O/T: The Decision is in

Page 3 of 3  
Tom Watson wrote:

Noted.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No longer. 16 now.

I have a 14-year old. She tells us that she doesn't like boys... and we believe her. She spends all her babysitting money on Hollister and American Eagle to look good for herself! Those make-up sessions are for her own pleasure. . . . . . . . . Right.
I already raised 2 girls. I'd like to think successfully. The oldest just got married at age 27, just last year. That's more like it. 21 would have been fine by me too. So much of it depends on the individual. Some are old and wise enough at 18. My sister was. Some are never old and wise enough.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Swingman" wrote

And in this day of industrial pollutants and xenoestrogens, the actual age of reproduction is getting younger and younger.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You might ought to take a better look at some of today's 13 year olds, and the way they act. But my biggest dislike goes for the guys who molest toddlers, and there seems to be an ever-increasing number of those. I don't know whether that's more getting caught, or the fact that the percentage is increasing, but that news is always hard to take.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

That's called the "she was asking for it defense". It's, um, wrong to have sexual conduct with a 13 yo period.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Tim, not too long ago, some asshole here, caught and convicted of molesting a three year old, said she was coming on to him. No denial, no nothing. Just a statement that she was coming on to him. Three years old. I might be wrong. The child might have been four.
If hell exists, there needs to be a special niche for people like him, say 10 or 11 steps below Adolf and Uncle Joe.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Insofar as group clusters are concerned, we already have partnerships, corporations, etc. People and animals (or vegetables) are covered by a bill of sale.     kreegah,     jo4hn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

John -
For the first time in my life, I finally understand "hot" peppers ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Whatever? Just leave the sheep out of this - it's difficult to know if they consent or can be brainwashed. I don't think it's consent when they say baaaaa-d.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Ah, but don't you know that's not bigotry -- just ask Robatoy. You see it's OK to attack people who hold religious beliefs (unless they are islamic, then it's racist).
Just for the record, I don't believe that having laws enacted to enforce religious viewpoints is a good idea. It a) turns people off to religion and/or b) it makes people comfortable with a civic righteousness that may actually do more harm than good by making people think they are doing right by the Lord.
OTOH, having certain laws that enforce moral codes does make for a more prosperous and peaceful society. Things like "do not steal", "do not commit murder" are pretty good ideas regardless of one's religious beliefs. The idea that adultery may be a bad idea goes beyond just religious injunctions, it prevents various STD's and maintains the integrity of the family -- all beneficial to society. Same thing goes for the idea of not bearing false witness -- preserving peoples' reputations also benefits society. Same for the idea of coveting, that leads to the idea that "what is yours should be mine", leading to either a) theft, or b) the idea that people can elect others to the government to take from some people and give to them. Respect for parents and authority? Again, that provides for a peaceful society and good relations among people in that society.
The real problem here is the continuing incrementalism, the more traditional societal norms are destroyed, the more problems we are going to see in society.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I agree, but if your some outfit like the Boy Scouts then be ready to suffer the consequences. There has been an assault against them for years.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:17:06 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

As long as those NGOs are not taking government funds, I agree in principle. Unfortunately, most of them are grabbing all they can get.
And we have to be on the alert for those who think "lack of recognition" and "exclusion" are the same thing. A private hospital may well refuse to provide equal benefits for employees based on whatever, but they should not be able to refuse treatment. Nor should they be able to exclude a legal partner from visitation rights or a voice in care decisions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:00:30 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

So the private health care system has the right to refuse treatment to anyone it dislikes or whom it feels will not be a profit opportunity? I don't think you'll find a lot of support for that viewpoint.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Perhaps not, but anything else requires violating someone's freedom.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
....

Oh, and don't forget interstate commerce. Does the air you breathe cross state lines?
Perhaps more to the point, does the sate have laws governing insurance, employment, etc etc? If so, must the state not enforce them consistently with the 24th Amendment? But what does that mean?
Last I checked, the 14th Amendment stopped at private property property not open to the public (there is a term of art I am forgetting here.). If you want to keep white peopleo ut of your home, fine. A shopping mall, no. A private club, yes.
Dunno if that is the best place to draw the line, but where ever it is drawn it is bound to be fuzzy.

Last I heard, Scalia thought it was fine for the Feds to make it illegal to grow or smoke locally grown pot, in private. I wonder if would think it is OK for local governments to prohibit smoking tobacco in public?
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He he he... So that is how California is going to implement population control.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.