jcd11235

??? Really? I don't know what the "party line" is. I'm simply applying logic. If you feel you can't take part in a discussion that contains logical arguments, so be it. Have a nice day. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I'm not sure what your point is here. If the baby is given up for adoption, that decision is often (usually?) one that is made in the best interest of the child. Great if the biological parents' best interests coincide, but their concern is secondary. If you are referring to scenarios in which a step-parent legally adopts their spouse's biological child, relieving the corresponding biological parent of responsibility, then I suspect the child's needs are still the primary consideration before such an adoption is approved. There already is such framework. If the parent who wants to take responsibility cannot, the other parent is held responsible, as they should be. You apparently missed my point. If I only take precautions to make it unlikely that there is a resulting pregnancy, that implies that, should the precautions not work, I am fine with her having my child, even if I wasn't really wanting a child. If I'm not comfortable with her having my children, I make it virtually impossible for a pregnancy to occur, i.e. my sperm aren't released while I'm in her vaginal canal. Right. Unfortunately, many (perhaps most) pregnancies are surprises. Some are perceived as pleasant surprises, some are less welcome. Oftentimes, such surprises are decidedly inconvenient, even if they are pleasant. Nonetheless, it's not much of a mystery where babies come from, nor should it come as a surprise to anyone that they will be held responsible if they become a biological parent. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The father already made his choice. By giving his sperm to the mother, he accepted responsibility for any children that may result. Sex does not require that particular gift be given. There is no choice by either parent to decline the responsibility of a child. The mother has a right to abort her pregnancy, just as the father had a right to ensure there was not a pregnancy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No, because that ability would put the father's (or mother's, if the situation were reversed) convenience ahead of the child's needs. The child's needs understandably come first. If a child's parents come to an agreement that one of them need not be involved at all, financially or otherwise, that's perfectly okay, as long as the parent that chooses to take responsibility has the resources do do so. If that ever becomes an issue, the other parent should be required to step up. Who said anything about not having sex. Who I have sex with and where I leave my sperm are two separate issues. With some partners, precautions to make it unlikely that a pregnancy occurs is sufficient. With others, I take steps to make it virtually impossible for a pregnancy to result. The father has a different choice at a different time, but he does indeed have a choice. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Incorrect. The mother has a right to abort the pregnancy. She does not have a right to decline her responsibility to raise a child. If she does not give birth to a child, then there is no child for which to be responsible. There's no responsibility to decline. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Clearly, you've misunderstood my use of "deadbeat dad." If a father is providing for his biological children, he isn't a deadbeat dad. Perhaps I have unusual dexterity, but I can effectively control where I leave my bodily fluids. If I'm not comfortable with a partner mothering my children, I don't leave a lasting deposit. I have a choice, and it isn't simply to have sex or not have sex. Again, the issue of responsibilities to the child as parents are separate from a female's right to choose. The rights and wellness of the child are (ideally) the primary concerns, not the parental convenience. In the eyes of the law, the child had no legal rights until birth. Once born, abortion is no longer an option or issue. The father does not get treated unfairly compared to the mother. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Please don't advance this misconception any further. Despite some creative interpretations of torture by some Justice Department (not to be confused with any part of the judicial branch of the federal government) lawyers, legal precedent is pretty clear about water boarding being torture in the eyes of the law. The US has prosecuted water boarding as torture in the past. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I think the hatred stems from a lot of things. First, she's well educated in a nation that seems to take pride in ignorance. Before Clinton, how many First Ladies held advanced degrees? Second, she's a lawyer. I think many people generally hold a disdain for lawyers. She stayed with her husband after he was caught having an affair with an intern. Even as her husband can be criticized for too often having a Slick Willie, her image w/r/t family values was only strengthened when she remained committed to her marriage. I think a lot of social conservatives resent her for it. I think she also receives a lot of resentment because her husband was such a good President compared to his contemporaries, especially fiscally. Fiscal responsibility has long been a Republican talking point, so some of those Republicans/conservatives resent President Clinton for that, and taking it out on his wife is the only option they really have. I supported Clinton during the primaries because I thought healthcare would be the most important issue of the election. Her healthcare plan was much better than any other candidate's. In hindsight, with the economy emerging as the most critical issue, I'm glad Obama received the nomination. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I understand your argument now. You want men to have the legal right to be deadbeat dads. I wholeheartedly disagree. If a guy deposits his sperm inside a female, he accepts legal responsibility for any children who may be born as a result of that action. That the female might have the ability to make an explicit choice for no children to be born of the encounter does not and should not mitigate the responsibilities of either parent if there are children born as a result of the encounter. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's a rather disingenuous way of explaining things. As has been pointed out, responsibility for a child is a necessarily different topic of discussion. Whether or not the the pregnancy is terminated prematurely is a choice that the female has a right to make, as it is her body. Responsibility for children should be shared jointly by the parents. The kids have certain rights that should not be abrogated simply because the biological father feels like he should be absolved of responsibility because he didn't really feel like being a father. It's simple, really. If a guy doesn't trust a particular female to make the right decisions regarding her body and any sperm she may be given, then that guy should refrain from donating his sperm to that particular female. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You previously said that you disagreed with international law that sets minimum standards for legal actions. It appears you might be trying to have it both ways. How so? There are plenty of national and state laws that don't rely on international law. Right. But, well established federal law, i.e. the Constitution, allows the federal government to enter into international treaties and recognize international laws. Failure to obey such laws also falls within the "criminal realm." Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You previously said that you disagreed with international law that sets minimum standards for legal actions. It appears you might be trying to have it both ways. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Propagation speed, aka VOD (velocity Of Detonation). There are standards (yes, arbitrary but based on explosive performance) that have been established that separate detonations from deflagrations. I dont have my explosives handbooks here, but if you really want to know the m/s value where that split is done, I could look it up unless I gave all those books back when I left my job a couple years back. Thanks. With the help of search terms you provided, I was able to research a little bit more, and found that low explosives are explosives that deflagrate, and high explosives detonate. Deflagration occurs due to the thermal conductivity of the material, i.e. the combustion of a particular bit of the material heats and ignites adjacent bits. Detonation propagates via shock waves traversing the material, compressing the material enough to heat and ignite it. Deflagration occurs at subsonic speeds and the shock wave involved in detonation is supersonic, but I didn't see it explicitly stated that the speed of sound is an inherently critical speed that changes the manner that combustion propagates through the material. Assuming my understanding of the above is correct (please correct it if it isn't), then it would seem that gunpowder would be considered a low explosive material. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Would you be so kind as to explain the difference for us? What, precisely, makes the chemical reaction of an explosion different from the chemical reaction of a "rapid burn?" Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Roe v. Wade is not law. It is a judicial decision that interpreted existing law. The Ninth forbids a particular manner of interpretation of the Constitution w/r/t rights. It does not, itself, provide rights. The rights have to be found elsewhere, even if they are not enumerated specifically. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I hate to break it to all those who so strongly hope to see Obama fail, but the US is not on pace to quadruple public debt anytime soon. Eight years of $1.8 trillion annual deficits isn't enough to do it, and the likelihood of seeing sustained deficit spending of such a magnitude is low. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

From your second link: In his speech, Geithner renewed pledges that the Obama administration would cut its huge fiscal deficits and promised "very disciplined" future spending, possibly including reintroduction of pay-as-you-go budget rules instead of nonstop borrowing. "We have the deepest and most liquid markets for risk-free assets in the world. We're committed to bring our fiscal deficits down over time to a sustainable level. "We believe in a strong dollar ... and we're going to make sure that we repair and reform the financial system so that we sustain confidence," he said. Geithner also offered strong backing for a bigger Chinese role in international policymaking. "China is already too important to the global economy not to have a full seat at the international table," he said. … Moreover, the U.S. financial system was healing and it now seemed assured that the world would avoid financial collapse and deflation. But Geithner said there could be no return to business as usual either for the United States or China: both must change their growth strategies as U.S. consumers pay down debt after years of living beyond their means. For China, which he said was in "an enviably strong position", that meant reducing its dependence on exports. "Purchases of U.S. consumers cannot be as dominant a driver of growth as they have been in the past," he said. "In China ... growth that is sustainable will require a very substantial shift from external to domestic demand." To that end, Geithner said a more flexible exchange-rate regime for the yuan, which would almost certainly see the value of the Chinese currency rise against the dollar, was particularly important because it would spur more Chinese demand. A stronger yuan would make imports cheaper for China and Chinese exports more costly for foreign buyers. … Geithner offered U.S. backing for a higher-profile role for China in running global institutions including the IMF -- a controversial proposition since it raises the sensitive issue of reducing Europe's voting share in the global lender. "The United States will fully support having China play a role in the principal cooperative arrangements that help shape the international system, a role that is commensurate with China's importance in the global economy," he said. I fail to see anything to cause unusual concern. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That question has already been answered in this thread. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

My thoughts on the topic remain unchanged. If the wording of the bill can be interpreted in a manner which is unConstitutional and also in a manner that is Constitutional, the Constitutional interpretation shall be the correct, legal interpretation of the bill. Having said that, the examples you offer don't fall within the definition of network, as defined in the bill. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

On average, maybe five minutes. Typically, none. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's the name I was looking for, contour drawing. I could remember the assignment (actually a series of them), but not the name. Art was never my best subject in school. Unfortunately, since my older brother is a naturally talented artist, it always seemed like my art teachers, who all remembered him from two years previous, were disappointed that I didn't share his talent. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

He didn't misunderstand the statement as you wrote it. Whether or not your statement conveyed the point you were attempting to make is a different issue, but [jakee] can hardly be blamed if what you wrote and what you meant are two different things. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That would be pretty exceptional for a five year old. It reminds me of an art assignment I had in high school for which we had to draw an object in ~5 minutes, but were not allowed to look at or lift our pencils from the paper. Only those with natural artistic talent were able to obtain results that remotely resembled the object we were supposed to be drawing. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Anyone who meets on a regular basis to watch the Chargers play baseball is an imbecile. Ouch - how embarrassing this must be for John. From a Frenchie, no less. In the context of the thread, it still would have been humorous had he asked instead, "What about people who are meeting to watch baseball games on a regular basis and support the Padres?" Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!