Southern_Man

I've never been called. I think I would likely be dismissed because I have spent a lot of time in the local court system through my work. That wouldn't make me an inappropriate juror in all cases but I'm sure in a fiar number there would be assumption of bias. If they asked me about my own experiences in the court as a plaintiff or defendent (divorce issues) I am 100% certain I would not be allowed to serve. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I'd like to see that. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

True for police departments as well. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html Nutrition professors loses 27 pounds eating 1800 calories a day. 2/3rds of those calories came form junk food. All his other metabolic markers improved as well. Most important factor in weight loss is calories in vs. calories out. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

The Radiators have lots and lots of good cover tunes. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I didn't think he had ever made a mid-season coaching change? Can't remember any. In any case, he can't make things any worse. That team was terrible. Of course, I am an Eagles fan, so I quite enjoyed it. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I thought he would be fired at the final whistle last night. So far, nothing, at least that I can tell. Wow, that was some game last night. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Well, I do that. Now you now why I'm not a doctor or engineer. Yeah, I'm most thankful you aren't an eye doctor. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Yeah, you misread your chart and simply added the number of women and the number of men smokers together. Looks to me like it was about the same in 55 and 65 (slightly fewer men, slightly more women smoked in 65). "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Ask Bill Dause. I thought Bill was a USPA member. His drop zone is just not a USPA GM drop zone. Am I incorrect? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Well, it obviously didn't work that time on our Cheach. Still sounds like a pretty low class pass, but I've been out of the game for a long time. As somebody who is in the dating pool I can tell you that some single women report that this is not unusual. Not something I would ever engage in and I do not understand it but he is hardly the only one. I guess it must work on someone or they wouldn't do it. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

If we don't take a stand now, they will be coming for our bacon next.... "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I'll be using this answer form now on (except sometimes substituting Mom). "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

If government is totally out of it, then it is purely a personal decision. You can declare whatever you want to whoever you want in whatever format you want. If you wish to seek church sanction that is up to you. If you wish to seek approval of your family or print your own certificat, or register your union somewhere, more power to you. The key is that the government does not treat you any differently from anybody else or from how they treated you before you were in a relationship. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

That's sig line stuff right there. Get out and jump or we will make fun of you. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Now that you put it in that perspective, I can understand why y'all want to smoke pot so much. Well, personally I'd probably just assume Jerry is doing it, so why can't I....? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

There is nutrition education provided multiple years at every public school system that I have any knowledge of (the places I've lived and my friends have lived and our children have gone to school). A large problem with nutrition is that our government heavily subsidies the production of crap. Again, San Francisco banning toys is not going to do anything to fix that. San Francisco is a very high income area so I don't think lack of choices is one of their problems. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Acceptable, if you are under 14, you'll likely score! I believe this one is against the forum rules. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I don't believe that this legislation will have any impact on that at all. McDonald's easiest way to comply is to continue to sell Happy Meals but just substitute a gigantic cookie for the toy. Nutritionally even worse but in compliance. Such are the unintended consequences of government action. More impact would be had by ending corporate subsidies for the growing and processing of corn and including derivatives such as lechtin in everything. I am a libertarian, so I am all for people's freedom to make choices even when those choices are not healthy or good for them. I don't like McDonald's and have not eaten at one since 1997 (nor Burger King, Hardees, Wendys) since I got food poisoning at one. My children have not eaten there since then either. If you don't like Happy Meals or their nutritional content you are free to not eat them. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Nanny state nonesense. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Don't do it because it's too hard to do. Dismiss the discussion out of hand because it makes enough sense that people get uncomfortable. I'm not dismissing it out of hand, but I'm a realist when it comes to certain things. There will never be a way to remove government from certain civil aspects of life. Governments will always collect taxes. The government might not have to link marriage and taxes together, nor do couple have to file jointly, but they certainly have always had the option to and in my mind it makes sense. Likewise I suppose the government could just say to hell with any inheritance and at death all property becomes that of the state, but I certainly don't see that ever happening either, nor do I think it should. So, what are you left with? People having the option to file jointly and spouses taking control of their partner's property when they've died. How exactly would you change that? Are you certain you'd even want to consider it? Think carefully now, don't just dismiss the question because it makes you "uncomfortable." Sure, we've always done it that way before is a great justification for government action Property after death should go to whoever the person wills it to. They can will it to whoever they consider their partner or spouse or to the kids or anybody else. No reason for any sort of joint filing status. It is discriminatory. I know you think you are just being realistic (and you probably are) but this blunts and distorts your sense of social justice and right and wrong in incredible ways. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I'm partial to Sam Adams. Just sayin... "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I think government shouldn't be in the business of "marriage" at all, but from a historical and legal standpoint they have to be involved in the civil aspects of it if for no other reason than tax and survivor benefits. . From a historical and legal perspective there is no reason the government has to treat single people differently from married people for purposes of taxes and survivor benefits. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

yeah, yeah - you want all the benefits and just change the name. I'm saying why have any benefits different than individuals. (oh, that would be hard to approve). so what, clean slate Yup, no reason certain individuals should be treated differently under the law than others. Child support, custody, and visitation laws are all the same regardless of whether or not the parents are legally married, so that is a non-issue. Not all states recognize any sort of common law marriage either. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

How was your pilot chute packed? Just for reference... "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"