christelsabine

Your link showing intercountry adoption is not reflecting our German adoption laws. BTW: Intercountry adoptions are absolutely rare and mainly have a family background (parents from different countries f.e.). Adoption of a (German) child by a single German person - not a person living in a registered partnership as I described before - in Germany is not possible. Search all night, if you like. Have fun. dudeist skydiver # 3105

If you really need a detailed explanation on that, I guess you're quite young/not very experienced/never were in touch with such things or simply not informed. Use your brain and logic. There are reasons why kids have to be protected. Especially those w/o any strong protection from a family in the background. Kids w/o a nest. That has nothing to do with the results of a one night stand. If you need a further explanation showing the difference, I can't help you any more. Go to next children's home and ask. dudeist skydiver # 3105

Of an adopted child, yes. dudeist skydiver # 3105

There are MANY married couples with children in this country in which both parents work, so neither parent can stay with the child all day. Typically, they take the child to daycare or hire a nanny, or sometimes they have other relatives who can help out. Yep. Married couples and thier kids. Own kids. We're talking about adopted kids. Here, adopted kids have to be under special protection. If a couple can't ensure the kid they want to adopt will be under best attendance/presence of at least one parent, story's over. If they're older (the wannabe parents) than about 40, no adoption. That's it. The average waiting time for a couple with the adoption wish is about 2 yrs. They are checked for every little detail. Hey, you or JR: Complain as long as you want. These are our laws, which I fully support. Kids are no toys. Cya dudeist skydiver # 3105

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but I would prefer to see a child adopted by a good single parent or unmarried couple rather than spending his life in an institution and/or foster care. If the single parent is in the good financial position to stay with the little one all day, well - that might be OK. Usually, singles do work. And then? The children's home will be next place for the kid. The unmarried couple (no matter which gender) is a different case. I'd fully support it if such couple is registered as a cohabitee and is wishing to adopt a child. Provided a close background check, of course. A child is no commodity. dudeist skydiver # 3105

Well then, quite obviously, anyone else who does things differently from your country is just plain wrong. That's JR conclusion. Think (what) how you like. Anyhow, as a single person here is not allowed to adopt a child (not even from own country) - never ever a single person (nor a couple) in Germany sent back a little unwelcome child into the nowhere. Yep, these are our laws. Not bad, I'm sure. dudeist skydiver # 3105

Yes. I know. Everything's possible in the land of free. Oh wait, you said Wisconsin? It IS possible, I guess .... dudeist skydiver # 3105

How is it possible that an unmarried single person can adopt a child??? In my country, that's simply impossible. dudeist skydiver # 3105

Hi Bill, the *funny* jokes about ovens were made by Dreamdancer. Not first time. I just replied to rushmc as he was last poster and I was not that sure if he knew what DD was really meaning. Just to correct a misunderstanding. dudeist skydiver # 3105

Wow that is alot of people to cook for Ya think he's going to cook a nice dinner?? Whatever. With all the ovens, he already ordered, it'll be finished soon. dudeist skydiver # 3105

Hey youngster, welcome to SC Let's talk again in 7 yrs or so .... dudeist skydiver # 3105

Does that make you important or something? Why did you make this posting? What makes you post all details about your trips into the *wilderness* ? Does that make you Crocodile Dundee? Jeez, I can't believe you guys fell for Kallends post. dudeist skydiver # 3105

AA11 , UA175, AA77, UA93 We are not talking about terrorist attacks. *Acts of war* (or however it's been called ) are subject of discussion. dudeist skydiver # 3105

Yep. Just tell them from which day on they will be capable to walk their own suburbs w/o beeing killed. That 2007 video is no isolated case. dudeist skydiver # 3105

That's fate of teachers. Seems, you never heard that ... dudeist skydiver # 3105

What a daffy comment is that Who, exactly, touched the US before invading Iraq? dudeist skydiver # 3105

Yes. I haven't heard it but I reckon that it's all business, some mentioning of targets, the sound of a gun, adrenaline talkng, as they communicate about more targets, etc. It's war. War is, by definition, immoral. I don't like it. It is what it is. However, I would suggest that such is not more or less inhuman that other things you might hear. Perhaps watching a beheading could be inhuman. Perhaps seeing footage of a suicide bomber is also inhuman. Talk about killing Japs and Krauts, yeah. Probably inhuman, too. Part of what I suspect may make it so chilling to you is the sense that you expect better from Americans. Whether it's right or wrong for you to do that is an unanswerable question. [Reply]Stop talking like a wrong priest, Mr. lawrocket. I'm not defending it. Yes, you are correct that they intended to shoot those people. They erred in who they were. I am not defending it. I am also not calling them the antichrists for it. They followed their training and Rules of Engagement. The training and ROE should likely be modified. You may look at these guys for this problem. I look at higher ups for the problem. [Reply]Those guys exactly knew what they did. They wanted to shoot. They did not err. Yep. They meant to shoot. But knowing exactly what they did? Doubtful. Hindsight probably gave them some info that they didn't have prior to and during the engagement. Do you think they knew they were shooting a journalist? Do you think they said, "the guy's a Reuters photojournalist. Nope, not Fox News. Shoot him!" I highly doubt that was the thought process. They Knew "exactly" what they were doing? Bullshit. They knew they were shooting. They thought they were shooting threats. They only learned later "exactly" what they did. Defending them? Nope. Crucifying them? Nope. What? Why that? What *better* should I expect from Americans?? I don't mind the language of killers. Those guys wanted to kill. And for the rest of your reply, let me repeat: You still sound like a wrong priest. That's not exactly the voice of a lawyer, even if you try to appear like one; it's just meaningless wishy-washy. Regarding discussions, I really would expect better from *Americans* dudeist skydiver # 3105

The *best* part of this movie are the comments. No, not yours. Your above comments do sound like a piss take. No, the comments of the actors in that video are the most inhuman text I heard since a long time. Stop talking like a wrong priest, Mr. lawrocket. Those guys exactly knew what they did. They wanted to shoot. They did not err. dudeist skydiver # 3105

I see you don't understand - just ask someone to explain to you dudeist skydiver # 3105

Same as those who speculate that more guns LEADS to less (or at least not more) crime. ok. so you're battling suppositions with suppositions. Good luck with that. At least you shouldn't pretend like you don't know why nobody takes you seriously. Well, for several million people I am a nobody. But when did I allow you to talk for me? dudeist skydiver # 3105

So you think that people who drink alcohol (which is a drug) should not be allowed to own guns? Give them all you like ..... if it's inside your country, it'll not break my head.

Let me see if I understand your view on this: 1) All people who smoke marijuana are dangerous criminals who shouldn't own a gun, 2) A person who legally obtained a permit to grow and use medicinal use marijuana should be denied gun ownership because they...obeyed the law and got thier permit legally... This type of generalization is about as good as saying all Repulicans are closet homosexuals that incite violence and that all Democrats are so leftist that they truely are communists that want the government to take care of everything...as you said, BRILLIANT! If you like to hear a generalization: Yes. No one using drugs should be allowed to own guns. For the rest: I do not care if your Reps or Dems or Libs are homos or not - that is your playground, not mine. I don't like to enter that game. Again: Give them all what they want, weapons, alcohol, drugs - but, please no passports. dudeist skydiver # 3105

Why should they not be allowed to own guns? Using and growing Marijuana - wonderful. They surely will be fully aware of how to use weapons - softly, silent, full of peace and love - yep, let all those drug addicts (if medically indicated or not) - arm themselves. Hey, they have to defend their medicin, right? Give them weapons but, please! no passports!!! dudeist skydiver # 3105

What a self-confident man you are. You voted YES ! Yes, let all of them own weapons. Brilliant dudeist skydiver # 3105

Oh look, the neutral observer is back .... dudeist skydiver # 3105