arch stanton

Give him a year and he'll travel 1000 miles in the cold to get away from her.

Basketball bores the hell out of me.

Peach cobbler with ice cream.

"I didn't mean to spray him with pepper spray. I meant to shine a laser in his eye."

Was that so hard?

On to the greater point. I'm referring to laws restricting rights or creating outright bans. There should be some standard higher than 50.1% opinion at a given time.

yes, laws have never been soley based on preventing harm.

So, no. You do not have a point other than to be contradictory. Would you care to share an opinion or are you afraid that a Lifetime clone will just follow you around nitpicking your opinions so he can later masturbate to the thought that he's the smartest guy in his mirror?  

Since when? 

When did I start belling this? Sorry I can't give you an  exact date. Do you have a point other than to be contradictory?

So laws only or should only exist for preventing potential harm?

When it comes to laws that ban or restrict the rights of individuals, then yes.

The point is there ARE restrictions on marriage.

There is actual scientific proof that incest relationships produce severely damaged children so it's possible to argue a likely harm to the greater society from these marriages. You could argue any specific category individually. The point here is that giving legal status to same sex couples does not harm anyone outside the couple so the only purpose for banning it is discriminatory. In the balance between anarchy and police state you have to have a basis for creating law. You should have to prove that a law prevents potential harm and not just that you have done the math and think you can get 51% of the current Congress to vote your way. 

Been a while since I left Orange County. Last trip to Knott's was in 1976.

A farewell get together at Hooters.Too many wings and fries. 3 pints of Blue Moon. Got home and found half a quart of pistachio pistachio ice cream in the freezer. Total fat ass night.

I don't think that the government should tell people who they can and cannot marry.

 

So I can marry my father? Sister? 1st cousin? Both brothers? My uncle Frank and his wife?

ok

I'm not a lawyer but I never allow that fact to dissuade me from pitching in my 2 cents. I see two options here.

option 1- Marriage is legally defined as being between one man and one woman thus a clear violation of equal protection thereby nullifying all uses of marriage in legal findings and documents. Everyone, gay or straight,  go get a lawyer and register your civil union at the local courthouse.

option 2- Marriage is legally defined as being between any two consenting adults and we prepare for the bigamists to come out of their hiding places and create the next big argument.

Personally I would define marriage as a religious ceremony with no bearing on law and require all couples, or any group of consenting adults, to draw up a cohabitation contract and have it registered at the courthouse. It could be for any duration or have any enforceable stipulations but the care and handling of children would need to be clearly defined.

He miscalculated the rope length. This article should hang on the wall of every math classroom in every school in the country.

Is SAT score the key statistic in measuring public school success? Any data on graduation rate? Percentage of graduates that are accepted in higher education? 

And what drives the cost increase? Probably salaries for all employees in the system going from shameful to livable. Are these increases any more dramatic than other government sectors increases in the same 40 years? 

Speaking of teachers and prisons, maybe if California spent more on education, including teacher salaries and pensions, they wouldn't have to spend $8 billion to incarcerate 167,000 people. It's the circle jerk of government folly. Follow your money to the groups with the best group of former elected officials turned lobbyist.

14 mostly by process of elimination.

So who should pay for teacher pensions?

Not if it brings the California economy to halt because the state is on the hook for the majority of it.

Is it the pensions that are breaking the state or is it the payouts to people who don't actually spend their adult lives working?

I make a killer fried rice that combines many ingredients. The key is maintaining proper ratios and not letting the complimentary parts drown out the good stuff. 

If you have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of whiskey and you leave it in sight of a man who works as a live-in caretaker, have you already indicted yourself on a charge of criminal unawareness of the way things work on Planet Earth?

It's what they do.

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

 

I guess you missed that part.

I think he's saying that it doesn't only apply to citizens.

Not what I said. Unions are never happy and make unreasonable demands. Just look at the California teacher's retirement system being $64 billion in the hole. Unions have politicians by the short and curlies.

Are you implying that teachers don't deserve a pension? 

Yes. American workers should ensure record corporate profits and only demand the same standard of living that Chinese workers enjoy.