sounds like the housing bust done for small businesses. Someday they will learn if it doesn't make sense and cant sustain itself, it should die.

[quote][b]Shalmaneser[/b] -
Do you want that to be a fanciful and hypothetical definition of "widespread" or a more realistic guess as to how many US citizens would think treason was a good idea? [/quote]

I personally don't think a widespread rebellion will happen unless a catastrophe happens. Be it economic or natural. I do think that the 'fanciful and hypothetical' thinking going on here is the naive thinking that the military will follow presidential orders regardless of what they are or how they go against their beliefs.

just reading thru some of these posts for giggles and I wondered..... in the case of a widespread uprising against a liberal govt, who do you think the military would side with?

[quote][b]Apox[/b] - ANOTHER excellent reason why we must not involve ourselves in Syria, is because the Syrian civil strife is . . .
NOT.
OUR.
BUSINESS.
[/quote]

...another reason...both sides suck. The only reason this has become an issue is Obama 'drew a red line' and it has been crossed. Now if we don't do something, we look weak to the rest of the Middle east, a region that only respects strength. Kinda like children pushing parents to see how far they can push mommy and daddy before they get disciplined. He has talked us into a corner and now we have to choose from two bad options...support the alqaeda or syrian regime and get mired in yet another mideast clusterrama or stand back and look weak to the rest of the mid east when perceived weakness will lead to loss of American lives down the road.

[quote][b]E.J.[/b] - The problem of which to use still presented itself, but it really didn't matter under those circumstances, did it?.[/quote]

depends on how much urine you want to wipe off the seat I guess.

[quote][b]E.J.[/b] -
I hear ya, Old Fashioned; your choice, but how much of that has to do with your own discomfort with human sexuality? What do you think is going to happen if your child witnesses the anatomy of a child of the opposite sex, or an adult for that matter? Why should it be such a secret? Do you think it will prompt the sudden desire to have sexual relations in a child of 7 years? If a child is hormonally ready for sex, then they better have been well-educated about sexuality and how to deal with it responsibly, don't you think? I suspect you just want to put off "that" conversation. And I do understand that, but starting very early, you build their information and understanding bit by bit over time so that it all seems normal and natural for them when the ultimate issues present themselves.
My four-year-old grandson had been in the habit of playing with himself, as is perfectly natural, when he caused an erection and went running to mommy all concerned about what was happening. She offered a limited explanation that calmed his worries. No talk of sexuality, but a matter-of-fact explanation as to how it happened and that it was to be expected. Also a suggestion that he not play with himself to avoid it happening. No big deal and good information for him to have, bit by bit.
[/quote]

at a young age (toddler to young ele) children are learning about their bodies and I have no problem with discussions about that with them. I do have a problem have a problem with them being exposed to the naked opposite sex in late ele/middle school age as they're becoming aware of their own sexuality. At that point, I still have no problem explaining any questions they might have, but I don't see the need to have what I'd describe as soft core porn until they're ready for it. There's a reason that an estimated 22% of children are becoming sexually active between the ages of 9 and 11. While the overall average in America is still 16 (down from 17 five years ago tho), the bottom end keeps dropping. I'd personally attribute it to lack of parental involvement with their kids and being exposed to sex too early before they're ready to deal with it responsibly.

[quote][b]Tewise[/b] - @sweept: my tv never killed anybody or was part of a mass murder.
[/quote]

Your wife could kill something tho...better lock her up. Seriously tho, an inanimate object doesn't kill and locking stuff up inside your house is securing it. Scenario: someone breaks into your house and steals your bottle of draino and kills 15 ppl at a restaurant via poisoning....should you be charged with murder? Sure someone can break the law and overcome your security, that's not your fault. I'm sure you're an antigun zealot trying to make a point here.... but it just doesn't compute in this case.

[quote][b]Tewise[/b] - @BorisBadEnuff:
evidently background check somewhere kept them from buying guns, so they can always count on gun owners that don't secure their weapons, be sure to give them thanks
[/quote]

so when they break into your house and steal your tv..you didn't secure it? Or they break in and have their way with your kids/wife/etc it's your fault that happened...not the criminal's fault. As for the incoming crying about safes/gun safes/trigger locks etc they are all easily opened/broken/removed....just check youtube sometime on how to do it. I have trigger locks to keep my weapons safe from my kids. In no way would I ever thing thatd stop a criminal from taking them.

[quote][b]davidxto[/b] - This might be just a little off topic, but has anyone every been to Rhode Island?[/quote]

Was in providence last year for a conference....didnt see anything there thatd make me want to make a return visit. Walking from the train station to downtown (flew into Boston and trained down) and a policeman told me to be careful of roving gangs in the downtown district at night.... Made me wish they had reciprocation laws.

[quote][b]E.J.[/b] - Surely you are not that uninformed! Homosexuality is about sexual orientation only. [/quote]

Yes I knew that....but the title of the story said 'gays'... I was trying to make that distinction.

My problem would be that I don't want my son/daughter exposed to the naked opposite sex until late middle school or so. Call me old fashioned I guess.

so....how many fireworks did they have to empty to get the blackpowder needed to make the bombs....

[quote][b]Mr Lightborn[/b] - @sweept:
No, on both sides of that question.
[/quote]

Then I guess theyre just talking about ppl that are in the process of a sex change? It wouldn't be cross-dresser since a lot of them dont consider themselves the other sex.

One one hand, I wouldn't have a problem with it...on the other, my child (male or female) wouldn't go to that school system.

I also would question males (with male bodies and musculature) considering themselves female playing female sports. They'd kill female softball pitchers..they're like 40 ft? away? Or if it made it to the college lvls, females losing out to gender confused males on scholarships, records, etc. Or if it made it to college lvls, would there be males willing to abuse the system saying they see themselves as females for easy scholarships?

@Melmarino for some thoughts for giggles.

heh no the fossil fuel industries is killing us atm via fuel costs for our trucks.

I also don't like the idea of ga money going to other states too much. I know it saves money in the short term, but it kills jobs in the energy sector for our state in the short and long term (construction and plant personnel) and these are the high paying jobs so many are craving at this point. If it was an idea of spending money on wind power out of state to force our state to build those same resources, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Problem is, with current technology, Ga cant generate wind power. That mean no matter how much money we pour out to other states, we cant force Ga to use wind power. If that makes sense.

I dont mind a 4 yo 'having' a rifle to shoot along side dad... having it out so they can get to it at anytime is criminal imo and the parents should be held accountable for endangerment at least if not responsible for the death of the 2yo.

[quote][b]catman[/b] -
click the link
[/quote]

we researched and discussed this into the dirt in feb I think it was. Wind energy just isnt efficient in Ga at this point. Thats not to say it wont be in the future as theyre able to get better tech and better ways to overcome the problems faced in Ga. Instead of using just one link, read thru 100s like we did for that discussion btw. Most sites are slanted in different ways trying to make their own point. Takes a lot of reading to get at what is real or not. Admittedly, this is the first time Ive read anything about shipping power from the midwest (which is the 3rd best wind generation area in the world from what I remember) and might be a viable resource. While I dont have any problems paying for energy out of state, I would have problems sending billions out of state to build wind farms (or any type of energy plant for that matter) out of state. That would just be money and jobs lost.

edit: once again, I am all for all forms of green energy, when they make economic sense. At this point they just don't. Ill be right there applauding when they do tho.

Why is Georgia Power wasting its rate-payers' money building another nuclear power plant?

because we can economically feasibly build nuclear plants here in Ga but not wind farms. Even the idea of coastal winds farms in Ga didnt pan out economically since (at beat) it was 4 to 6 times the cost per mW as compared current costs of energy production. Maybe it makes sense to pay other states that have economically viable sources of wind energy. Havent looked into research on that yet.

I guess a question I have is do gay ppl all see themselves as females? or just males that like males? (or females seeing themselves as males on the other side of the equation).

this story makes a new world record for how many times they 'figure' and 'assume' that the upcoming months will be better than jan/march time epriod. Can you feel the sunshine?

I just figured they hated the homeless and wanted to make short, uncomfortable seating so they couldnt sleep there.

@Lady of the Lake: Im always careful working to watch all the drunk college kiddies staggering home from downtown athens.

Id like to see him get a real chance at a full season without all the media circus stuff. If he tanks, then fine, at least he was given a chance. To this point, that hasn't happened. Closest he got was 2 seasons ago with Denver where he pulled out a respectable record after taking over a losing team. It doesn't have to be pretty as long as he wins.

[quote][b]Scott Anderson[/b] - So, it's unconstitutional for a state to require a voter to have state issued photo ID to vote (exercise a right) but it is completely within the power of the government to require background checks, state issued photo ID, and fees in order to own or carry a gun (also a right). Interesting.
[/quote]

actually, I don't think there's a constitutional right to vote either

[quote][b]mpd0.59[/b] - The recent FCC changes under Obama verified and removed a lot of fraudulently obtained phones, as well as reducing the subsidy to valid phones[/quote]

actually nothing has changed yet....the changes go into effect in 2013 and they expect to 'save' 25 million dollars... which they have already planned on how to spend. Unfortunately they're already putting the 25 million that they plan to 'save' into play when the FCC chair said he had doubts that the changes would have that big of an effect. So not only are they not planning on using the 'saved' money to decrease the size of the program. The supposed 'saved 25 million' is 'vaporware' money that they already know wont happen. Does that not make any kind of real life sense to anyone else?

@Man_Of_The_Mountain: ...except for the fact that the program has gone from 143 million (with a M) in 2008 to 1.75 billion (B) in 2011. Not sure where the blame goes for the exponential growth over the last few years, but it has become a monster during Obama's watch. I dont really think the program is bad for what it's supposed to do but, as with any govt program, no oversight leads to misuse and fraud.

edit: In 2012 it 'only' went up to 2.1B$. The FCC put out some changes in 2012/2013 and are hoping they will curb some of the fraud to the tune of 25 million in "savings". They plan to use this supposed "savings" to build a program giving high speed internet to the poor. I personally love how they call this "savings" and plan to spend it instead of giving it back to the tax/fee payers and shrinking the program.

[quote][b]RealtorStephen[/b] - Your feelings towards banks, mortgages, and tax payers shouldn't be directed at Ridge Pointe, but at Washington and the state house in Atlanta.[/quote]

I dont blame the developers at all. Theyre just doing what make sense in a capitalist sense. There's a demand for houses at this point and they are filling that demand. It's not their fault in the least that the demand is being artificially created by the federal govt and isnt sustainable. What happens to demand when the govt starts to unload these houses they're buying up and sitting on? What happens when the govt runs out of fake money and stops buying up the foreclosure houses? It is yet another short term near sighted fix that will make us all sunshiny and happy for now, but just doesn't make sense in the long term.