StrangeSox

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 09:04 AM) rushing attempts =! using your feet to avoid pressure yup

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 09:06 AM) Generally because the right to support is the child's and the child isn't there to agree. The entire child support system is to assure the child has adequate support. It isn't "for" the parent. Of course there is an exception for donors that are done through recognized channels. Another situation I am aware of is a couple I know married after the husband had a vasectomy. At the time she didn't think she wanted kids. Later she did. He did not, but eventually agreed. They used a sperm donor. Later, since they were married when the child was conceived, he was responsible for child support, same as if the child was adopted. So why shouldn't a notarized legal contract at the time of the donation be part of the recognized channels?

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 09:01 AM) Did you miss where this did not happen with any medical oversight? I agree that for anonymous donations or ones that are conducted through established legal medical channels the sperm or egg donor should not be held responsible. This is different. When you recognize fertilization that occurs outside of established medical procedures then you force women to argue that there was sex involved to receive support. Any dead beat dad could say he just donated the sperm and that the woman later, without his consent, self fertilized. That is a dangerous precedent. I don't think the woman is contesting the facts of the situation, though. The state is saying, regardless of the facts, he must pay.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 09:06 AM) if state law doesnt recognize the donation outside of the normal medical channels, does it really matter if it is notarized? I'm asking why the state law couldn't be changed to accommodate situations outside of doctors' offices. I don't know if there's a good medical reason to heavily favor artificial insemination by doctors or if its just rent-seeking.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:55 AM) I agree. It would also be nice if they had to speak on something substantive or on subject instead of reciting the Declaration of Independence or recipes. Who gets to define what's "substantive" or "on subject?"

why couldn't the donor have a contract drawn up and notarized at the time of donation?

Balta, I don't think we've been watching the same Bears team this year. Cutler has been running out of the pocket and scrambling for yards a ton.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 03:42 PM) And to what degree we don't know. Maybe the school will keep a single gun locked in a safe only to be used in emergencies. It's up to the individual school districts. All this is doing is providing people with police-level training (the same test administrated to police officers) in the use of firearms. Who cares, you made an polar-opposite prediction from what Balta said and indicated that we're going to be getting strong gun controls and that talking about arming teachers is just silly because it's not going to happen.

It's firearms training in support of arming teachers in the classroom.

the world is run by morons

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 01:40 PM) What exactly did Obama NOT get in this negotiation? A measly 200K income gap between his original 250k threshold which he later backed off of like a month after the election? The estate tax affecting slightly bigger estates than he wanted? Obama gave an inch, the GOP gave up a mile. He gave up his "hard line" of 250k, which resulted in significantly less revenue. He got no extension on the debt ceiling, which was a major early "must-have" for him. But, more importantly, you can't look at this in isolation. He gave up his biggest negotiating leverage and will be in a much weaker position for the debt ceiling.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 01:31 PM) I'd just like to re-highlight this because I think there will be a few laughs. yeah that's just insane.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 12:21 PM) My girlfriend got mugged at gunpoint this past weekend. As long as these damn criminals have them, law abiding citizens should have them as well. If the police had an overwhelming force, then you may have a point but as far as I know the CPD are well understaffed so I think people should take definitely invest in their protection and cops should give people some leeway if they do gun down these miserable waste of lives. We'd like to limit the overall supply of guns such that it becomes much more difficult for criminals to obtain them in the first place instead of locking into an arms races.

What's pretty stupid is to suppress your economy for no good reason in the middle of a recession or a weak recovery, causing another recession. It's not like walking into a restaurant because I'm not a sovereign government capable of printing my own currency and issuing bonds. The US government has no credit limit that it doesn't impose on itself. It has pressures from treasury interest but, right now at least, those pressures are non-existent. The US debt can either be paid back in full, monetized through inflation over time, or grow naturally with the growth of the economy. Paying off the entire national debt would be hugely deflationary and undesirable, anyway. National debt is just another way of adding to the money supply. While it has its own risks, of course, it can't be analogized to personal or business finances. edit: also, LOL at spending and deficits being a liberal-caused problem.

good series of an interview with Tarrantino by Henry Gates Jr. about Django: http://www.theroot.com/views/tarantino-unc...-django-trilogy http://www.theroot.com/views/tarantino-unc...n-word?page=0,0 http://www.theroot.com/views/tarantino-unc...3-white-saviors

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 10:30 AM) BTW, 6 people already killed this year in Chicago (two days for those doing the math). With a ban on handguns on the books for years, and already having laws against straw purchases, please again explain to me how any more restrictions are going to stop criminals from committing criminal acts. I know right! It's like no one has even commented on this one single time in this entire thread!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 08:02 AM) Its called vote counting. Once there are enough votes on the table to pass the bill, it leaves the rest of the GOP room to vote against the bill so they can be on record as being against it for the next elections. They'd be stupid to do it any other way with their platform. But they broke the "Hastert Rule" to get this bill passed.

You may want to tell the most prominent gun advocate interest group and their supporters how silly that argument is since they're still making it.

Well, the 2011 debacle was pretty unusual, so do you mean it'll be like that (dumb brinksmanship) or it'll be like all of the other times, a minor procedural bill that the minority party feigns principled opposition to while doing nothing to stop it.

So how close to forcing a default on the debt (or requiring some extraordinary actions) do you think we'll get?

Right, no idea what they're talking about, like insisting that there is or would be a problem of thousands of guns smuggled in from Mexico and not the other way around.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 1, 2013 -> 08:03 PM) Why doesn't the Senate do anything, save the last day of the year? They didn't do s*** for 2 years and it was quite on purpose. But again, we know that answer, don't we? that you are making things up again? No, explain to me why the House, let alone the Senate, should waste its time with dozens of "repeal pbamacare" bills.

Wisconsin's AD paid himself 118k to coach today's game.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 1, 2013 -> 07:01 PM) So how about the Senate actually have some balls and do something, like vote on House bills? Oh wait... they're on your side, so they're doing the right thing. STFU with the rhetoric, because one is no better then the other. Why would the Senate waste even more time by voting on a bill that will fail or be quickly vetoed?

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 1, 2013 -> 06:34 PM) I believe this hard of a fight will result in the very best compromise we could hope for. I really hope there is no move to increase the debt ceiling. We may finally be putting the brakes on government borrowing. And what? Default on the debt? The debt ceiling is just a dumb self-imposed cap to not pay for the things Congress has already voted for.