Andy9o8

Doubtful it's Him. First, this guy is in CA and only wants CA girls, and I thought He was in NYC, bitching that He couldn't sell his condo. But, I suppose He could have moved to CA. But here's the kicker: This guy is willing to consider girls of any SIZE. So definitely not Him.

I will gladly donate to any place that will give me a bottle of Thunderbird.

That's a terribly unfair demonizing, Paul, and I urge you to retract it.

First, while the US Navy does have submarine commanders, it does not have Sub-Commanders; those would be the Romulans. You can easily distinguish the two by the different haircut styles. More to your point: I haven't looked it up because it's Saturday, dammit, but my presumption is that that might only kick in while the person is on duty status; otherwise he's basically an on-call civilian and can say whatever he wants while in his civilian capacity. Hm, or maybe it has to do with his level of reserve status? OK, I don't know. But DavJohns (who's JAG, I think) or Lawrocket (who was a shavetail) might help us out here.

Don't be so fast to presume majority agreement of the American people on that. I dare say that the more info that comes out weekly, the fewer American people you'll find agree with that label. A democratic society is a fallacy if the people are uninformed as to the facts and the truth. And no, I'm not remotely naive about the necessity for classified information. (This being said, there are Snowden-dedicated threads on here that we can re-visit to continue this side debate, as I don't want us to hijack this one away from its topic of Syria.)

Lincoln could split a coax cable as easily as he could split a rail. Amazing guy.

Aside from the issue of the reliability of those, a lot of employers have switched over to testing hair. Just worth mentioning.

unsure. I do think usage had been declining, but with medical marijuana making it much much easier to obtain, I think it's a significant majority for those in their 20s, and a substantial jump upward. Yeah, but there's an added dynamic keeping downward pressure on pot smoking these days, which did not exist back in the 70s & 80s when virtually every single college student who lived away at school smoked pot at least once: the increasing commonality of employee and/or job applicant drug testing, for just about every kind of job, in just about every kind of workplace. Huge factor.

And it's also quite possible (though I'm not willing to say probable) that Assad used gas figuring that people would say exactly what you have, thereby gaining enough international hesitancy to give him cover to use gas on a limited tactical level, thus to "safely" send a message to his opponents: "This is what I can and will do to you if you don't back down. If I go down, this is what will happen to all your families before I take my last breath." I think he's well into scorched-earth mentality by now. (Hey, here's a fun fact: What did Bashar Assad and George Habash have in common? Both are/were doctors of medicine.) That having been said, I'm still only about 80% convinced that it was Syrian govt actors. That's partly based on an incompleteness of independently verified evidence, partly on the history of past Presidents (plural) bamboozling the American people and Congress to gain approval for military action, and partly because I think the current Administration is of no different mentality or modus operandi. Even (potentially) without the loss of a single American life, I've grown utterly sick to death at bleeding the American treasury to the tune of trillions of dollars to project military power overseas, when it does nothing to advance American security or interests (other than to perpetuate the motion of the military-industrial complex). As for humanitarian interests, Yes, they matter a great deal to me - I'm a bleeding heart, remember? - but I'm not willing to have American assets foot the lion's share of the cost while the rest of the world is content to let us go it alone. The world's policeman has to be a true coalition, and not just America. On this basis, I've decided that my vote is NO.

Yes regarding contraception. Probably no on the STDs. That's not their primary mission. Actually yes on both. They don't just serve women. Low cost testing and treatment for STDs for both men and women is part of their mission. Had a buddy in college tried to use them and they sent him packing "we only treat women, go away". The whole circle of friends were amazed. Glad they fixed it. Yeah, that's idiotic, as promoting contraception and STD-prevention for men obviously benefits women equally. It's also quite at odds with PP's own Mission Statement.

That's obviously worded as a "loaded" question. You have the "right of choice" to assume the risk of a hazardous activity by skydiving. And the DZOs & gear mfgrs have a co-existent "right of choice" to limit their liability as a condition for staying in business and providing you with the venue, aircraft and gear with which to jump. DZOs or mfgrs who take too harsh an approach run the risk of losing customers. But by the same token, those jumpers who fail to recognize that the two agendas do, in fact, co-exist are always welcome to build their own gear, secure their own venue and hire their own aircraft. All in balance, Grasshopper.

Still going with the FACT that you know that is what happened? I hate the FACT that it happened, I just do not know WHO did it yet. How come you're so sure? Because I believe The Prez on this one. WHAT IS THE BAS... ... er .... ... What is the basis for your conclusion? (Sorry, you almost had me sucked into the D.B. Cooper thread posting style.)

I think you should form a militant masculist protest group. Anyhow, since I did ask you, here's an interesting article on that example: Are Women-Only Gyms Guilty of Discrimination?

Second request now: what kind of business is it, please? Otherwise, your example is pretty hard for us to evaluate in the absence of context. can a guy use Planned Parenthood to get advice, treatment for simple sexually contracted conditions (infections, crabs, etc), contraception, etc? this would be a good example and I just don't know.... I don't know either without googling it or checking out PP's website. Let us know what you find.

Really, Bill. Squint a little.

OK, how about this? http://www.images-graphics-pics.com/signs/sign-generator/simple.asp?text=Honey%2C+will+you+marry+me%2C+after+we+live+together+for+10+years%3F&align=Center&align2=Middle&fontsize=22&font=Jester&color=blue&transparency=255&gradient=red&color2=black&watermark=&move=0&move2=&parody=&rotate=-1.4&allow=6104&left=&right=&up=&down=&pic=Proud-American&x=76&y=150&w=268&h=138

Thanks for sophomorically insulting our intelligence. You posted the OP exactly the way you did for the precise purpose of provoking a comment like in post #2, precisely so you could respond to it as you did in post #3. You really need another hobby to occupy your free time.

Because in the course of multi-tasking while at my desk, I read as far as your first paragraph and just hurriedly responded to it, neglecting to read the rest of your post. Apologies for my weak diligence. Nothing more devious than that; I'm really only half the douche most people on here think I am.

Second request now: what kind of business is it, please? Otherwise, your example is pretty hard for us to evaluate in the absence of context.

Worse - apparently we facilitated it - by giving Iraq valuable tactical intelligence about Iran. But that's ok, because it was the enemy of our enemy.

Same dodge, different verbiage. Deliberate mass murder of one's own civilians under cover of "civil war" (Syria), "fighting terrorism" (Russia/Kosovo), etc. is still mass murder of non-combatants.

And if the US does nothing and the rebels win, then they still have control over the weapons. The only difference being they won't have the recent memory of Assad getting rocketed for using them. The proposed strike is nt about securing the chemical weapons. It is about punishing their use. I'm still disgusted that the tripwire has not been the fact of a ruler's mass-murder of his own people while (successfully!) hiding behind the abstract shield of "national sovereignty", but merely the mode of weaponry. The implicit message it sends to other current and future despots is beyond appalling.

I'm very skeptical that that actually happened. His lawyer fully understands what's needed to assert a "defense of one's person defense" under the castle doctrine; and the "rocks" claim has all the hallmarks of that. I'll bet if we had a time machine and a video camera, we'd see the fed-up homeowner verbally and angrily reproaching the group, someone in the group drunkenly telling him to go fuck himself and them laughing at him, at which point his anger took over and he fired the shots. But no rocks.

And that's the real tragedy of this right there. Plus, coffee will make you hafta whizz, old man. Best take care where you let er rip. Well, in fairness, not the worst. Chemical weapons and genocide would probably be worse. But it would be worse than, say, most sex offenses or punching out some grandma.