Nightingale

Couldn't get the links to play... Last I checked, Constantine was pretty much the editor of the bible. I wouldn't exactly call him the author, but he's responsible for most of today's content.

For a starter mac, the mini is probably the best choice, since it starts at around five hundred for a complete system (www.microcenter.com). The minis are not available with intel yet.

At that point, I'd just send a card.

www.apple.com

Easy. http://www.extendedstayamerica.com Fully equipped kitchens in the suites, for less than $100 a day, usually.

I'm assuming you're extending this to individuals, as well as the government? If so, not a great idea. You'd end up with a situation where apartment complexes couldn't discriminate against, and thus, not rent to, low income people, even though they wouldn't be able to afford the apartment. If you can't discriminate on the basis of ability, that would make it impossible for an employer to find the best person for the job. They'd have to hire the first applicant...or would that be discrimination against the second applicant? Even if you're not extending it to the people and just limiting it to the government, you've just taken away the capability of the armed forces to discriminate against those with a lack of ability to physically and/or mentally assist with doing what the armed forces needs to do. An amendment of that scope doesn't make any sense. We discriminate against people every day. We know it's not right to discriminate against people for reasons unrelated to the matter at hand. For example, it would be wrong for an apartment manager to refuse to rent to someone on the basis of race or religion, but they need to be free to discriminate by income. I agree with this one. Something like "capital punishment shall be categorized as cruel and unusual" would be a good change. I like your premise, but this isn't practical. For example, one of the major functions of local government when it comes to broadcast communications is the regulation of the cable television industry, which MUST be regulated by local government, since it uses local government property to run cables. I think something that forbids government from regulating content would be a bit more practical. in what kind of cases? I agree. That clause gives congress a bit too much power. How about the freedom to use birth control methods for all people, and abortion rights for women? Women aren't the only ones who can take drugs or use protection to prevent pregnancy. I like your idea, but the Lemon test has been criticized extensively as being overly subjective. Personally, I don't think churches should be tax exempt for money spent to further their religion, but money taken in and used for charitable purposes should remain tax exempt. Otherwise, you remove an incentive for the churches to implement social programs, and the more churches that have assistance programs, the less money the government will spend on them. What kind of foreign affairs, and to what extent? Are you referring to treaties? Or are you referring to foreign trade policy, deployment of soldiers, or something else entirely? "foreign affairs" is extremely broad. Would you then pull every soldier out of every foreign nation, because we're not at war? What about peacekeeping efforts, foreign aid for disasters such as the tsunami, and soldiers stationed at US embassies in foreign countries? Funding by the federal government? Should the feds be funding local elections for city council or mayors? If you do that, you won't have enough attorneys. Many attorneys don't want to work for the government, and it'll be a huge expansion of government. It can also be seen as a conflict of interest. Do you really want the same entity that is accusing you to provide your defense? Who decides when a suit is frivolous? see above.

Kris is 53% gay! You're very open-minded between the sheets and just as balanced when out on the streets.

"The first ten amendments shall apply to individuals."

The right to privacy has been considered as "implied" in the constitution. I'd like to see it spelled out. The fourth amendment is very specific, protecting against unreasonable searches. Privacy is about a lot more than searches. For example: The courts have ruled that the fourth amendment doesn't apply to schools who want to do random drug testing of both athletes and students participating in clubs such as band or science olympiad. If a student participates in an extracurricular, the school can drug test them. The problems with this: The student must fill out a form that details medications they're taking and why. This form goes in the student's school file. Any teacher has access to student files and would be able to find out that a student is taking medication for conditions such as depression or HIV. The supreme court felt that this was not a violation of the fourth amendment, as the drug test was a search that was not "unreasonable." A situation similar to the above would likely be covered by a privacy amendment, since the search wasn't unreasonable, but was performed without due process, as there was no warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion that students are taking drugs. It's simply random and didn't even require parental consent. A privacy amendment would also likely prevent the government from requesting certain information about individuals from third parties without due process. For example, the govnernment probably wouldn't be able to request a list of all yahoo and google searches performed by all users, unless they went through due process.

I'd like to see an amendment stating "The right of the individual to personal privacy shall not be infringed without due process."

Is there an address where get-well cards can be sent?

Fraud flags on credit reports are a pain in the ass. What they don't tell you: 1. it makes it harder to get credit approval, because you have to supply additional documentation for someone to extend credit to you. 2. you will pretty much never get approved for a store credit card on the spot. They always get that embarrasing response of "we'll notify you by mail" and of course, they send you a letter asking for more info, you give it to them, and a month later, you have your card. So, you can't take advantage of those 10% off offers when you sign up for a card. 3. Some companies will deny you credit outright. Some apartment complexes will refuse to lease to you, because their automatic credit systems will issue a denial if there's any kind of flag on the report, regardless of what kind. 4. It's impossible to remove it. You can place it on your account via an automated phone service, but to remove it, you have to first off manage to talk to a person, which is impossible, and if you happen to get in touch with someone, you have to supply all kinds of crazy documents (one company wanted bills from two different utility companies, and I've only got one utility that I have to pay for). Putting a fraud flag on my credit report eight years ago has been a HUGE hassle for me. In my case, it was necessary, because someone had my social security number, birthday, and name, because it was someone at school who had stolen records from the school database, so they actually had the info to open new accounts. If it's just a stolen credit card, the thief doesn't have the necessary info to open new accounts, so a fraud flag won't help the situation.

Well, first off, try google. You'd be surprised how many people can be found just by googling a name. If you find an email address for someone whose name and location matches, drop them an email with your info and how you think you may be related. Many people are quite receptive. My uncle managed to track down a branch of the family that split off back in the early 1800s. A slave owner's brother had three kids with a slave, and then went on to marry someone else, which is where my family line comes from. My uncle managed to track down people from the other fork of the family tree, and actually flew out to Alabama to meet them. if you like, I can send him an email and get a list of the resources he used (I know google and the mormon records were major sources, though). Good luck!

If you read some of the research that's been done on sexual orientation (Kinsey in particular), you'll find that most people fall somewhere in the middle of the scale, rather than completely hetero or completely homosexual. The majority of people fall into 1-5 rather than 0 or 6. However, that doesn't mean it's a choice. You don't consciously choose who you're attracted to.

It's really stupid that some people try to bury history just because it might make some people uncomfortable.

Sorry. I was trying to answer your question about whether church recognition was necessary, along with someone else's question about what benefits homosexuals are denied. I apologize for a lack of clarity...I posted it before I'd acquired sufficient caffeine levels to type coherently.

Because, as we learned when we desegregated schools, separate but equal isn't equal. Having hetero "marriage" and gay "civil union" will enable companies to extend benefits only to one and not the other. For example, a hypothetical clause in a company's benefits paperwork could read "spousal benefits are extended only to married couples." Unless there is state or federal anti-discrimination legislation, because of the different classification, there's nothing to stop companies from doing this. If all unions were civil unions and fell under the same legal umbrella, it would be more difficult for a company to do something like that, because a civil union would have the same status under the law.

Hmm... I've never really gotten anything funny. Whenever someone's given me something, it's always been flowers or good chocolate. However, one year my father bought my mother a dust-buster. Not his brightest move.

If I receive an unsolicited email, I will NOT buy the product advertized in the email. If I have previously purchased something from your website and given you my email, feel free to send me email about your products, unless and until you're told to stop. It seems like this was a bot search or something, because I've got skydiving stuff on my website and I got spammed.

Live snakes are infinitely more entertaining.

I do it because I have a strange mental pathology. I literally cannot bring myself to believe that there are people that can't see reason. See Lawrocket's thread.

The debate over gay marriage isn't about "church recognition" or "marriage in Christ's name." It's about legal recognition. If the government wants to get out of the marriage business entirely and leave marriage to the churches, and call all legal unions, regardless of gender "civil unions" most people would probably be okay with that, because it's not about the church, and it's not really about the name as long as whatever name it's given doesn't differentiate between unions of opposite gender and unions of the same gender (because, of course, we've learned that separate but equal isn't equal). It's mainly about the following: "On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. Among the state and federal benefits given to married couples are the rights to: joint parenting; joint adoption; joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; immigration and residency for partners from other countries; inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; joint filing of customs claims when traveling; wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; crime victims' recovery benefits; loss of consortium tort benefits; domestic violence protection orders; judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; and more...." source: religioustolerance.org

The same could probably be said about anyone who believes anything despite significant evidence to the contrary.

Funny... when I met Michelle, I thought she was very sweet. Of course the olympic committee is going to pick the skaters they think will win. If they thought michelle was better than emily, that's their decision. I think it sucks for emily, and I really hope she gets out there in time, but don't blame Michelle for a decision made by the committee.

I hated college comp classes too. Let me know if you'd like a proofreader, though.