Controlled Chaos

Thank you peeps.

Happy B-day YASNY. One of my favorite posters.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 5, 2009 -> 09:55 AM) Its a temporary order for review. Let's not get over excited here. You had to figure this would happen. Well I think the law has been on the books since 95...and has yet to be enforced....that's kinda ridiculous.

WOW

Trib "In a dramatic turn of events, a Cook County Circuit Court judge halted Illinois' parental notification law on abortion just hours after a state agency gave it the all-clear. Judge Daniel Riley granted a temporary restraining order sought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois in the late afternoon, hours after Illinois' medical disciplinary board decided the state could begin enforcing the law. It requires physicians to notify parents or guardians when those 17 or younger seek abortions. Unbelievable.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 02:52 PM) Per the request of the original posted, i aint goin' there. Thx.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 02:39 PM) If that is the case, then it is illegal to have an abortion under the age of 17 without a parent's signature. Simple as that. End of argument. None of this "well, tell the parents" stuff. no. If a 16 year old daughter cant get lipo without mom or dad's signature, then they dont have the "right" to have an abortion. Also, no notice is required in a medical emergency or if the girl declares in writing that she is a victim of sexual abuse. And a provision in the law allows girls to bypass parental notification by going before a judge, who would then have 48 hours to rule on the petition.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 02:08 PM) Spot on. 17 year olds are not equipped to make such decisions on their own, and will often make knee jerk decisions based on what they think may be a world ending event, such as this. I remember being 17, and I remember thinking the smallest things in my life were the biggest decisions to be made, looking back, I realize how small they actually were and would have been more open to an adults opinion if I could do it again. Not to mention a 14, 15, or 16 yr old....

Well I also posted this on my FB page...and got my first dissenter: Here ya go... I fall in the against column. I see nothing wrong with trying to encourage kids to tell their parents, but to make a blanket law that they HAVE to tell the parents is bad. There are so many different situations where that's bad. The abusive parent, the super religious parent, the rapist parent. And what parent is required? Step? Foster? Dcfs if they are a ward? Education (not abstinence only) education education is the key. And for parents, communication with your child is key. Start early, use the correct terminology, and talk about sex even if you don't think they are listening to you.

Headline in the Tribune today: "Divisive Illinois abortion law goes into effect tomorrow" Medical providers must notify a parent or guardian when girl 17 and younger seeks abortion. Parents do NOT need to give consent...just be notified. Divisive?? I would think it's a very small minority that is against this. Curious on your thoughts, but please leave your 'Pro this /Anti that' opinions out of it. Parental consent comments only.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 11:21 AM) The "drunk and consensual" defense worked out pretty well for wealthy Adrian Missbrenner and his other scumbag Burr Ridge buddies who actually videotaped their gang bang of a Naperville girl at his home in 2002. At one point, Missbrenner fled the country ala Roman Polanksi to escape prosecution. After he surrendered and returned, his smart lawyer played the video frame by frame at his trial, and created reasonable doubt by pointing out shots where she was supposedly "smiling" (this was the case where at one point Judge Kerry Kennedy threatened to jail the woman if she did not watch the tape of her alleged assault during cross examination). Missbrenner was found not guilty. If defendants have money, never underestimate the possiblity of acquittal. That was a f***ed up case. Flees the country..comes back after his buddy gets off...then proceeds to get off him self. I'm still pissed thinking about it.

Liberals sure do fear Fox news.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 10:23 AM) Anyone taking a train out of Chicago to the south from Union Station might be in for an interesting day http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/photo.ph...mp;id=607682016 Yep. That's my line. Should be fun tonight.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 20, 2009 -> 12:26 PM) I didn't say it was true or not. i'm was just saying what that paper is about. I think it should be known what you are supporting. wow

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 01:57 PM) http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/21306839/detail.html BANANAS!

Wow....that is incredibly annoying...unless it was in a school zone or something.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 11:10 AM) Modern Family continues to be hilarious. Oh, you were in a band?” “No, but I could have been. In high school I was all about my magic.”

What's Michael Moore Talking About? John Stossel Wednesday, October 14, 2009 Michael Moore is confused. His new movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story," begins by suggesting that all was well until Ronald Reagan became president and cut the top 90 percent income tax rate. Everything was downhill from there. But by the end of the movie, he says the problems really began in 1945, when Franklin Roosevelt died without enacting his proposed Second Bill of Rights, which would have "guaranteed' everything from a "remunerative job" and a "decent home" to "adequate medical care," a "good education" and "adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment." Adding to the confusion, he lavishes praise on Barack Obama and his "spread the wealth around" rhetoric. But Moore also demonizes as symbols of capitalism Clinton Treasury secretaries Robert Rubin (formerly of Goldman Sachs) and Lawrence Summers, and former New York Fed President Timothy Geithner without mentioning that Rubin has been Obama's adviser and that Summers and Geithner are, respectively, his chief economic guru and treasury secretary. Nor does he acknowledge that Obama continued the bailout policies of George W. Bush. Moore declares capitalism evil, but he's never clear about what "capitalism" means. Considering how much time he spends documenting the cozy relationship between business and government, I thought he might mean "state capitalism." But then he uses the term "free market" as a synonym for what he doesn't like. What does the free market have to do with businesses manipulating government and strong-arming Congress for bailouts? Moore properly condemns both. What does he want instead of "capitalism"? He's coy about that. Claiming that the public became increasingly curious about socialism once Obama was accused of favoring it, he goes to the only self-described socialist in Congress, Sen. Bernie Sanders, to ask for a definition. Socialism, Sanders tells Moore, means "the government represents the middle class and working class, not the wealth." Huh? That's socialism? It's not government ownership of the means of production and the abolition of private property and free exchange? Sanders reads Marx and Lenin very broadly. By his definition, I'm a socialist. I want government to represent the middle and working classes. Of course, Congress does that best by leaving them free, economically and otherwise. Moore visits the National Archives to see if the Constitution establishes capitalism as the country's economic system. Seeing the words "people," "union" and "welfare" in the document, he says, "Sounds like that other ism." That's just silly. The Constitution limits government's power to interfere with the people and their property. The Constitution is on the side of the free market. Toward the end of the movie, Moore says capitalism is irredeemably evil and "has to be replaced." With what? I assumed he'd say socialism, but instead his answer is "democracy." This apparently means expanding "hundreds of worker-owned businesses" in the United States. But since workers are already free to start businesses, what's his point? A more astute observer would show how government intervention -- licenses, taxes, regulations -- inhibits such businesses. Thankfully, I will soon have my own show on Fox Business Network to make such points. I'll invite Moore to come on as a guest. For two hours, Moore rails against reckless banks and government bailouts, but never once mentions the government-business partnership that created the conditions for the turmoil. The fact that America no longer has a genuinely free market is the unnoticed 10,000-pound elephant in Moore's room. Watching "Capitalism," you'd never know that the federal government colluded for decades with the financial, real estate and construction industries to divert resources into housing in the name of promoting home ownership -- even for people who couldn't afford it. You'd never know that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were, and are, privileged government-sponsored enterprises that encouraged shaky loans. At least Moore has an inkling of what's wrong: cozy ties between Wall Street and government. Moore thinks the answer is better regulators or nationalization of banks. But his own evidence suggests that the real answer is a separation of state and economy -- stripping away Wall Street's privileges. In other words: Limit government's power. Let the free market work. Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved. http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?...257d44c&t=c

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 12, 2009 -> 11:43 AM) LOL You're really making the position of cake decorator out to be way more important than it really is. I think you are making it out to be less than it is.

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 09:56 AM) Julie Bowen=MILF of the Year She has been smokin since Happy Gilmore!!

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 01:12 PM) Today is the first time I've ever actually deleted comments from my facebook posts. The stupidity coming from people... and specifically one person was staggering! The fact that one guy tried to link Obama's abortion and gay marriage policy to him getting the peace award made my mind hurt! you should turn him in to Uncle Sam.

Yo Barry, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish, but I been working on the hottest world peace, climate changing, free health care speech of all time...of ALL TIME....and I should have won this award!

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Oct 6, 2009 -> 08:01 PM) He was safe. just watched it frame by frame....he was out by inches. Crazy!

wow

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 11:33 AM) I thought last night's episode was hilarious with the doppelganger's... Mexican Marshall, Stripper Lilly, Lesbian Robin. Has HIMYM Cast Rachel Bilson as the Maybe Mama? Today 11:10 AM PDT by Megan Masters Courtesy: Amy Sussman/Getty Images for TRESemme How I Met Your Mother may really, truly, finally be revealing Ted's baby mama—and right now, the likely candidate is one of our absolute faves, Miss Rachel Bilson. A show rep confirms to us that Rachel has been picked for the potentially pivotal part, which ties in perfectly with reports from our best frenemy earlier this week stating the HIMYM 100th-episode celebration is set to be mom-centric. Show runners had been "spending a lot of time trying to cast the female role in Ted's story" for the landmark ep, said Ausiello. So is Rachel's character the real deal? While it seems likely that the adorable starlet is the mama-related lady in question, Bilson's rep tells us that she's only signed on to appear in the one episode. So is this just the next Stella (Sarah Chalke) to our Ted or will Bilson pop up again somewhere down the road as—wait for it!—the actual mother? Fingers crossed!