davjohns

So...I was thinking...if I were to try the long term relationship thing again...what do I want? Should I put it in writing? That reminded me of a piece I saw on television years ago. A couple had a pre-nuptial agreement that laid out exactly how their marriage would be run. It specified who had what chores, what time they would get up in the morning and how often they would have sex (among other things). I specifically recall the sex part. He wanted at least 3 times per week. She wanted no more than 5 times per week. The agreement specified 3-5 times per week. While I'm not sure a legally binding document is romantic (lol), I think a couple bent on long term connection should discuss things in very specific terms. Placing it in writing could help them understand exactly what the other's expectations are. Of course, things change over time, but there seems to be some usefulness there. My ex taught a pre-marital counseling course at one time. I reviewed the material and told her I didn't think it was really as helpful as it could be. It seems to me that properly constructed pre-marital counseling would offer ways to manage money and have the couple choose how they would do it. They should put together a workable budget. Finances are a huge cause of break-ups, afterall. It seems to me that there would be some discussion of when to have a child. Maybe who should do what chores should be discussed. What do they think about the woman being a stay at home mom when the time comes? And any other potential flash point should be discussed and some initial decisions made. I told the ex that my idea of counseling (designed to promote a life-long marriage) would cause some couples to realize they were not as compatible or in-synch as they thought. Some would decide not to get married. It seems that having to sign a document that outlined certain decisions ahead of time would make people think about what they are doing. Not necessarily a binding agreement, but an agreement nonetheless. If a person had their ideas written down to begin with, it could be a useful tool when talking to someone about compatibility earlier in a relationship as well. Yeah. I know. I just took all sorts of romance out of the whole thing. And I am, at heart, a romantic. But I can't help thinking a relationship that involves the heart and the mind is much more likely to keep both happy in the long run. Thoughts? 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.

Haven't had my buttons pushed just right in so long... What were we discussing? 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.

Alabama law has generally shown reckless as something pretty outrageous. Underage, no license, wrong way on the freeway, caused accidents sort of thing. We have a 'driving while distracted' law, but that has generally been used only after an accident happened. I think we have a state law as of September that prohibits driving and texting. 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.

-Abraham Lincoln +1 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.

Nataly=killing me Can we call this the 'beautiful shit theory'? 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.

Interesting. What I noticed was the liberal organization promising new agressiveness while the conservative/libertarian side was politely defusing the situation and paying people for their trouble. Seems to me these people want to protest this group similar to how the right wing religion guys want to protest funerals. Let other people gather to support their cause. Don't go to another man's house and stir up trouble. 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 think everyone should hire the most qualified. If he did not hire the most qualified, someone needs to make the case. I'm not big on quotas or diversity or any of that stuff. If you hire the best, it should all pan out just fine. I especially want the best when it comes to police, military, fire and government. These are areas where hiring someone due to their color could get someone killed or at least squander public resources. I expect to get flamed on this. But I live in a world where PC means people die unnecessarily. It's immoral. I want the best leading my children into combat. I don't care how they have sex, how they pray, what planet they're from or if they're circumcised. If this guy did not hire the best, jump him. If he hired the best and the law of averages kept it from looking the right color - it's suspect - check it out. But it is not wrong by definition. It just bears closer scrutiny. 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 thinking there has to be more to blame for these deaths than simply texting-while-walking. If they were pedestrian/vehicle collisions, then either the pedestrian or the vehicle was crossing the street/intersection illegally. If people are jaywalking while texting, are they already being ticketed for the jaywalking? Excellent point. Kind of like hate crimes. It's already a crime. Why did we need more legislation? 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.

Megaforce! Yes! What a great cheesy flick! Glad you mentioned that one. I was trying to remember it. I want one of THOSE cycles. 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.

There was a bad guy on a crotch rocket armed with machine guns in a James Bond movie. Toward the end of the Battlestar Galactica series in the 80's, they had motorcycles that flew. I think they also had rockets. Not sure. I've often wanted to arm my cycle. Ruger 10/22 with a 50rd magaine, laser dot sight for aiming and servos hooked to a toggle on the handlebar would be nice. A 12ga pointed rearward has been coveted for some discourteous drivers as well. I watched too much James Bond as a kid. 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 seen an increase in recent years of a technique a friend tells me is called 'Bogarting'. People in a crosswalk or car intentionally refuse to make eye contact with someone else and pretend to have right of way. They are relying on the other person being a better person than they (or more highly valuing their car) and yielding. It generally works with me. I assume anyone who does this doesn't have insurance. What the rationale is when walking is beyond me. Maybe they figure they will sue? Dying ain't no way to live. 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.

Thanks for your thoughts. I am a former police officer and helped my former wife run a rape counseling program. I'm familiar with the problem. Again, I wasn't looking for an analysis of my personal relationships on this. It was a general theory and I was wondering if others had noticed the same 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.

Apparently the purpose of government is to thwart survival of the fittest. They're New Yorkers. Don't they realize those big, noisy things on the street will run over you if you let 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.

It was just a POP issue. Pissing Off the Police. That's what Disorderly Conduct usually is as well. When someone just really needs to be charged, you can come up with something. 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.

very sorry for your situation. I have noticed that addictive personalities often have to hit bottom before admitting a problem or seeking help. Sadly, I have seen some that appear to hit bottom repeatedly, go through the help and return to the destructive behavior. Makes you wonder what bottom really is for them. I've seen two of them die before realizing there was nothing below where they were. 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.

"State Senator Carl Kruger says New Yorkers are constantly on their phones, talking, texting or listening to music while crossing the street, leading to a dramatic rise in pedestrian accidents including two deaths in Kruger's Brooklyn district. Texting-while-walking is to blame for the deaths of three people in (New York City). Kruger says the proposed fine for texting and walking would be a hundred dollars. Just last week, a Pennsylvania woman famous for falling into a mall fountain while texting made headlines after threatening legal action against the mall and security guard responsible for putting the video of the fall on YouTube. The proposal would ban the use of an electronic device while crossing the crosswalk in a city with a population of one million or more. Violators would face a $100 civil fine." 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.

Arrested a guy one winter night. He was drunk. Kept passing horrible gas in the car and laughing about it. We had to roll the windows down and endure the cold. My partner looked it up. Charged him with 'Release of a noxious substance'. Pretty sure it was later reduced. 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.

Let me suggest that anybody in this thread who didn't know what the term "beaner" meant, really has given up their authority in talking about hispanic illegal immigrants in the US. Seriously. While the term is bigoted, it's also extremely common and is used both in and out of the hispanic community. Lack of that knowledge is a clear demonstration of a person's unfamiliarity and exposure to that community whether positive or negative. If I don't hang out with people who use racial slurs regularly, I am not allowed to express an opinion on peope stealing my tax money in the form of public benefits? Really? There are a whole host of racial slurs I do not use or hear from my friends. I guess none of us are allowed to express opinions according to you. I hope my elected representatives don't use this kind of language either. I guess they aren't qualified to discuss the subject or write / pass laws regarding the subject. Where did you learn your logic theory? 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.

If I was asked for a preference, I like the matched set. Not a big deal, however. 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.

Alabama also has the rule that any party to a conversation can consent. I don't think you have a right to privacy unless everyone in the conversation asserts it. I could go into court and testify to what was said. Why can't I have a recording so my testimony is substantiated and more accurate? I'm concerned that the Judge asserted that he was the victim and then set bail. Seems if he saw himself as the victim, it should go through the DA and another Judge. If it was contempt of court, that's still within his realm. 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.

right ill bite on this if you leave aside the fact that one rape is too much what, to you, constitutes a 'huge percentage' Although I was offended by that statement, I chose to just ignore that. It just showed to me his lack of understanding about the truth of rape issues. He believes that only the beautiful women are raped or that it is a lust issue. Would pointing out the truth change anything? I chose to be superficial about the "not important" part of the thread.... rather than try to educate someone about something that is truly important. Right or wrong, I didn't want to have someone with minimal or no knowledge about the true trauma of rape telling me that I was wrong. Because this is the bonfire, I wanted to just keep it lighter. But... you are right and lets go there. Rape is an act of VIOLENCE AND POWER, not passion. It's an attempt to hurt and humiliate, using sex as the weapon. Rapists act without considering their victim's physical appearance, dress, age, race, gender, or social status. Assailants seek out victims who they perceive to be vulnerable. If you want to learn more or even verify my statements: List of RAPE MYTHS - Sociology of Rape. University of Minnesota Duluth OK. Appreciate the beat down here, folks. From my foxhole: girls who are physically attractive or develop early have increased chances to get into risky situations such as parties, places where alcohol is used, etc. They attract male attention earlier. This increases the liklihood that they will get into a situation they are not prepared for. I only mentioned that as one potential contributing factor. I had really hoped it would not become a dominant theme of the conversation. I hate that anyone was offended by 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.

right ill bite on this if you leave aside the fact that one rape is too much what, to you, constitutes a 'huge percentage' Ugh. I had hoped to avoid a deep analysis of that factor. It clearly shows my sampling is biased (I hope and pray). Every above average physically attractive woman I have gotten close to has told me they were raped. I consider 100% a huge percentage. I really hope I just attract women with issues on this point. I was really trying to keep the analysis off me and my messed up relationships. Maybe my asking the question is merely a product of that environment. But I notice other people are agreeing with the general premise. 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 think you were just joking around. "Beautiful can lead to increased liklihood of having issues" clearly does not reverse into "woman with issues is more likely to be beautiful". "All red cars are Hondas" is not the same as "all Hondas are red". 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.

Nope. It's about the children. 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.

You argued herein that a person has to consent to be labeled as an adult before they can be tried as one. Are you for real? If you had read my argument, you would know that is part of the problem. Someone of a 'child' age could commit a heinous crime and use their youth as a shield despite having adult faculties. Of course they would not consent. 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.