Texsox

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 03:06 PM) The only people hurt by this are not government, though we will all feel much pain (for no reason). Who do you think you are sticking it to? Continuing to borrow limitless amunts of money is actually doing the sticking. But it only sticks people who actually pay taxes. It's about not sticking it to future generations. It's about not borrowing money to give us s***. The economy is based on borrowed money, that doesn't last forever. But most of America starts crying like petulant children at the supermarket checkout.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 12:06 PM) Hell I consider myself a regular poster and I'm only at 10k! Just craziness. I'm glad you said regular and not normal, there are no normal posters around here.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 10:54 AM) They should do it like "Whose Line is it Anyways?" If they want to filibuster, the rest of Congress draws ideas out of a hat and the speaker must speak (or do improvisational comedy) on that topic. Awesome idea.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 1, 2013 -> 09:47 AM) If the Mayans were so smart, why didn't they stop the Spanish? no one expects the Spanish inquisition

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 10:38 AM) So apparently there is no risk that the ipads which pilots use in the cockpit can't malfunction. It would seem easier to determine that the pilot,s iPad is malfunctioning when it is the only one turned on. Funny we gave up nail clippers and water to fly but not iPads and cell phones.

There is actually a nice follow up to that article from an opposing viewpoint. I rarely read comments but it was the first one and caught my eye. I don't mind a few minutes of turning off my electronics.

If only other money was coming into the treasury than what is borrowed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:59 AM) Who gets to define what's "substantive" or "on subject?" The idea is unworkable I know, but most of the time they start reading the phone book or other such nonsense. perhaps they must speak on the bill they are tying to prevent going to a phone?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 09:20 AM) And if you start suing sperm donors, you are going to scare off a lot of them, taking away families only chances at natural childbirth. I support the exclusion for fertilization that go through recognized medical channels. I believe we should scare off situations like this. Would you allow a contract between a wife and a husband when he does not want kids but will agree only if he would not be responsible for child support if they break up? How would that be different than using a sperm donor?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 09:13 AM) They had legal documents drawn up at the time of the donation. This isn't a grey thing. It is pretty black or white. The intent was never there for this man to be involved in the child process past his donation. You can draw up any contract you like but if it is contrary to the law it isn't valid.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:58 AM) why couldn't the donor have a contract drawn up and notarized at the time of donation? 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:58 AM) why couldn't the donor have a contract drawn up and notarized at the time of donation? 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.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:51 AM) No he didn't. He knowingly allowed someone else to father a child. If you instituted a system which put sperm and egg donors on the hook for kids, you could cripple the cottage industry which allows people who are unable to conceive children on their own. 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 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.

He knowingly fathered a child. The child that is walking around his half his DNA. Now his child that needs support. Some people think we should now pay to raise the child. Do taxpayers really have a higher moral or legal responsibility than the child's own father? I don't mind my tax dollars backing up parents when they are struggling, but I mind when my tax dollars are assumed to be the primary and we look for ways to excuse the actual parent from any responsibility. Between and innocent child and a perhaps naive and clueless adult, I'm siding with the innocent child.

After a great start I am now 19-10 on my bowl picks, I feel the prize slipping away.

There was an exception for anonymous donors through recognized medical channels.

The right to child support is with the child, the law was set up to protect the children. If you start allowing parents to waive the child's rights then some spouses could be bullied and intimidated into waiving those rights.

Abstract? I don't see where government is abstract?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 1, 2013 -> 07:59 PM) 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. It's like walking into a restaurant knowing you have $10 left on your credit limit and buying a $20 meal and expecting the credit card company to bail you out. Or acting shocked there even is a limit. You have to be pretty stupid to keep doing that. It should be a warning to stop the spending. You have to live within your limits. But some people can't seem to grasp that eventually you have to pay back the loans. It's one thing I really dislike about liberals who want all this stuff but can't seem to grasp that it isn't free. The government should not routinely spend more than what taxpayers send in.

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.

I am really enjoying Moby Duck. The story of 28,800 bath toys that fell overboard in the Pacific and where they would up. Part adventure story, part environmental warning.

I am really enjoying Moby Duck. The story of 28,800 bath toys that fell overboard in the Pacific and where they would up. Part adventure story, part environmental warning.

Nicely played

I wonder if I will it 50,000 this year.