champu

Did you know that when you reply to a thread it moves it to the top of the list of threads? (sticky threads notwithstanding)

According to that info-graphic, I'm a black person.

Well, in a year, when one side wants to extend the breaks for unions and the other wants it to expire, the side that wants it to expire will be "attacking unions and trying to bust them." And a few more years when the fee is set to expire and one side wants to extend it the opposition will be "pushing for unsustainable tax cuts that erode our health... the most fundamental resource we have..."

actually, rule making has traditionally been done after legislation is passed, and it's another example where the Executive Branch has more power than our 5th grade version of Washington would suggest. And by your post I guess you think this is the way such power should be (ab)used? Really? I don't get that from his tone or, more importantly, from his posting history at all.

I was going to say #eeeeff but I got scooped on that joke by over eight years in post #124.

Some teenagers hide a diary or journal from their parents. Some might hide some beers they acquired or dirty magazines from their parents. Some hide the fact that when they're going to "go hang out with their friends" they're actually going to do things like try and knock over a gas station.

Sure. And sometimes people use "your" as an abbreviation of "you're". I wish "yore" made it into the mix more often.

Posting maps of people... banning them from their kids' schools... All great ways to promote firearms licensing and background checks.

Fair enough.

http://www.despair.com/incompetence.html

Setting aside the discussion of venue for a moment... from the article: Yeah, "Pass some gun control legislation" as you would the salt. Unfortunately, it would seem, that's how it is viewed by many: a faucet labeled "gun control" from which oozes a homogenous substance, that you can turn one way to make the country safer and the other way and it gets more dangerous. So what gun control legislation does he suggest? Oh, ban everything he's not interested in and let people keep the guns he likes. That's certainly compelling.

Negative. People LOVE to be preached to . . . as long as it conforms to their previously held beliefs. What people HATE is anything that challenges those beliefs. I don't hate things that challenge my position on the world. Then again, I don't consider many opposing viewpoints particularly challenging. Consider the person who "challenges" your belief that the world is round and billions of years old with their belief that it's flat and 6,000 years old. Hate isn't the word you'd use to describe that. You'd probably say you find it tiresome. Also, I almost universlly dislike people preaching "in agreement" with me because they're usually not in agreement with me over details of the issue I consider to be highly material. Indeed, there's little on here I dislike more than someone that appears to be "on my side" making a terrible and easily refuted argument.

"let" is a rabbit hole. Driving while drunk isn't even an inherently bad thing, causing bodily harm and property damage while operating a motor vehicle is. Simply driving drunk at all has been made illegal because beyond a certain point of intoxication (that is readily measurable) you can show that the likelihood of an accident goes way up, and we don't want to "let" people get into these types of accidents. This is one of people's favorite examples because it's one that does such a good job of not trouncing regular people doing regular things. Now, suppose I come along and say I want to indirectly try to curb this already indirectly bad activity. Let's make it illegal to get into the driver’s seat of a car within one hour of leaving an establishment that sells alcohol. This is an incredibly stupid law, and we absolutely should be worried about what ordinary things this prevents ordinary people from doing, and not just about "letting" bad guys do bad things. Furthermore, if I propose a law like that, and you raise material concerns with it, it is not on you to come up with a replacement that I find suitable as a prerequisite for taking an opposing stance to it. It would be megalomaniacal to demand that. Btw, I have no qualms against treating sexual orientation as a "protected class" along with race, sex, and so forth, I just found this defense of it to be inappropriate and wrong. /edited for spelling and typos, oops.

I don't doubt that to be the case and, to be clear, I didn't think devildog had just made it up. I didn't hear about / start following what had happened until after that was corrected. If anything, his comment served as an explanation as to why all the outlets kept saying it wasn't a TSA agent.

When I was in elementary school they gathered about 20 of us from across the district and put us in our own 5th and 6th grade class, calling it the Special Opportunities Program or SOP. We were given a much more challenging curriculum. It was great, I enjoyed it a lot. Other kids in the school called us SOP students "Stupid On Purpose." It took me a while to appreciate the life lesson there.

I care... I'm supposed to pick somebody up at LAX in about an hour and a half. I'm about 15 minutes from LAX and I can't decide if I should leave now or in a few hours (as of now you're still not allowed to drive into the terminal area.) I'm glad more people weren't hurt or killed.

From the AP Wire... edited to add: I haven't read that anywhere, but virtually every source I've seen explicitly says that is false.

My suggestion absolutely works, or would anyway. Trying to piece together equality is a fools errand, particularly on something as entrenched in law and policy as marriage. /edit: articles make sentence better

My thoughts on the "government should just get out of marriage" argument from a couple years ago... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4083290;#4083290 Also, regarding this quote in the OP... ...this is not the court being obtuse, as people claiming that homosexuals have every right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like straight people are. Rather, this is the judge saying, "hey, from this bench I can't duct tape you up a solution here. You need to take it up with the legislative branch."

Really? Edit to add info. You really shouldn't tell such lies. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit/lenders-report-credit-bureaus.aspx Yeah, I was going to jump on that too. Nobody has to say crap to the credit bureaus. The only requriements are that if someone is going to say something negative about you to the credit bureaus they have to tell you about it directly as well. And if you review your credit report and dispute something, they have to retract or defend it within (I think) 30 days. Credit cards, mortgages, and auto loans are about the only thing that you can count on showing up on your credit report regardless of whether they are good or bad. They have a more vested interest in your credit report containing as much useful information as possible, because for them it actually determines features of the financial instrument they're going to sell you. Cell phone providers, landlords, utility companies, car insurance... they'll run a credit check, but they're mostly just looking for a go/no-go. I think most reserve reporting as a form of leverage to get you to pay and couldn't be bothered to report when you do make payments. I've never had a rent/utility/insurance account not be in good standing, and I've never seen any information about said accounts on my credit report. I've always carried health insurance through employers (I've never had an individual plan) so I'm not sure which of these two groups they or the ACA exchanges would fall into. My guess would be the latter. But either way, claims that Experian is going to get info they didn't already have that would put you at risk of identity theft because you entered it on a healthcare.gov website make absolutely no sense, and demonstrate a rather profound ignorance of how credit bureaus work.

And therein lies the real tragedy of just saying what you feel you need to say to get re-elected. People shouting "It's the end of the world." and "It's a whole new world." and no one saying, "Hey, within a generation this will be a losing deal for everyone in real dollars." or "This is going to get us into trouble if the population of workers declines or even levels off." or even, "Didn't we send a guy who tried this back to Italy... ...just last summer?"

36" x 38" apparently. http://www.gainjet.com/GHM/agentGHM/GNJ_GHM_1.pdf (pg 21)

You know who else compared and contrasted people to Germans...?

Those products are all pretty over the top (and yes, inappropriate for homes with children) but that wasn't an NRA selling point, that was the Mother Jones site making fun of the product.

Sure. They could monitor from a distance. Effective Range is about 380 yards. That should be close enough to protect and serve. Oh well, I know when I'm not wanted in a thread.