davjohns

Hysterical. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Courage is standing up for your beliefs, even if it costs you a default loss. True courage would be refusing to join and participate in an orginization you believe is in conflict with your beliefs. But then again it's the Catholic church were talking about. I see lots of animosity in your posts here. I'm not sure I follow your suggestion that something very virtuous (true courage) is to follow YOUR beliefs by leaving the league. It seems almost the antithesis to me. I wonder if your posts might be tinged by some abiding hatred of religious organizations. In this case, one that hurt nobody by doing what their beliefs demanded. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I've always been rather fond of marriage contracts. I understand that's how it was once done in England. Each party could put whatever they wanted in the contract and everyone knew what they were getting into. Then, it's a nice issue of civil law that allows the courts to protect parties, but does not require government sanction for creation or dissolution. I once saw a piece on a couple whose pre-nup specified who did what household chores, how often they would have sex, etc. They knew up front what they were getting into and what would end the relationship and how. I rather liked it. The pre-nup said they would have sex three to five times per week. He said they came up with that language because he couldn't accept less than three and she said she couldn't handle more than five. Solves at least one argument. I just don't see marriage as a legitimate issue for government definition and regulation. Everything government regulation protects (inheritance, support, dissolution, child support, etc.) is easily handled through other means. A marriage contract and will handles most everything. Take away tax incentives and health care issues and what are the remaining government issues? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Guess the act isn't that ordinarily done in private then? Right, cause mostly when you see mother's breastfeed, the kid can't stand and is quite a bit smaller. Which off course is the whole point of the picture. (Not sure how politics plays into this, but I haven't read the actual article. Does the article politize the act of breast feeding?) 1. Never have I seen a chair used. Never have I seen the two staring at a camera. Never have I seen the mother's face look like that. Etc. I've seen it done discreetly in a home and occassionally with a woman in a secluded, quiet area that I happend upon. Never on a magazine cover. 2. We're discussing this in SC and you ask if it politicized the act? Really? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

And I think that sexualizing the picture reveals more about the person doing so than they probably would want to. It's breast feeding. Granted breast feeding at an age I personalyl am not comfortable with, but it is still breast feeding. Nothing sexual about it. God forbid I'm not sure you read my post. It is highly unlikely that boy was breastfeeding for nourishment when a photographer snuck up and snapped a picture. It was staged. Therefore, it was not breastfeeding. It was a photoshoot. I think that pushes it over into portrayal of a natural act that is ordinarily done in private for political purposes. That opens the door to pictures portraying other natural acts to incite political debate. How far down this road are we willing to go? To involve children? Again...I had to read the caption at the bottom of the cover to figure out it was about breastfeeding. I saw no nurturing, loving mother in that picture. I've seen plenty of women breastfeeding. It didn't look like that. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I like the story as it is. The girl sat out two games out of respect for the other team's beliefs. That was an outstanding display of respect. The team bowed out of the championship as a matter of belief and respect for women. They returned her gesture rather nicely if you ask me. Chivalrous, even. Whether you agree with their definition of respect for women is irrelevant. They acted on their beliefs to nobody else's detriment. Having won their division, they earned the right to compete or not on their own terms. I liken it to a knight refusing to joust with the King out of respect. It shows honor and moral courage. The girl showed respect. The other team showed respect. I like baseball a little more after reading this story. It wasn't all about winning. Outstanding lessons to be had. Some of us can admire and respect someone else's courage without fully agreeing to the moral code that lead them there. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Under the circumstances Andy describes, I would have consented to the feeding in the conference room as well. It would have been unusual, and I'm not sure I would call it highly professional, but perfectly understandable. Given some of the negotiations I've been in, it could have been closer to 'professional' than other meetings. I think there is a distinct difference between this consenual scenario based on need and the Time cover. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Also would be useless for procreation, which (wait for it) blows a (wait for it again) hole, in your example I've thought about this some more.... I find it highly unlikely that shot was taken during a feeding. It was most likely posed. It was therefore not necessary to the feeding of the child or, in fact, anything natural. It might have depicted something natural, but so does the Kama Sutra. I don't think we can say that it is justified by the fact that so many people do it. More people have sex. It isn't justified as political expression. That would open a huge door to portraying sex on magazine covers. I really have a hard time understanding how this is not exploitive of the child in the picture. The child was unlikely to be breast feeding at the time. He was sucking on a breast for the camera so mom could make money. Is it just because of the family relation? So if it's incestuous, it's ok? I think every argument in favor of this cover leads in a direction that most people really don't want to go. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I actually had an issue with the Birmingham PD on this issue. My father still had the original receipt and box for the pistol for some reason. It was 25 years since purchased. BPD jerked me around on the issue until they destroyed it per their SOP. Not worth suing over. They do this routinely and I don't have the time to make an issue of it. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'm not sure I can tell the difference between that picture and child pornography. If you have to read the subtitles to figure out which it is, we might have a problem. Personally, I think once the child is on solid food, the breast feeding isn't necessary or particularly desirable. I think once the kid can ask for it, you've waited WAY too long. Just my opinion. Your mileage may vary. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Can you imagine how bad it would have been if that CEO wasn't there and so highly paid??? Thank goodness for overpaid execs! They could have lost some serious money. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Because she considered your attack on her man to be worse than his attack on her. Not terribly uncommon. Ask any cop why they fear domestic distrubances the worst. And why they try really. really hard to keep everyone out of the kitchen during the call. +1 When I was a cop, our biggest concern was the person we thought we were protecting. I once had a stop where we had a female cop take the baby from the woman who appeared under the domination of the main suspect. The female cop took the baby and discovered where the gun was... The sweet little woman with the baby had the gun in the baby's blanket. Happens over and over. You confront the bad guy and his woman shoots you in the back. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'll be getting it on DVD. I thought they fell short on Captain America; MD Jr. is the bomb as Ironman as usual; Thor is actually better than in the comics; and Hulk was the only one I have ever thought was well done. Overall, it was outstanding. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

And that's a good thing? I think that's a good question. While public opinion and majority rule can be a good thing, you sometimes need a leader who will do what's right / in the best interest of the many...those aren't always the same thing. Moral courage is important. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Just a thought. Pres. Clinton was notorious for using polls to decide what he thought on a subject. It seems Pres. Obama is doing something similar. While my personal preference is to know what a person's true convictions are, I can also make the argument that this kind of leadership gets closer to a true democracy...er...if polls can be trusted.... So...the President waffles on a subject (say it isn't something pressing like whether we should go to the storm shelters) until the polls tell him what his stance should be. Is this a bad thing? Just an interesting point of discussion that sprang to my mind after the announcement on same-sex marriage yesterday. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

But why? The patriarch of Judaism, Christianity and Islam was a polygynist. So were King David (beloved of God), Solomon and others. Krishna had over 16k wives. Budhism has no problem with it... Again, I apologize. I thought you were soliciting the views of people on this website. I was and still am. I think this issue is going to come up more as we break down government restrictions on marriage and family. The only prohibitions I see on polygamy are religious ones. And those are church doctrine that is unsupported by the underlying scriptures. So, I wonder at what point organizations like the ACLU will address such a thing. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

But why? The patriarch of Judaism, Christianity and Islam was a polygynist. So were King David (beloved of God), Solomon and others. Krishna had over 16k wives. Budhism has no problem with it... I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Sigh...asked a serious question....monkey lover showed up and derailed it. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

But unless you manage to only pick out names of non voters, they're going to notice when people come and insist they have voted yet, despite that line being drawn over the name. Or if the state gets hundreds/thousands of absentee ballots for people marked as having gone to the polls. Unlike tampering with Diebold voting machines, this is a type of fraud that would be easily observed. Florida has a history of (over) zealously purging the voter rolls of those who shouldn't. We'll have to see what actually pans out of this before we start declaring the need to solve the problem. If they do find non voters, I hope they actually prosecute for a change, or deport even. That's the problem. If I go vote for YOU before you get there...then what? Like I said, I tell them a name and they turn to a page of people with my name (David Johnson...very common). I point to the one that is me because I can see my address beside it. I could easily come back and point to another. I can see which ones are lined through and which aren't. Hell, I could even show them my military ID (no address on that one) and prove that I really am a guy with that name. And what does the poll worker do when the real (place your name here) shows up and someone has already voted for you? Deny you the right to vote? Give you a ballot and just accept that some voter fraud is going on? Pretend it was a mistake and they lined through the wrong name? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

So...John Edwards is on trial for things regarding his mistress. Quite a few politicians seem to have them. Mitt Romney comes from a poly family. Same-sex marriage is in the news thanks to North Carolina, which makes me wonder when poly marriage will start debates. Afterall, it is much more religiously correct historically. I can see merits to the idea...and huge pitfalls. Mostly, I see it as a potentially bad situation for the guy. I think that's because I'm the kind of guy who takes responsibility for things, respects women, etc. I think those pitfalls would appear far fewer for some guys with different attitudes towards women. I can also see benefits and pitfalls for the women (assuming polygyny (MFF) here). Shared domestic responsibilities, companionship, more heads providing better solutions, shared finances, etc. would all be potential benefits. But the people involved are human. So, jealousy and dissention could cause huge problems. Out of curiosity, I did a little research online and watched a documentary on youtube. People who like it seem to think there is no other way. I'm curious about views on here. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I understand the female position intellectually and lament that it is this way. Personally, I try to make females feel at ease by keeping my physical distance, avoid being alone with them, etc. I still don't think it helps much. It is part of being a woman. Growing up, they are a target for those males who will use their size, strength or plain agressiveness to dominate. I have trouble internalizing the problem. I am frequently told that I intimidate people with no intent to or even awareness of it. I've had guys tell me after tense situations that I threatened them without saying or doing anything. They were right. It's something in the body language. Having this ability makes it difficult to fully empathize with the female position for me, but I am consciously aware of it. So, I intervene when I see a female in a difficult situation. I've walked into situations multiple times and announced myself as a boyfriend, husband, father, etc. to a woman that appeared in a bad situation and pulled her out. It's in her body language. I saw it and wanted to get her out of the situation. I am confident the other males saw it and wanted to exploit it. When I stop to change a woman's tire on the road or deal with her situation otherwise, I usually tell her to stay in the car with the doors locked. I offer my cell phone so she can inform her family where she is and how long she expects to be. There's no need for her to watch me change a tire. It's all an awareness that women are either vulnerable, or at least feel that way. I hate it, but I try to deal with things as they are rather than as I would like them. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Yes, but you you cannot call Xe and Halliburton employees 'government workers' just because you want to make a point on a graph. That is a system of growing spending, not growing government. A contractor is not an employee, at least not in any circle I have ever seen. The federal & state govt is shrinking. Yes we are contracting out way too much and spending way too much on stuff like that. But let's not pretend that the government is actually growing because it is not. Real government employees are being cut back around here. Police, firefighters, teachers, public servants, staff in offices, etc. I have NO PROBLEM with firing all those Halliburton, Xe, Blackwater, and all the 'secret' companies that the CIA hires to do our security work. Fire every fucking one of them. Time to hit the reset button and start over on a lot of that stuff. I didn't postulate whether the government was growing or not. But I have to take issue with your logic. Contract employees are used to directly replace government employees. Pretending that using a contractor reduces the size of government is ludicrous and indicates you have made up your mind and want to twist facts to fit. I work in government. We hire people or we hire a contractor. It just depends on the statistics the current administration wants to project as to which pot of money is funded right now. If you want to compare administrations, just compare apples to apples. How many people are walking through the office doors every morning and being paid for by the government? Whether you call them employee or contractor is about as important as whether you call them Bob or Ed. I have no idea whether government has grown or not. I really doubt anyone else does either. I just know that pretending that some workers count and others don't is not rational. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Strange. Seems lots of people from other states were on the WV ballot. Wonder where the inmate got the registration fee. Not sure what he's really in prison for. Making threats in 1999 doesn't explain why he's in prison thirteen years later. Odd story all around. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Please understand the disconnect between the two events. Even if the registration process were perfect, someone can show up to the polling place and claim they are another person. They could give the polling people YOUR name and vote for you. If nobody asks them to prove who they are, it's easy. Every time I vote, they have the list of names in front of me as they look me up. I often put my finger on the page and point to my name. They have no idea if I am really that person. I could easily read another name on the sheet and come back to vote again in a few minutes. It's ridiculous that we have so much verification in other places and none here. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.