rehmwa

or, we just could have spent 529M less....... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

yes to the rest, but this part I felt the same way. If you want to adopt, the agency inspects the home, does some checks and if the home looks good - then they can adopt (single, married, group, whatever). the environment and the stability that actually DEMONSTRATED is a lot more important than some bias based on pre-conceptions. (here's a service where I'm all for background checks too - ) IVF comment - .frankly, I don't care if you are a fertile traditional couple either, I'd prefer the same for them too. (want a kid - naturally, IVF or adoption - prove you have a good and stable home) ^ ---that comment steams up people - it's on purpose (WHAT?!! you can't place restrictions on a fertile married straight couple...) See, here's the issue - if you object to a couple having any requirement/restrictions to have a kid......then honestly you have to object to a different level of restrictions for adoption, or IVF as well. So inspect away for EVERYONE, or allow it unrestricted for EVERYONE. (This isn't gay v straight, it's also for singles, group homes, etc etc etc....) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

The assumption that the only solution is a legal one is really interesting. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

What would it essentially say? "straighten up and fly right, or else" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

It took them a long time to create a system of arbitrary favoritism, etc. It'll take a long time to fix. In the meantime - we really should consider approaches that fix the main issue instead of bandaids. I don't know how other than to just delete the whole thing and start from scratch and deal with the transition. I'm married, I know this might negatively affect me. (I also think tax deductions and penalties and subsidies are stupid and should be deleted - I'm a homeowner, I know I'd lose a big deduction.... at least I'm consistent) Rebuild is sometimes the smarter answer than repair. (My cynicism tells me that even if they did this impossible thing, someone somewhere would start a reparations efforts against those that used to get marriage benefits......) I support marriage equality as it's being defined now. I just wish they'd fix it smarter so that we include everyone rather than just add to an existing group. Or just delete the existing group of benefits. (everyone, or no one. But if it's 'everyone' then there's no real need. People don't get that everything is paid for, that's why we have spending issue.) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

keep them busy cleaning up their messes and they don't have time to come up with neat and fanciful ways to spend ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Absolutely. Laziness by congress is no excuse. Review each benefit, one by one. First rule - if the benefits can't be written such that every single citizen is included, then ditch it. that will thin the list out significantly. What's left is likely all about kids. And that stuff can apply to *gasp* 'people with kids'. Much more direct that giving benefits to a social construct that is inferred to have the potential to have kids but may or may not. Just skip the middle man. Even that can be deleted really - if you have kids, well it was your choice, take care of them and stop making those without kids supplement your choice. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

and this is now antiquated - and showing favored benefits over other groups (including singles) should be deleted Survivor SS bennies - that's the big one isn't it? I'd think that any two (or more consenting) people can enter into a contract. And that survivor benefits could be very specifically defined by the original intent: did the 'partner' stay at home for a minimum number of years to raise kids, care for the home, etc etc etc. You'd have to show a 'lifetime dependence' set of criteria on the other spouse to qualify. Else you are just like any other individual citizen. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

"ROMANES EUNT DOMUS"? or "ROMANI ITE DOMUM" Now write it down a hundred times. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I was about to make the same comment. Marriage as a relationship thing is private and anybody should be able to enter as consenting adults in any fashion. Nothing to do with government. Live any way you like. Marriage as a government thing is just about benefits. Nothing to do with emotion or validation, or physicality, etc etc etc. Government can't legislate those things one way or the other, so those are odd arguments. It's just benefits and frankly government should stay out of the benefits parts because it preferences specific grouping combos over individuals. And there is already laws in place for enforcing private contracts. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

that's 'romantic marriage' we all have to recall - that when talking about government benefits "benefits", not 'rights" - any physical or romantic aspect is absolutely moot 'marriage' as far as the government is concerned - is just a legal contract that the government acknowledges as tying off some pre-defined benefits or considerations they set up for it. Absolutely not equal treatment for individuals of any kind....... I so much prefer - civil union, or civil contract, for everyone, as it doesn't have the connotations attached. So, in that case, if anyone wants to enter into a contract with one, or more than one other concerning long term mutual cooperation in terms of: inheritance, hospital visits, mutual ownership, decision making, I really don't care. (see that list nowhere includes where they sleep, who's on top, whether it's love/like/lust/indifference/etc, who gets to drive the new car vs the old car, etc etc etc - it's not the government's business) Frankly - parenthood, as far as established rules go, is pretty close to a one sided marriage - inheritance is defined, you get to make medical decisions, you live in the same local, you share expenses (usually only one way), you can bring the kid from another country if they are born there, etc etc. So many parts of the assumed contractual part is pretty darn close. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

nonsense, there are older books - heck, in Metamorphosis , by Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso), Zeus turned into a bull and mated with a woman, Io. I think the child was named Epaphus (or that was the woman)..... Actually, Zeus had an affair with Io, then Hera turn Io into a cow, then Zeus did her in the form of a bull, which then resulted in Epaphus......it's a bit tricky.... Either way, that's a lot more confusing for poor Epaphus.....am I a calf? am I a kid? both? neither? But I think Ovid died around 8 A.D., so his works are older than some parts of the bible, but maybe not others....... edit: anyway, I don't think you want to say that really old books are a model for ideal marriages or parenting....ask Hera, or Epaphus ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

If you are going to placate the masses with a placebo - at least do something that encourages responsible people to be safer. instead of something that would just take away our rights further ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I think this is just good practice - as a law, it's not enforcible really,....responsible sellers will appreciate it, the others won't be any better or worse. I don't think it'll fix the problem at all unless the public learns to use and respect firearms again as part of the culture, instead of today's complete ignorance and stupidity. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

IMO - the default position on ANY topic should be 'government leaves me alone'. for this topic specifically - The choice to "opt in" for organ donation should be available, and very clear for an individual. The choice to actively "opt out" can be on the same form so it's super clear. So those options should be offered and very, VERY, clear to the individual. The decision for "nothing entered"? Someone dies and they neither opted out or in, specifically? It's up to the person's heirs. No heirs? then I don't much care at that point. No where in the process should the government make a default decision on this. Absolutely criminal if the gov does it in a sneaky and underhanded way. I don't care one bit about the "why" or "why not" arguments. Each person should decide for themselves (or their heirs) and their reasons are their own. I choose to donate - I CANNOT choose for anyone else - directly or via legislation - that's just wrong. (Frankly, I think the heirs should be able to sell the organs for profit as they see fit - but that's another story altogether. ) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

it's excellent this is pretty much the process I proposed (without the photos). But I'm good if it doesn't require reporting my name on the sale. (it's none of the government's business how many or what guns I buy - but the seller can personally track or not track who they sell to. That's his business and his private records.) cleared to buy - should include proof of gun safety training/experience - IMHO ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Hitler had an Argus. he would ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I suspect it's more like this: Now, there is a growing segment of the gay population that are being adult about family and relationships and don't want to be characterized and treated like the flaming stereotypes that used to be so very visible. (Frankly, it was always probably a large segment, like any group, those that are extreme usually do pull all the attention) I'm a big fan of stable adults raising kids that need homes. I'm not a fan of liberals stereotyping gun owners, or budget cutters, or anything else. On the other hand, I'm not a fan of social extremists negatively stereotyping any group of any kind. So on the subject of adoption? If a person, or couple, of any mix, can provide a stable and caring home for an orphan, I'm all for it. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

bizarro world sometimes isn't it? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

you saw it here first, people. he admits one. ((hi john)) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

agree - but someone has to pay for all these things. So what it really means is that the voters are being sold a scam that, if they were smarter about it, they wouldn't really want it, or a lot of other 'services' ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Oh, right vs wrong is all about your "feelings" got it ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

thanks - so, if we made it a LAW for every private seller to have the buyer present his permit to purchase. Will that make the 'irresponsible' private seller actually do it? (I think it's a good idea actually, but I don't think it's very enforceable) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I'm saying private sellers are much like private canopy sellers. The good guys take stock of their customers and do their best. Those that don't won't do it in any case. the last rifle I bought, we had a very nice discussion about guns and history and experience - If he was selling a Velo, I would have been just as impressed. don't put words in my mouth. "being responsible" does not equal background check. You should stop with this tactic - you're better and smarter than that. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I do suspect that a private seller that would respect the a law requiring proof of a background check would also likely just be responsible in his sales already. And would likely also be interested in whether the buyer is also knowledegable about gun safety, handling, transport. Which I think is even more important And one that wouldn't be responsible today, would likely ignore the new law. "it's just human nature" I'm sure it would close a very small gap of those on the edge (as that little reminder to those that are responsible sellers....). I just don't think it would help that much and wouldn't stop the big newsmaking types of attacks that everyone is already kneejerking on. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants