Nightingale

Nah... I keep skeletons where they belong, right out where everyone can see em! Far easier that way, don't you think? I think the only objection to my closet might possibly be my favorite shoes.

When there is balance in government and the house and senate, then only the very important things that everyone can agree on get done. This is a good thing. It prevents runaway government and doesn't allow one side to run amok with their agenda.

NO, NO, NO!!!! You all have it wrong!!!!! If a DEMOCRAT doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed. If a REPUBLICAN wants a gun he'll buy one and justify it publicly by calling all unarmed people "sheep" and exclaiming how great it would be to shoot all those evil criminals. If a LIBERTARIAN doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If he wants one, he buys one. If a DEMOCRAT wants government to do something, he will lobby for it and then lobby to increase taxes to pay for it, while demanding that Republican sponsored programs be cut to pay for more Democrat sponsored programs. If a REPUBLICAN wants government to do something, he will lobby for it and then refuse to pay for what he has asked for, and demand that Democrat sponsored programs be cut to pay for it. A LIBERTARIAN would prefer that the government not do anything that isn't specifically enumerated in the constitution, and knows they'll probably even manage to screw that up, and would prefer not to pay for messes caused by the Republicans and Democrats.

Cool, as long as she was aware of the policy and understood the consequences for breaking it. I do think that calling the policy "unlimited" when it does have a limit is misleading, though, but that's another matter entirely.

Couple of things: 1. She did say thank you. 2. You may have made her feel awkward that you a. gave her something so expensive and she can't reciprocate, or b. noticed her skin condition. 3. You may have given her something she can't use because of perfumes or other ingredients, and she didn't want to tell you, and you made it worse by pushing the issue.

In Jayden's obituary, the parents told you what they want. "Donations can be made in memory of Jayden Thomas to the US Bank "Baby Jayden Trust" and Mary Bridge Children's Hospital." So, make a donation to the trust or to the hospital for Jayden, and it sounds like you're already set with regards to your hairdresser.

Ok... I'm confused. Did she have "unlimited" texts, or did she have 3000 texts? It appears she asked for unlimited, knowing she was going to text a lot, and that was a very responsible thing to do. Did you tell her the plan was unlimited? Did the company tell you the plan was unlimited? Or did the company tell you the plan was 3000 texts, and did you pass this information along to her? Or did you choose a 3000 text plan instead of the unlimited plan she asked for? If she asked for an unlimited plan and was given a 3000 text plan, it's understandable that she exceeded it, if she thought the plan was unlimited. Did you attempt any kind of negotiation with the phone company? I don't know how it works where you live, but I know if I call my phone company and say "Hey, I totally overextended my minutes/texts last month... how about we change my plan to compensate for that from now on, and hey, can you make it retroactive?" They've said yes every time and saved me hundreds in the process. It never hurts to ask.

This is just my take on this from what I remember from when I was a kid, as a teacher, and from what I see my cousins doing today: It seems like all you've done here is removed her behavior from your supervision and control and pushed her to be sneaky. Punishments like that don't teach kids to behave better... they teach them to hide their bad behavior better. Does she still have a myspace and facebook account? probably. Is she still on the internet? Absolutely! She's just accessing it from friends' cell phones, smartphones, and computers that you don't have access to. She's online at the library, internet cafes, and you bet she's seen those naked celebrity pictures and then some on her friends' iphones.... all outside of where you can monitor her. And now, if some predator really does stalk her on the internet, you don't know where she's getting her access, so you wouldn't know where to direct the police to start looking. And honestly, banning a kid for five years for being curious and searching for something inappropriate when they were thirteen seems a little excessive. Maybe a conversation and using it as a teaching moment, restriction of a few months, and subtle installation of a keystroke logger to see if your conversation stuck would've been more appropriate than a "banned for life!" approach.

Which Ruger Mk III? There are a lot of them. I have a Mk III 22/45, 5". Love it. It's a great target pistol. I love taking people to the range and teaching them to shoot. It's a great newbie gun, fun when I want to go shoot a lot, because the ammo is cheap and it's really accurate. It's heavy when compared to my tupperware guns though.

Yep. Absolutely amazing when you get down to the science of it all. As an aside, did you know that scientists are studying the effect religion has on endorphins? It's fascinating! Article here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925361.100-belief-special-how-evolution-found-god.html?page=1

You know... I have an Apple laptop with a built in camera. I have a sticker over the camera. This just tells me I'm not being paranoid.

As you can see in the SC case I quoted, the court specifically differentiates between spelling out the commandments and a portrayal of a tablet with roman numerals on it (which, BTW is inaccurate, as Roman numerals originated with the Etruscans around 400 BCE, and while there's a large variation in estimations of the approximate time of Moses, they're somewhere around Exodus, 17th to 13th centuries BCE, well predating roman numerals). The portrayal of the tablet can be interpreted as symbolic of one of many forms of law, and in fact, in the link you sent, Moses holding the tablets is standing next to Confucius and Solon, surrounded by figures representing a variety of legal themes. According to the sculptor, the three main figures were meant to represent three great civilizations that have influenced the development of our laws and was not meant to be any kind of religious commentary. The sculptor of the art that sits directly behind the court has specifically stated that the numbers on those tablets represent the ten amendments in the bill of rights, not the ten commandments. This tablet motif is continued in the architecture of the court, and is probably intended to remind the justices that the constitution is of utmost importance in that room.

Billvon got to this first, so to add to his reply (which was entirely correct): The wall right above where the Supreme Court judges sit is the east wall, on which is displayed a frieze designed by sculptor Adolph A. Weinman. The frieze features two male figures who represent the Majesty of Law and the Power of Government, flanked on the left side by a group of figures representing Wisdom, and on the right side by a group of figures representing Justice: In a letter on file in the archives of the Supreme Court, Adolph Weinman, the designer of this frieze, states that the tablet visible between the two central male figures, engraved with the Roman numerals I through X, represents not the Ten Commandments but the first "ten amendments to the Constitution known as the 'Bill of Rights.'" The friezes which adorn the north and south walls of the courtroom in the Supreme Court building (also designed by Adolph Weinman) depict a procession of 18 great lawgivers: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (south wall); Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon (north wall): According to the Office of the Curator of the Supreme Court of the United States, these figures were selected as a representation of secular law: Weinman's training emphasized a correlation between the sculptural subject and the function of the building and, because of this, [architect Cass] Gilbert relied on him to choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court building. Faithful to classical sources, Weinman designed for the Courtroom friezes a procession of "great lawgivers of history," from many civilizations, to portray the development of secular law. Moses is not given any special emphasis in this depiction: his figure is not larger than the others, nor does it appear in a dominant position. Also, the writing on the tablet carried by Moses in this frieze includes portions of commandments 6 through 10 (in Hebrew), specifically chosen because they are not inherently religious. (Commandments 6 through 10 proscribe murder, adultery, theft, perjury, and covetousness.) -source, snopes In addition, It is HIGHLY unlikely that a court that would make the following ruling if they have the text of the commandments posted in their courtroom: McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY, the court stated: "[the commandments] proclaim the existence of a monotheistic god (no other gods), regulate details of religious obligation (no graven images, sabbath breaking, or vain oath swearing), and unmistakably rest even the universally accepted prohibitions (as against murder, theft, etc.) on the sanction of the divinity proclaimed at the text’s beginning. Displaying that text is thus different from symbolic representation, like tablets with 10 roman numerals, which could be seen as alluding to a general notion of law, not a sectarian conception of faith. Where the text is set out, the insistence of the religious message is hard to avoid in the absence of a context plausibly suggesting a message going beyond an excuse to promote the religious point of view. The display in Stone had no such context, and the Counties’ solo exhibit here did nothing more to counter the sectarian implication than the Stone postings. The reasonable observer could only think that the Counties meant to emphasize and celebrate the Commandments’ religious message. "Nor does the Court hold that a sacred text can never be integrated constitutionally into a governmental display on law or history. Its own courtroom frieze depicts Moses holding tablets exhibiting a portion of the secularly phrased Commandments; in the company of 17 other lawgivers, most of them secular figures, there is no risk that Moses would strike an observer as evidence that the National Government was violating religious neutrality."

Voted

According to Wikipedia: "Jim Bob is a former politician who served in the Arkansas House of Representatives from 1999 to 2002. The Duggars say their income is derived from the commercial properties they own. The Duggars live debt-free... Their 7,000 square-foot house was built by hand by the Duggar family themselves over the course of three years with minimal assistance from friends, primarily in the form of instruction. The home was completed on January 20, 2006." Jim Bob Duggar also confirmed on the April 13, 2009 Larry King Interview that his family does have health insurance, but they carry a $2500 deductible to keep costs down.

I miss Huckleberry Honey.

You are ok with a, Christmas, tree... but you are not ok with a Menorah? Because the custom of a tree predates Christianity by quite a bit, and has largely become a secular symbol of the winter season rather than something having to do with one particular religion. I know MANY non-christians who have trees, and it's just not something I see as blatantly religious. Others may disagree. Could you elaborate on your status as agnostic? Dictionary.com says - a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. That about sums it up. You don’t deny that there is one, you just simply don’t feel we can know the truth until death, and until then, you don’t want to hear about a specific one, when it comes to the things you posted about. Would that be correct? I don't deny that there MIGHT be one. I certainly don't mind hearing others ideas about one. I just don't think the government should PAY for people to spread those ideas, as we have no way to know whose ideas are correct. What turns you off about the Ten Commandments? Hypothetically, if you were to take out 1-4, maybe 5 too... do you agree with the last 5? Nothing. I just don't think they belong in a courthouse, as some of the things they talk about as commandments aren't against the law. Without Religion, where does your Moral Code come from? What is your Moral Code? I try to treat others as they want to be treated, think about the consequences of my actions before acting, and balance what's best for myself and what's best for others as well as I can. Lastly... How do you teach about religion in schools, without teaching religion? Easily. You teach about the religion, you study the beliefs, the history, and the culture around the religion, without teaching the students WHAT to believe. You can teach about all kinds of religions and cultures this way. My Catholic school taught me about Islam and Judaism and Hinduism and Buddhism without teaching me to believe that those religions were the truth. As for your comment about the religions of the founders, last I checked, most of them were Deist, and Thomas Jefferson in particular was pretty specific about the "wall of separation between church and state." When was your last Constitutional Law class?

I'm not a Baptist... I'm not even a Christian, and I started watching the show out of morbid curiosity. I was expecting to watch a freak show, and what I saw was the complete opposite. Just to clarify: The girls have said in interviews that they are allowed to wear pants if they wish, but they prefer skirts. As for the "no dancing", its not an absolute "no dancing", it's no dancing in public. Jim-Bob and Michelle have said that it is fine for the two of them to dance in private, but they feel that public dancing is inappropriate. They feel that since the majority of dance has an element of sexuality to it, that the appropriate place for it is between husband and wife. They do allow non-religious music in their home, but stick to mainly classical and instrumental if it's not religious music. The no kissing thing was a recommendation by Jim-Bob to his children as a way to avoid premarital sex, there were conversations about it, but it was ultimately left up to the children to decide, and Jim-Bob and Michelle have admitted freely that they kissed before marriage, danced (Michelle was a cheerleader), listened to secular music, used birth control, and did most of the things they're discouraging in their children. They're very open about it, both in interviews on the show and with their kids. They just don't want their kids making what they view as "the same mistakes we did". As for females being subservient, Jim-Bob and Michelle have discussions, she definitely has her own opinions, and he listens and values them. They really do seem like partners... just because her role is different than his doesn't mean it's inferior. As for those kids, they're not abused in any sense of the word. They're happy, healthy, and well cared for, and certainly not neglected. They have plenty of time to talk to either parent if anything needs to be said. They have older siblings and relatives like Amy and Anna to talk to if they need to as well. While they may not get a ton of one on one with mom and dad, from what I've seen the house really is full of love and caring, and, personally having a parent from a large family and growing up surrounded with aunts, uncles and cousins, being surrounded by people that care about you is pretty darn cool. Different does not equal wrong.

About two bucks. We're just exchanging cards and spending time together. My idea of a perfect day. =)

I use it.

Fascinating lady.

I'm an agnostic, not an atheist, and in no way do I want to see a world where I'm never exposed to religion. I do, however, want to see a world where my tax dollars don't help pay for someone else's religion. I don't mind it during the holidays when they put a tree up around government buildings, but I'd rather not see a manger scene or a menorah. I don't want to see the ten commandments in a courthouse, references to a deity on our currency, or in a pledge in our public schools. Children should learn ABOUT religions in their social science classes, but they should not learn religion. I also don't think that religions should get such tax breaks, particularly if they're going to get involved in politics. Too many of these organizations are 501c and acting like a PAC. It is perfectly okay for any religion to do what they want, put up any kind of display on their property, pass out whatever kind of literature they wish, and ring doorbells and talk to people, or whatever they want to do to promote themselves. Just don't do it with public money or in public schools.

If the current population wanted the direction enough to amend our constitution to go that way, yes. However, since they don't, then no.

D He inherited a mess. He hasn't fixed it, and he's created a slew of new ones. I don't feel he is taking this country in the direction our founding fathers intended it to go.

Also, the airport isn't the only way onto the island. Ships are arriving carrying supplies too. Even Royal Caribbean is dropping their cruise passengers off at their private beach on one side of the island, and sailing around to Port au Prince on the other side and dropping supplies and having their crew do aid work while they're in port. They made a statement that they considered suspending the cruise operation to Haiti and just running supplies, but thought it would further damage the island's economy, which depends on tourism and the dollars the tourists spend while in port. I do see their point.