rehmwa

"neighborhood watch" is such a "it takes a village" concept, that I'm so confused over how the politically extreme crowd was even able to process the whole situation without head exploding. Clearly, if you wanted GZ in jail, then you hate Hillary Clinton, the wife of the first black president. And she's old. And lesbians like her. therefore, that makes one: ageist sexist racist homophobic the perfect accusatory quadfecta - they probably eat meat too ... 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

Don't get me wrong... I think that what she did is unforgivable, however... He made the choice not to wear a condom. one more time: His choice is addressed in the child support case. it's covered. HER choice is address in the fraud case. Separate issue. you went off on the tangent ... 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

turn down the thermostat - this is a separate legal case between dad and mom - it has ZERO to do with the kid. that was handled in the child support lawsuit - a totally different action. the winner in the civil suit about fraud (between two adults) is whichever person wins that particular lawsuit trying to tie the FRAUD lawsuit to the ability of the mother to raise the kid is a non sequitor - would she have the right to play that card if someone sues her for driving her car through a store front? "OH NO! if she has to pay for the damages due to her poor driving, she won't be able to buy school books for Johnny!!" Dad is responsible for his share of the kid. BTW, Mom is also responsible for her share of the kid. Mom is responsible for her act of fraud against another. three separate things - dealt with completely independent of each other (frankly, turn it around if you are all squishy about the female - scenario if Dad frauded MOM into getting pregnant? she'd also have legal recourse to recoup her losses - maybe this is more palatable to those matriarchal tending amazon worshippers out there) your dislike of lawyers really has nothing to do with the issue and for the expense of the court cases to straighten it out? well, maybe they both should have kept their pants on before deciding how adult they'll be about consequences; and before committing fraud against another. Cleanup is messy and expensive - too bad ... 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 not, he paid his child support, why is it his problem the mother is a deadbeat on her legal responsibilities? ..... (see what I did there?) ... 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

this is a good example really - and you argue the point about dad vs child - there is a responsibility the others will argue about the other interaction - dad vs mom - also legitimate, but it certainly comes to the opposite conclusion, doesn't it I think there is a serious question about whether he should be LEGALLY required to support the child (morally is pretty much what the people here are talking about and that's a different discussion). However, let's break it down then on who did what and separate the kid, from the actions of the mother: For this example - we'll assume that the father is to be responsible for his share of the kid. (this is NOT a given, but it's not the point I'm wanting to make). Does the father have recourse, to sue the mother for every and all expenses he incurs in the course of caring for the kid. She committed fraud against him. legally - 1 - mom sue dad for child support - and wins 2 - dad pays child support - dutifully, he's a good guy 3 - dad sues mom for reimbursement as he was damaged financially due to her fraud - legitimate claim, it was fraud, he wins it's circular, but it does define the 1 on 1 interactions involved, doesn't it? one thing should be perfectly and clearly defined in the PC world - if the 'fetus' is not a 'human' until after birth and the 'choice' is 100% the mom and 0% the dad (then it magically becomes 50/50 the second the cord is cut) - then the dad should not be responsible (legally) in ANY way shape or form for costs incurred during the pregnancy or even the delivery. How does that compare to the real world? again - talking legal fairness - morally, most dads have a decent moral compass and will act as expected, but this is about society's expectations and how it's been coded into law. If a poster can't keep their thermostat down for the discussion, then it's a pretty big waste of bandwidth here. ... 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

Wow - you guys can really ruin a perfectly decent Zapp Brannigan quote thread ... 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

Captain Zapp Brannigan: As my protégé you should know that the only way to deal with a female adversary is to seduce her. [Kif groans] Captain Zapp Brannigan: This time we are sure she's a woman, right? Kif Kroker: *Yes*. . . . . "We both know you won't get halfway to Vergon 6 before THE CRAVING sets in. Then, you'll come crawling back for some sweet, sweet candy. .....BAM.". . . . Captain Zapp Brannigan: So, crawling back to the big Z like a bird on its belly. Delicious. Leela: Birds don't crawl. Captain Zapp Brannigan: They've been known to ... 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

though the delivery is distasteful, I think the real point is that 1 - men and women have different options after the fact that are in no way equal - prior to the act, they all have the same options. this route is a non-starter as it doesn't get into the area where options are imbalanced. 2 - as for after the fact, there are quite a few options that could allow men and women 'equivalent' options, though 3 - the law, and stifling discourse like this thread, have disallowed that ability to define 'equivalent' options - such that the current status is all in extreme favor of the female. 4 - this is contradictory to a professed belief that the sexes should be treated as equally as possible. it's emotional, because it comes down children's lives being in conflict with choice and abortion options and it's not an issue with most - so the area has to be explored in outlier scenarios like Turtle's offering. So dismissing that out of hand is just burying heads in sand. it's not an easy discussion, but it goes nowhere when first, the discussing is opened in a vulgar and rude manner, but also when it's not directed to a more productive discussion this is just the same old post again, with the same players continuing to overshout each other with emotional canned quotes and bumper sticker content and cover their ears - lalalalalalalalala ... 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 see what you did they're..... and...just to grump on news anchors nowadays... it's: mil-i-tar-y....not mil-a-tree Mon-Day......not Mon-dee thun-der-storm.....not thun-duh-storm (Russia) Rush-uh.....not Rush-er and so forth ... 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 know this is a clarfication at best, or snarky at worst since I hope the inference wasn't so full of holes. But, Let's get back to this, it's pertinent. I don't see how you make the call on what "helping" him with the attack is. If you want to explore the grey areas, then that's fine, but we know that in cases of social issues, like the bakery, there are people that are reasonable about what active help includes, but there are also fanatics that would not be satisfied until the culprit, all his family, and anyone that smiled blankly at him at the mall are all ostracized and belittled. So in the analogy, what do you do about the freak that decides the parents need to be punished just based on the existence of their kid alone. And all his friends, and his landlord, 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

wow, "betrayal" is a harsh term about it. I'd say it's a unreconcilable condition. No biggie, if it's too much for either party to accept (either way), then it's best to know now. As a rather non-religious person, I find it a bit silly and I'd decline. then the ball would back in her court. If it's that important to her, then she's better off finding someone similar minded. seriously, just 'decline'. that's about it. welcome back, haven't seen your tag her in quite some time. ... 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

like any other response even expected with that question ... 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

have you met Bryan? ( no need to hope, he's the real thing) ... 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 trying to tell old people in the midwest how to navigate tiny turning circles ... 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

Dear Flour Company - You can't sell anymore to these 50 small businesses. they are in violation of (insert whatever topic you like, from super important to the equivalent of a Home owner's association gigging on lawn mowing length). by the way, if you lose revenue, we'll also protest if you lay workers off - especially if they fit my social agenda cosmetic limits. while you are at it - increase their minimum wages, and supply more health care, and shorten hours. while cutting off those 50 customers. We realize you have not done anything directly wrong, but we are REALLY distressed about these businesses. Do it. Or there will be hell to pay. We won't help you if they sue you also. United we stand (behind you, not with you.) Thanks so much Warm Regards Maxine Busybody. President - Home Owners Associate of this City Chairman - Find a Cause .com General Bored Housewife trying to justify her life attached, I've provided you a questionaire template (with all the "appropriate" answers identified). If you could just have each new customer fill this out first. Including who they voted for in the last three elections. We'll be glad to approve of them for whether you allow them to patronize your business. The questionaire is modeled after certain IRS forms - so you know it's GOOD> ... 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 understand. No, But I think the order may be important - and extent also for some issues. How the hell is a sugar and flour supplier know who their customer will sell to? Nor am I certain they should care either way or have to deal with busy bodies about whatever issue of the day is pushing someone's buttons. It's a crappy business model. I sell my product, it's not my business how the next guy in the chain uses it. Exceptions here would be mostly safety, not social - selling a too hot parachute to someone that will build it into a rig for a newbie. Serving liquor to someone that is sure to drive drunk. etc. Selling poison or bullets to someone that pretty much has a history or shooting or poisoning people. Though even in those cases, just INFORMING those retailers about the situation would do the job for most to make the right choice. But that's more clear cut. FORCING them without the opportunity to make their own choice is just bullying and not respectful. You might draw your line in the sand on social issues rather than safety, that's fine, it's just not my thing. You missed my trick point in the analogy - CrW dawgs don't wear suits. that would require showering. and use of a comb. YAY - I'd like to steal that for other posts. thank you ... 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

well, it is Wal Mart. I hear Dick Cheney once parked in front of a Wal Mart. Don't you have the supply chain backwards in your analogy? It's more like - Your Local Jumpsuit maker buys braided cord from Big Business Hemp to build grippers. the Jumpsuit maker refuses to sell suits to CrW dawgs (because the suit end up unwashed and smelly after 3 weekends). Every one decides to boycott Big Business Hemp in support of the CrW dogs social agenda. (Of course the suit maker then complains that the CrW dogs purposely created this conflict because they hate his stance on environmental cleanliness). (((now remember, I'm neither a Liberal, nor a religious righty, so I'm not even close to proposing my position should be legislated (default for those guys) - I just think that next step action is not productive or useful in a real sense. and not very classy at all. there would be better and positive ways to spend energy time and money))) Let me ask you this - A bully attacks you. You Judo flip him (because you don't need a gun or a pointy stick, dammit). Is it useful for you to then kick him in the head a few times, and then go judo flip his teachers and parents? I contend it's sufficient to just go tell them and let them decide as the adults and free individuals that they are. ... 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

Your opinion - I think the line should be (self) drawn at direct patronage or direct supply. They are blackmailing the suppliers such that the suppliers aren't really allowed to decide on their own. "Why is that a crappy dilemma?" If you tell the customer what's going on and the customer chooses to avoid the business - that's good. if you physically block the customer from going in, that a crossed line. If you tell the supplier what's going on and the supplier chooses to break the relationship - that's good. if you blackmail the supplier (who likely also sells to 'non-objectionable' businesses) - that's a crossed line. I think a pure free market has individual decisions being most important. So I differentiate when groups form to overwhelm individuals. I know your philosophy is the opposite - that's fine, I just don't roll that way. Free market - Objection to a business is a passive action (don't patronize it vs patronize it). Once passive goes active, then that's a different approach than free market. Did I answer your question? YMMV (please don't go all semantic on the terms active and passive - it's such a time waster) ... 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

Gasp! There are people like that??? I'm glad none of them ever show up in Speaker's Corner! that's why I'm amazed when people think every news story is innocent. If 1 out of every 1000 are 'setups', which ones do you suppose are ending up on national news stories......In real life, I operate on 999/1000 are innocent, but for here?>....... ... 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

"Boots on the Ground" should be "On the Table" Dirty Boots on the Table policy. ... 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

right, but people win (in the long run) by being the better person. I think actively destroying someone, no matter what the situation is - no matter how righteous it feels, poisons a person just a little bit. And it hurts a lot more than just the target. but, there are a subset of very visible people when talking (ANY) social agendas, that absolutely are out there just looking for a fight, sometimes even manufacturing one. In today's news media, I don't see how any of us could tell which occur naturally and which are setups....and cynicism does just take over after a while. Since the response to this was pretty major, I can't downplay Turtle's opinion blithely either any more than I can take 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

actually, I think Weiner was in the right here. HIS actions were between him and his wife (and the girls he was corresponding with). that guy was nowhere in the loop. That guy in the shop was a self righteous and judgmental jerk. if he was truly devoted to his beliefs, it would drive him to be a better person. Not stand in personal judgement of others. ... 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

let me rephrase it "this was possibly deliberate from the get go just for their business policy" possibly, and with many 'activist' types, very possible but likely it was more like Labry said - "we're getting married and would like a cake. Here's what we need......(details)". "I'm sorry, we can't provide the type of decoration and verbage you are requiring. Would you like a blank cake? It's the best my boss allows me to do...." IMHO - The business owner is not very "christian" and he's a crappy business owner that can't differentiate very personal beliefs and how it's supposed to determine HIS behavior vs twisted version of belief and how it is driving him to pass judgement on the behavior of OTHERS. ... 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 two potential dialogues: the first is very likely, the 2nd is probably very overstated but let's go with it: the customers are happy and excited about their event, suddenly some dimwit throws a wet blanket all over it. Good reaction: So - it's followed by them not buying a cake and moving on to a more friendly store, then telling 4 of their friends about the experience who then won't buy from the first guy either and they tell 4 friends, and they tell 4 friends, and so on, and so on, and so on the market is a funny thing - it works, and people don't have to go over the top, but yet they still do One of the friends sees a great business opportunity here: they open their own bake shop and very subtly advertise that they will sell and support 'all occasions'. Does it in a classy way, provide a great product, and get all the business. crappy response: the couple gets freaked out, self righteous, and they mobilize to devastate the store owner who is likely already on a path to a thin customer base by restricting his options. forgetting about enjoying their special day. everyone spends a ton of time and money pissing on the vendors and all the other businesses in town. Maybe even going further over the top by harassing patrons (that have no idea about the policy) that are going into and out of the other shops Your first scenario is great - Congrats, what kind of cake would you like? Nothing happens but a great business transaction. ... 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

this is a great point - The breakdown is people being too much into each other's business. the bakery owner can sell a cake the customer can buy a cake cake leaves store - the owner has nothing to do with it why does the owner even need to know the details why does the customer feel obliged to give the details it's a business transaction, not a social statement - both these groups seem to have forgotten 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