davjohns

Absorb what is useful. Reject what is useless. Add what is uniquely you. - Jun Fan Lee If you throw out something in it's entirety because you find part(s) of it objectionable, you will find very little in this world acceptable. - David W. Johnson (me ) But I do value your input. 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.

'Illegal alien' is a status that demands criminal sanctions. 'Undocumented immigrant' sounds like a clerical oversight. 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 article. And I agree. I debate things with people regularly (SC is one example) who are perfectly intelligent human beings, but still subject to make mistakes in logic. I am incredibly aware that I am just as susceptible as anyone. It's why I like to debate things. I like having someone poke holes in whatever it is I think I know. 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.

The answer is .05. I'll read the article to find out why you posted this. 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.

this one does sound justified - 'not guilty' based on this little article sound like a no brainer. I hope the evidence aligns. the more difficult scenario to come up with the correct answer: If he was able to stop the guy, but THEN, he continued to assault the scum instead of holding him for the cops. I'd have to say 'guilty' even though I'd approve of the results (I'm ashamed to say). I would understand and applaud your adherence to the law...and then vote 'not guilty'. I take no issue with jury nulification. I think 'he needed killin' is a viable defense sometimes. This is one. 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 guessing you don't have kids. My wife's son is almost 4. 4 year olds are perfectly capable of keeping out of trouble while the parents do yard work, watch TV, etc. When people come over with their 4 year old or we visit them, the kids run off and play unsupervised. Whether the kids are in the house while we are outside or they are in a remote room of the house makes little difference. It hasn't changed since my kids were that age. In this story, I understand that the majority of adults were outside and the child was inside. Sounds like Dad went to do a periodic check on the child to make sure she hadn't gotten into anything. Normal stuff to that point. 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 have agreed that the word 'holy' is inconsistant and a substitution made; and the Pledge of Allegiance is inconsistant and a substitution made. I agree that a strict adherence to the principles set forth would mean eliminating Christmas vacation from the schedule. Two are explicit and one is implicit. I agree that the example of prohibited language is redundant, but hardly wrong. So, you think two minor re-wordings, one extraneous part and an extraneous implication rebutt the entire document? Hard to fathom. 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.

Valid point on Christmas. Christmas vacation can go out the door as far as I'm concerned. Pretty sure lots of people will still want a winter break, though. Doesn't everyone pretty well get Easter off? It's a Sunday. I think you're reaching on Columbus Day. It's celebrating the discovery of North America / the future US. I think MLK day is alright. He fought for individual rights. The color of his skin didn't make him right or wrong. His philosophy did. St. P is out. May 5th is out. I think the only ones you cited that are actual federal holidays are Christmas and MLK. 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 had to read that twice, but you are right. 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 fully aware that there are legal documents outside the constitution that bear on rights. This document, however, is new to me in its particulars. And I find it very interesting. It seems to claim that anywhere I go in the world, I have a right to be taken care of (paraphrased, of course). I'm very curious how this is economically or socially tennable. 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.

Somehow, I knew you were going to do that. Edit: I don't know if you went back and added the quote. I just saw it. Wow. I fully concede your point. I fully disagree with that language, but your point is obviously well supported. I need to go read that document. It seems completely off base to me. Thanks for cluing me in to 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.

Okie doke. Does it say that everyone has a right to healthcare? 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.

Once my wife's serial infidelity came to light, it was clear to my son and I that he looks absolutely nothing like me, and his mother's family genetics do not explain it. We decided we did not want to test. We're pretty sure we already know. It changes nothing. He is my son. 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. A child conceived during the marriage is presumed to be the child of the husband. But that can be disputed. I'm surprised more states aren't like that. We don't want to create bastards, but neither do we want to reward adulteresses. 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, I understand 'under God' was an addition. I think Kallend's point is that mandating a pledge that includes the words ' under God ' violates the stated principle of keeping religion out of the equation. For potentially the first time, I agree with Kallend. 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 (where I practiced) has a rebuttable presumption of paternity. I agree that a non-rebuttable presumption is archaic in today's world. To the other story: I have never heard of a man having to pay child support for a child born after the termination of marriage and with no evidence he is the father. I would love to fight on his behalf if he was in Alabama. 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.

David's Tax Return form: It is a post card with the standard address, return address and postage on one side. Maybe we can add a bar code that has the tax ID numbers of those covered on this form. A machine can scan the code, but you can't get the tax ID number from looking at it. On the other side: 1. How much did you gain this year? 2. Multiply line 1 by 10%. This is your tax obligation. 3. How much did you pay in taxes this year? 4. Subtract line 3 from line 2. If you somehow overpaid this year, please provide a separate explanation of how you messed up 10%. Otherwise, enter the amount you owe on this line. 5. Attach a check or go online to pay your obligation at IRS.gov. 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 I got a little confused on the facts of the story. If the child they have in common needs daycare so the mother can work, that is a legitimate factor in computing child support. Changes in employment or child care expenses may take the parties back to court to recompute the amount. Are you saying she took him to court and admitted the original child was not his? That would be very odd. 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 on the jury. I can say 'not guilty' just 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.

It was hard at first. You have to develop a thick skin. Thanks for the input on paternity. It never crossed my mind to question it...until I found out I was wrong. That doesn't mean it is common, just possible. 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.

Ummm...I guess I need to read it again. I didn't see that part. But since you brought it up...I am not a big fan of competitive sports in the public schools. It means that many taxpayers support a few students participating in something that has very little value to education. I can see the team player mentality and such in the sport, but think that can be gained elsewhere with more wide-spread effects for the student population. I have some concerns about injuries, hazing and such. My biggest concern is that it does not contribute to the education that the system was set up for. I'm sure you have a point to this question. Fire away. I'm enjoying this. 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.

Andy doesn't accept PMs and other opinions might be interesting... There is a thread right now about paternity testing / child support issues. You either know or can read my personal experience. When I retire from the Army and return to private practice in a couple of years, I am thinking about concentrating in family law. I think it would be a good practice to advise all male clients to get a paternity test and blame it on the lawyer. I've seen too many cases where this should have been done. Thoughts? I may be letting my personal experience carry too much influence. There are definitely down sides to such a course of action. 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 surprised the origins are false. I still like the concept. Kallend: I get your point. Take out the Pledge of Allegiance and insert the US National Anthem. Next? 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 noticed the living spaces are on upper floors and the bedchambers on the top floor. I would think this would help with noise abatement. Personally, I would be happy with my livingroom having space for my bike. I don't think my wife would be ok with it. She already denegrates the Jeep. 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.

No. He used an example of something some friends might find acceptable between themselves. There are white people who call their white friends nigger. He already stated profanity would not be tolerated. He also stated that race would not play a role. Why then specifically address profanity within one subgroup? Thought there were not supposed to be any sub groups? It is a political propagande piece. Specifically what the writer says shoudl not be part of the education system. I have yet to see you address that. He gave an example. I am guessing you could not come up with another. I have never heard a caucasian use the N word toward another caucasian. I guess I could change the original wording to say that racial slurs will not be used by anyone of any persuasion. Work for you? I'm not sure what you want me to address. You think that by attempting to take politics out, the writer is espousing political propoganda. I have refuted your premises therefore. I see no reason to disagree with your opinion once it is unfounded by underlying premises. Feel free to re-write it in a manner you find more acceptable and post it here. I am acutely interested. 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.