Andy9o8

I'm shocked, shocked that you'd suggest someone posting here has an agenda.

Chunk of Mars

Jeez. Place is getting to be like Mexico.

Are you the good fairy? All fairies are good, Ron. You just have to come to accept it.

While never proven, I suspect that Anwar Sadat might disagree with you (if he could. ) "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

You can't handle the truth.

But you don't deny Susanna Hoffs is hot?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWP-AsG5DRk

That is the real world and the white race is in decline. White girls are not having babies faster than other races due to some of the cited reasons. Because they date dobermans. Yeah, I get it.

GM - I'm an advocate for a strong defense and agree with your position. HOWEVER, there's a big difference between a "strong" defense, and a ridiculously bloated defense used to underpin entire redundant industries and keep towns and regions and districts of foreign countries alive by injecting military welfare funds into the voting districts. It's just as bad as the analogous programs of the left - too much and for the wrong reasons..... I don't disagree. I think we need to take back our Military from the Politicians and Corporations that hi-jacked it very long ago. HOWEVER, given a choice between an over-bloated Military that can actually protect us and pissing money away on yet another ineffective social program, I'll take the missiles. I agree with him, too. But given a choice between (a) a bloated military that's easily one-third or more larger than what's needed to keep our children safe in their beds, plus stupid-ass criminalization of drugs and the bloated LEO and prison system that sucks off that tit, and (b) guaranteed health coverage that's not dependent on having full-time employment with benefits even in tough economic times, just like EVERY OTHER modern, industrialized nation in this sector of the Alpha Quadrant, I'll choose the latter. You use the term "strong defense". I want a strong defense, too. But ever since the end of WWII, we've been bamboozled into believing that a bloated military equals "strong defense". Well, it doesn't; and even President Eisenhower warned us about it in his final speech in office. But nobody listened to him; we just packed him off into retirement and wished The Old Man well. And even Gen. MacArthur - about as fiercely conservative a militarist as we've had in modern times, warned us, in his retirement, about the bloat in our military and the folly of using it to project global power imprudently (specifically, he implored LBJ to pull out of Vietnam, rather than dive in deeper). Nobody listened to him, either. Iraq and Afghanistan are but examples of the legacy of all that. How's all that worked out for us?

Indeed there is.

Non-jumper does not necessarily mean "no training whatsoever." Because your entire argument seems to rest on that premise, I'm perfectly comfortable dismissing it and carrying on about my business in ways that I'm comfortable with.

Perhaps if you took a moment and looked at the pictures in the linked article, you'd realize that the monument is focused on the fact the the US is a secular nation. It isn't espousing a belief in nothing, it's espousing a belief in the separation of church and state. No it's not. It's an "In your Face" monument. Monuments generally are. That's why people erect them. I was just in Washington DC. The place is full of "in your face" monuments. I warn you people, one more post like this sequence and this thread gets moved to Bonfire.

After due consideration of all parties' briefs and arguments, The Court rules in favor of Dave Johnson's position.

Nah, it's all part of the coming Apocalypse.

Every journey begins with a single step, Grasshopper.

No. When I said that "I get to" in the earlier post it was pure frustration... That is their policy. I will get an indepth (written) policy of what these fees cover. before I sign the lease and I will make sure I use that $500 in normal "wear and tear." I hear your frustration, and I'm really not insensitive to it. Please be cautious. You don't want to be in a position in 3 months of having to fight with them over return of your security deposit. Best of luck to you.

I've studied, practiced and taught Constitutional law, criminal justice and search & seizure law for over 30 years. IMPO, these things, both real and feigned, are patently un-Constitutional. But I'd predict that if they went before the current US Supreme Court, they'd probably be upheld, probably by a 5 - 4 decision. Given that the next President, even if a just 1-termer, will probably appoint at least 1 or 2 new SCOTUS justices, this trend will likely be maintained or even enhanced if the next President is a Republican. (Maintained if Kennedy is replaced; enhanced if Ginsburg is replaced.) To people who think it doesn't matter much who gets elected President, this is one area in which it most definitely does.

No. It won't (unlike most e-mails and some other websites). That's the point.

You got a problem wid dat? Yer goin'-a Joisy. I ask again: did your conversations w/the LL include an offer by you to pay a larger security deposit rather than a non-refundable fee? In any event, yeah, sounds like they're being dicks, and I do feel for you, but - business is business. Low supply + high demand = higher price. Dis ain't no charity.

Ooh. Consider the burn factor. Pass.

If Obama had a son, he'd call us creepy ass crackers. And maybe you is! I mean, "are". Hey, if Obama's mother was still alive, I doubt his children would call their grandmother a creepy-ass cracker. Evidently its acceptable if that is your culture. Some black people call white people crackers. Some white people call black people niggers. Almost always low-class people doing low-class shit.

Pro - you can downsize without changing your canopy, and practice your mad skilz.

No shortcuts! That could lead to an out-of-sequence deployment!