lummy

Just to add to this, group health care for a domestic partner is considered taxable income whereas health care for a spouse is not. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

did you have any other realistic ideas on how to balance the state budget other than tax increases? I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

Ok, I'm going to have to call BS. I just checked the Franchise Tax board's site ( Ca version of the IRS) and refunds are only being delayed 30 days, not denied. http://www.ftb.ca.gov/refund_delay_2008.shtml I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

huh? So the vandals should have trashed the public transit system instead? Also, how did we come to the conclusion that the cops in question are corrupt? I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

I understand the purpose of AA which is to try to level the playing field for minorities but I think that AA is still discrimination. The only way (IMO) to not discriminate based on race is to remove race from the equation. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

I could be wrong but I thought there was some type of quota. My experience was with local and county gvts and a woman owned business. I seem to remember that the local and county gvt had to award a certain % of the contracts to WMBE in order to maintain their funding. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

it is pretty common (AA) in academics. It's been awhile since I've been in the corporate world, but 9 or 10 years ago, there were quite a few gvnmt contracts to be had if you were a woman or minority owned business. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

I also am interested to see if there is any mechanism for the parent to STOP the abortion after they've been notified. From what I've read, after the letter is mailed and 48 hours elapses, the girl can go ahead with the abortion. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

No, they expect people to pay for their own clothes I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

correct me if I'm wrong but a teenager still won't need consent. I believe the proposition is only to provide 48 hour notice to the adult I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

So you can visit all the cool dropzones we have up here perhaps? I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

in US history, Federalists such as Adams and Hamilton believed that The US should have a strong federal govt at the expense of the states rights. Democrat-Republicans such as Jefferson believed that there should be a weaker Federal govt and the States should govern theirselves. Based on that definition, McCain is contradicting himself. I haven't heard any politician use that term in recent times so I'm wondering if the term "federalist" has been redefined I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

Then go on to say that he was for giving states rights? Isn't a Federalist a believer in a strong national govt and weaker states? Or is that just the classic definition of a federalist and I'm missing something? I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

I read an article this morning that Obama challenged McCain to bring up Ayers tonite in the debate, could make it interesting I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

yeah, but the sequel almost always SUCKS!!! It'll probably be out on DVD by Christmas I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

Well, the article you cited said nothing but "30 thousand felons on voter roles" with no supporting documentation. How do you know that's not who they're talking about? I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

Florida passed a law last year restoring civil rights to most felons. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

Even McCain is seeing the writing on the wall I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

How do you come to that conclusion? I read the report and it clearly stated that she violated Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. it's on page 8 I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

Does this mean that the presidential election is over now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

The dem leadership had made it pretty clear that this was a bill both sides would have to support. The Dem's wouldn't pass it on their own (by design) and the Rep's would have to stand behind it too I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

Very true. However, I don't see how pointing fingers at this Republican or that Democrat is helping solve anything. Al it's doing is pissing both sides off I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

Does it REALLY matter who's to blame for how we got here? What matters is how we get ourselves out of this mess. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

baaaa I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

Off topic but relating to CA propositions, Has anyone read the election pamphlet that are being mailed out, and specifically prop 4? For those outside of Ca, prop 4 is a requirement that dr's give the parent or an adult relative 48 notice before performing an abortion. I'm inclined to vote for it based on it's merits but I'm a bit turned off by the scare tactics the proponents are using, such as "don't let child abusers get away with this, vote yes to prop 4" blah blah.. Anyone know why they're resorting to that? Other than politics as usual? Even prop 8, defining marriageas between a man and woman only, isn't resorting to such tactics. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1