do you need to be fooled Mike. Follow the money.. not that you EVER will http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&filter=E&sort=D&ptysort=A&year=2004 Please compare and contrast 2004 and 2007 2004 Dick Cheney (R) $75,512,000 George W. Bush (R) $18,127,698 2007 Dick Cheney (R) $99,317,000 George W. Bush (R) $19,374,000 I wonder what those numbers might be now.. hmmmm Mike You do realize that that is a 7.88% year-over-year for Cheney, and 1.72% year-over-year for Bush? Before 2008 8% returns were not uncommon...

For modern transmissions it's not nearly as big a difference as it was in the past. One main reason is that autos have gotten better in general and have more gears than they did in the past. A typical stick is still a 5-speed, though some are moving to 6-speeds now. Around 2000 a typical stick was still a 5-speed, but a typical auto was a 4. In 2010, a typical auto is 5-speed, with many 6-, 7- and a handful of 8-s.

I think the conservatives have been very good at getting behind....... lots of people and things The liberals are any better?

I drive a manual, mainly because it's more fun and in the range of cars I could afford, manuals still got significantly better fuel economy. Whenever I drive someone elses car I do stomp my foot on some floor panel trying to find the clutch before I try to start the car.

60 is most certainly not too cold for T-shirts. I wear them year round, the only long sleeve shirts I wear are dress shirts. Just have to throw a coat (and hat, since I have really short hair) on when it gets below 50 or so.

You think these people are going to clean toilets or be a farm hand? Surely you jest. There are 67 pages of job listings at 15 listings per page for "student - high school, student - undergrad, and entry level" on Monster.com in NYC alone. There ARE jobs out there. I know this because when I was laid off from my last job I was hired at my new job about 4 weeks later. Now I just wish that NJ would change their stupid laws, apparently being a full time student makes me ineligible for unemployment even though I worked an average of 35 hours per week...

Right, because the OWS supporter who was talking to a news reporter from Oakland was really working for Murdoch when she admitted seeing people in the crowd throwing objects at the police. The video is linked in one of these threads somewhere, I forget which one though. Throwing things at other people (be they rocks, plastic bottles, sticks, etc) and setting up barricades does not make a "peaceful assembly." It makes a "riot," and "riots" are illegal.

Is it too much to ask that we use normal words like adults? But seriously, now is not the time to be spending even more money that we don't have...

People wouldn't be being arrested if they weren't breaking the law, and they were warned any personal property that was not removed would be disposed of...

Regardless of how willing or unwilling I would be, as far as I know I do not have a uterus, so it is impossible. My point is that by having sex, regardless of what protections are used, both parties are consenting to the possibility that there may be a pregnancy, and therefore must deal with the consequences of the act. If, after carrying the child to term, the mother still does not want the child, she is welcome to give it to the father or other family, if they so desire, and if not, put it up for adoption. In the case of both rape and incest, the pregnancy is the result of a crime. Also, in the case of rape, the mother obviously did not consent to sex, and therefore did not consent to the possibility of a pregnancy, and should not be held responsible for the acts of another. In the case of incest, it is highly likely that one party was coerced into the act, again rendering any consent given void and releasing them from the responsibility of carrying or caring for the child.

All of those things can and do fail. The last thing that either of us needed at the time was a kid, with her having 2 years and me having 3 years of engineering school left.

If i was "in for the reproductive win" I wouldn't want to wait to get married before I have sex. Was with a girl for about 4 years, never had sex - not because we didn't want to, but because we knew that we were not ready, emotionally or financially, to have kids yet, and the risk of having a kid was not worth it.

You don't mess with a man's kids. End of story. If you killed a man's kid 1 day after it's born, hes going to kill you, no different than if you do it one day before its born...

Why is it such a difficult decision? I figured all these lame rationalizations would make it easier for a woman to violate her conscience... Oh you mean like the decision.. where the "sperm donor" is incapable of any form of responsibility morally or financially??? That has only happened MILLIONS of times You mean the decision (except in cases of rape, but we've discussed that already...) the woman made to sleep with the "sperm donor?" If she isn't sure he is capable of being morally or financially responsible for the child, she shouldn't sleep with him... Never said I was a big stud or my only desire was to create my progeny. I said if I did happen to get a woman pregnant, I believe that she has no right to kill my child simply because she doesn't want it. When you have sex you implicitly consent to the possibility of conceiving a child. It is time for people to take RESPONSIBILITY for their actions. If a woman does not want a child with a man, or a man does not want a child with the woman (or even if they do not necessarily want, but are unwilling to accept the possibility) they should not have sex. It is quite a simple concept. You don't want kids? Don't have sex, you are 99.999999999999999999% guaranteed to not have kids. EDIT - There are a few levels here as many people who do not "want" kids right then are still willing to accept them so here it is more detailed. Absolutely 100% do not want kids and/or will have an abortion if you are pregnant - DON'T HAVE SEX Don't want kids but are willing to accept the possibility - Use protection of some kind. Condoms, birth control, etc are all acceptable Want kids - Have sex with no protection. Figure out which category you fall into and take the appropriate action for how willing/able you are to have kids.

Sorry, but I do have a clue. So long as carrying the pregnancy to term is not going to put the life of the mother in danger and the pregnancy is not the result of rape or incest, I do not believe that abortion should be permitted. If the mother does not want the child, she is more than welcome to give him/her up for adoption since she did not want the child in the first place. And while you are correct, it is not my body, it is MY child. If a woman (or anyone for that matter) kills my child, they best make sure I am far away first. Not that I envision having that issue... don't want kids? Keep it in your pants. Works pretty well for me.

Or perhaps guarantee that a person is not killed as a matter of convenience by his/her mother before he/she has a chance to have a life. There are two sides to that coin, Amazon.

That would be because criminal courts require proof "beyond reasonable doubt." And civil cases require "preponderance of the evidence."

Sounds like a perfectly justifiable reason to forcibly remove them and arrest any who refuse. Private citizens denying access to a public park? I don't think so.

It's full of people who commit crimes, regardless of financial status. apart from the rich who have money for lawyers... Lawyers aren't going to help much when it comes to most crimes that land you in prison. Ones that land you in jail certainly, but if you are accused of something major like robbery, rape, murder, serious financial crimes, etc, a good lawyer isn't going to get it knocked down to just probation.

I am quite the fan of a good scotch, though it is kind of an acquired taste. At the risk of being blasphemous, I would say to stay the hell away from beer, that's some nasty stuff.

While shit does certainly happen when it comes to aircraft, shit happens more often to A/C that aren't properly maintained...

It's full of people who commit crimes, regardless of financial status. Now, before they were put in jail were they poor? For the most part, yes, the people in prison were poor before they went in prison. Regardless, they are not in prison for being poor, they are in prison for committing some crime. If you do any research into criminal justice, you will find that poor people are far more likely to commit violent crimes than those who are not poor. And seeing as how the majority of people in prisons are there because of violent crimes...

Please, provide me a single case in the US where someone is currently serving a prison sentence for being "poor."

Or Sheldon: "Women, delightfully mysterious or bat-shit crazy?"