Andy9o8

What could possibly go wrong with that?

I believe the term is clones, but yeah.

The following Provisions from the SIM would seem to apply:

You're quite the spin-meister. Even now, post-recent legislative action in SC, the rebel flag may be displayed by anyone acting in their private individual capacity. It can also be worn, carried or displayed by any private individual, not only in any "public area" (your ambiguous term) like a public sidewalk, but even while on publicly-owned land - as long as it is not affixed to a public building or land. State or federal government actors forcing someone to, for example, remove a rebel flag from their clothing or vehicle while on publicly-owned land would (IMO) violate the US Constitution and (IMPO) would probably be declared as such by most any federal court. Go wear a rebel flag t-shirt into the State Capitol Building in S.C. If they force you to remove it or leave, I'll betcha the ACLU would be willing to help you fight and win in federal court, just as they helped that Nazi group secure the right to march through Skokie, IL a couple decades ago. All of that remains constitutionally-protected free speech.

Wall street journal, too. Head for the hills! Well, Ron already has. Let's you and I go live with him.

Jumping student mil-surp gear back in the day. Had a total on a 4-pin main, was pitched head-downish because I had both hands inboard trying to pull. At terminal, pulled chest-mount reserve, which deployed between my legs, whipping me around about 200 degrees. Purple thighs and balls for about a month.

Silly boy. What a silly question.

I'd be happy to see all the treasonous, Neanderthal cousin-fuckers secede. Eh, but I guess that conversation's already been had.

Seems to me, this guy's got a pretty memorable 21st jump.

you forgot the nsfw warning.

Yes; my answer really wasn't complete without discussing subrogation, was it? I got so focused on John's small claims issue that I forgot to mention the subrogation angle, so thanks for the reminder. I'll fill-in that additional info now. To John Mitchell: Reach out to your insurance company and see if they intend to pursue subrogation (recovery from the other driver of the claim they paid to you). If so, you have to cooperate with it, but in most states (I didn't research WA state) your ins co also has to pursue the entire claim, and then if it recovers, it pays you the amount you lost on the deductible. Warning: your policy prohibits you from taking any action that might compromise your ins co's subrogation rights, so check with your ins co first before filing suit; and if you do file suit, you may need to file for the entire amount of damages; then if you win more than your deductible, that overage has to be turned over to your ins co. In other words, don't file in small claims court for just the $1500 deductible until/unless your ins co expressly authorizes you to do so in writing, in response to a letter from you explaining your situation and asking them for their advice and approvals. (Or, just turn the matter over to a WA lawyer and let him/her communicate with your ins co.) Coordinate anything/everything you do closely with your ins co - in advance! - to avoid running afoul of your duties under the policy. The last thing you want is to (ironically) get sued by your own ins co because they think you screwed up their subrogation claim against the other driver. If that's still clear as mud, consult with a WA lawyer. Our babies need new shoes, too.

https://www.google.com/#q=US+military+components+from+china

The cop isn't a judge, and the criminal standards for a ticket are higher than civil. The lack of a ticket shouldn't prevent you and your insurance company from pursuing further relief from the offending party. But it might be that the legal costs and uncertainty are too high without any proof. Thanks for that advice. She was shorted maybe $1500 between insurance payout and what she owed on the car. So, yeah, it probably wouldn't be worth it, except maybe in the small claims venue. $1500? Yeah, that's low-ish to engage an attorney. Still, though, a small general law office, especially a newer solo practitioner, might be willing to put a few hours of time in exchange for a guaranteed (i.e., not contingency) fee of, say, about $500. Which is worth it if you win $1000. But are you willing to part with that $500 if you lose? Anyhow, might be worth it to have a sit-down with a lawyer; initial consults like that are usually free. Alternative #2: It's not unusual for a lawyer get a prospective client who wants to take something to small claims court, but the amount at issue is simply too low to make it practical (to either lawyer or client) to hire a lawyer. What I'll sometimes do is offer them a 1 hour office session, at an affordable fee, in which I'll take the client through the hash, go thru everything, coach them on how to handle the case in small claims court, give 'em a few tricks up their sleeve to anticipate and handle this or that curve that might get thrown at them, etc., etc. Then they're more prepared (and thus confident) than just winging it like a layperson, but they don't incur much of a legal fee. I've had a number of clients that have been quite happy with that.

Hmm. Puzzling.

I can't tell if you realize it's a photoshop. The makes it ambiguous. But for everyone's benefit: Right Wingers Circulate Photoshop Fake of Young Hillary Clinton With a Confederate Flag And if anyone doubts that source, there's this from Time/Life Magazine online: LIFE With Hillary: Portraits of a Wellesley Grad, 1969 (Scroll thru the photos. You'll find it.) Wellp... I imagine she though she was in college in 1969.

I see what you did there.

Because that would not maximize shareholder value.

Broadly speaking, many of those examples are not much different than the rights and privileges multiple siblings already have vis a vis their mutual parents, or vice versa, and those things are generally doable. So when you cut thru the bullshit, most of it really is more about attitude and convention than practicality. Justice Roberts ignores that perspective.

When it palpably threatens the safety of our children in their beds.

Are you willing to send your children to do that? Because I'm not willing to send mine. I'm not willing to send my money over there, either. All that does is enrich the Halliburtons of the world, validate senior officers who chose a military career and need an enemy, and not keep our children even a bit safer in their beds.

Take your pick!

That occurred to me also. When I searched through the text of ACA, it does not seem that the use of "the State" refers to the Federal government. In this context, no, it would not mean the Federal government, only a state's government. FWIW, modern federal statutes in the US generally would not refer to the Federal government as "the State"; that's more political science-speak than it is federal statute-speak.

What do you mean by that? I have no issue with.... It was a one-liner, actually. That said, very interesting post, thank you.

Well, abstinence makes the heart grow fonder. Apparently her heart grew fonder.

I always touch my handles. Whether I need to or not.