Andy9o8

There's a trail near me that I often run. It's very secluded. I frequently see women on it jogging solo, even at dusk. The way they're often dressed in form-hugging shorts and short-length top, anyone can tell that they're not armed. I'm sorry life is unequal and thus unfair, but I think those women are making a dangerous mistake. If my wife or daughters did that, I'd shit a brick. Get your wife that gun.

I just think you 2 make up a cute tag-team, is all.

Wrong. Come on, people, do you see me performing surgery without a license?

Those who have said that John Lennon was the Second Coming of the Messiah are wrong. It was Vince Lombardi. That is all.

From homicide to choking on food to guns to abortion in 2 posts. You guys are impressive.

OK, let's look at Democratic Presidents over the past 100 years. Wilson - not a lawyer. Oops, but he was a college professor, like Kallend. Bazinga! FDR - not a lawyer. He used a cigarette holder. He must have been a homo. Truman - Not a lawyer. Was a haberdasher. Hey, people wore a lot of hats in those days. JFK - Yup, a lawyer. He used to fuck Marylin Monroe. And you're so jealous. LBJ - Not a lawyer. Was a schoolteacher. Nothing very productive about that. Carter - Not a lawyer. Naval Academy graduate, submarine officer, specializing in nuclear power. Then successfully ran his family's farming business. A deeply religious man, heavily involved in church-related activities. A lot of his and his wife's assets from the farming business were lost while they were in a blind trust during his presidency. Later in life, with Habitat for Humanity, building homes for poor people. What a leech. Clinton and Obama. Both lawyers. Both university professors like Kallend. Clinton probably didn't get as much ass as JFK did, but he sure tried. God, I love that man. OK, so that's 37.5% of the Democratic presidents over the past 100 years have been lawyers. Quite a landslide. To the author of that article, I would repeat what I've said in other threads: any random asshole can lawyer-bait; it takes no brains at all.

"Send lawyers, guns and money." You and I are soul-mates, Bestie.

OK, just to address a few random comments, in the interest of accuracy: >>Charges won't stick They might very well stick, if the DA pushes prosecution, and the judge allows it. >>I believe if they can show that what they were doing was repeatable, ie not a crazy stunt, then the reckless endangerment wont stick. this is how Jeb Corliss was able to defeat his NYC charges. That's incorrect, both as to the legal elements of the ofense, as as to the outcome of Jeb's case. >>I wouldn't want to trust my fate to a public defender. Myth. The so-called "lousy public defender" (or court-appointed attorney) is almost always a myth in most locations in the past 20 or 30 years. I don't know what system they have in Nashville, without looking it up. But 9 times out of 10, the most highly-skilled criminal defense attorneys in the courtoom are either the public defenders or those who were initially trained as public defenders. >>If they're found guilty, then they may not get the gear back. That is up to the individual court. In Texas that gear could be seized since it was used in the commission of a felony and sold at auction. Correct! Being a law (enforcement) professional, Dave knows whence he speaks. >>I'd like the prosecutor to demonstrate who these guys were endangering at 5 am (besides themselves). Any motorist or pedestrian that they might have landed on had one of them gone in with nothing out. Even at 5 am. >>They did not get charged with a felony. Trespass in Tennessee is a felony for some grades of offense, and a misdemeanor for other grades. Same goes for all the other states. Reckless endangerment can also be a felony in some states, depending on various circumstances. Anyone who banks on only being charged with misdemeanors if they're busted BASING off a building just might find themselves unpleasantly surprised.

Yes. Just to clarify with a bit more detail: - The 25% limit of take-home pay is a Federal limit, meaning that by Federal law, nowhere is it allowed to be more than 25%. (Actually, it's the lower of either (a) 25% of take-home pay, or (b) the total amount by which your weekly wage exceeds 30 times the federal hourly minimum wage.) Some states set their limits at even lower than the federally-mandated 25%. And 4 states do not allow any wage garnishment at all to satisfy most civil judgments. -Bankruptcy is also under Federal law; and thus it offers certain protection against judgments in all states. The extent of the protection varies a bit from one state to another, mainly having to do with the amount of the Homestead Exemption available in each state.

Start with the phone, make sure you speak to a live human being, and have them walk you through the process. There are some hoops to jump through, and there will be some speed-bumps along the way, so the sooner you get started, the better.

Yes. We've had good experiences and bad experiences. To over-simplify, deal and book directly with the airline in a bereavement situation; don't use a website like Expedia, travelocity, etc.. Our good experiences have been when we've dealt with the airline directly in a bereavement situation. Yes, we had to give them verifying documentation, but once we did, they were very accommodating. . Deal with the company directly, and they'll generally be pretty accommodating, because they recognize that that's good business. Our bad experience was when, after having traveled to a family funeral one-way and staying for a while, we booked a "non-refundable" flight back home via Expedia. The next day, another family crisis arose, requiring us to delay our flight back for a couple of days. I called the airline and asked them to accommodate us as it was a bereavement situation. They said that if we'd booked directly with them, they'd do it, but since we booked thru Expedia, I'd have to deal with Expedia. In preparation, I first went on the airline's website to see what alternative flights were still available. Finding a couple that would work, I then called Expedia. After being transferred around, finally to a call center in the Philippines (I asked ), they refused to accommodate us. The guy claimed that there were no flights available. I told him about the particular flights I'd found, and he said, "Those are no longer available". I replied, "But I'm looking at the airline's website right now, and each of those flights has several seats available." They then did the dance where they transferred me around to various "supervisors", but they insisted that those flights were not available. They just flat-out lied to me, and they could not have cared less that this was a bereavement situation. In the end, I had to abandon (and eat the cost of) the flight I'd booked, and had to pay full-freight for another flight. I will never book with those type of web-services again. I might use their websites as a starting point for researching available flights, but then I always shift over to the airline's website and book directly with the airline. Consider yourself warned. Good luck.

I have investment property to sell to anyone who believes that.

Seriously? They wrote down what they saw? Semi-nomadic agrarians in the Bronze Age? What was their level of literacy? Of education? Of skills at observing, understanding and accurately reporting facts? What is the likelihood that someone who "saw or heard something" understood what he was seeing or hearing, interpreted it correctly, and had the literacy skills to report it accurately, and all in the first person? Maybe young school children will accept the premise of "before video cameras were invented, the ancient people saw things and wrote down what they saw", but that just doesn't fly among educated adults in modern society. Well, at least it shouldn't; and the only reason why it can is because societies indoctrinate children virtually from birth; that indoctrination is passed down through the generations as part of the social norms and imperatives; and once ingrained, that's very difficult to shake in the face of social pressure and reinforcement - including, most powerfully, the very real threat of being ostracized. All of this stuff is pretty basic, you know.

Do you use washable nappies?

Now you're just insulting everyone's intelligence.

As was challenging his citizenship and using the loaded phrase about him turning his back on his home country. That's just bush league. You're a bright guy, and you have interesting ideas. Bring your game up.

No, thanks; you can either do your dick-swinging out in the open, where you have to abide by the same Forum rules that you tried and failed to use against me, or you can do it in the privacy of your own home. I'm just not interested. Or in the alternative, when involved in a policy debate, you can try actually debating policy, instead of trying to convince the world that another poster is a goat-fucker* just because you dislike their politics. (*No actual goats were harmed in producing this message.)

Divulging such details of another is, in your words, not a good idea. Remember your own posts about personal info posted on websites? And that's your reply? QED. Oh, by the way, I didn't "divulge" it; he's proudly discussed it on here. Playing the player, and not the ball, is not the way to carry the day in a debate. You tried that against me, too, earlier today, and that didn't get you very far, either.

You don't get credit for one's offspring's choices. It's not like he sold his kid to the Army. It wasn't Daddy's choice. That's your reply? QED.

Very classy. Hey, while you're at it, don't forget to ask Kallend about his son who served a deployment in harm's way in Iraq with the U.S. Army Airborne, or the amount of US income taxes he's paid since he came here, or the number of American engineers he has educated during his career.

http://todayhealth.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/15/10151445-weight-loss-challenge-try-this-list-of-distractions-to-fend-off-munchies

In other words, crazy lawyers!

Andy: "May I embellish?" No. Well, I did. And I do. And I stand by my post.

They are. Always have been.

The moderators of this forum have repeatedly made it clear over the years that that applies to jokes and improper or exploitative references, but not to legitimate, reasonably-phrased discussions of current events; for example, the child abuse scandal among the Catholic clergy. That social/political issue has been discussed, many, many times on these boards. Specifically to explain this, several Moderators, as well as Meso, have frequently repeated the following guideline, which I quote verbatim: "References to pedophilia can only be made in a factual context or in discussion of certain political and social issues. " If you doubt it, run a search for that exact sentence, and see how many times it hits. I stand by my post as proper and within Forum guidelines. I invite any or all moderators or the Administrator to review my post, and I will abide by their decision.