caeron

My father in law died of a brain thing. woke up in the night, had a head ache, keeled over, and died. Only good thing was that he could be an organ donor. Death sucks pretty much any time and any way.

I haven't gotten high in many a year. Come on California, make it easy for me :-)

At my company no. No bonus this year, and extremely unlikely next year either. But if we hit the numbers, the company doesn't get to say "oh, changed our minds, not paying you after all."

Last I heard there was suspicions that the wife knew, but not the sons. But they'll all lose everything, as well they should.

MsGuy, Just ignore 2hard2tame. He's clearly interested in starting threads about himself and gets upset when not enough people pay attention to him. The online equivalent of dancing on the table with a lampshade on your head.

Conway has it exactly right. In fact, I asked for one of those posts to be reviewed... and I'm generally considered a lefty. I believe the moderators don't have any desire for spitting matches. I hope not. But if you engage with integrity, you'll have an interesting conversation. I'm socially very left wing, economically right wing, and middle of the road on foreign diplomacy. I want to hear from all sides, but in a reasoned, and rational way. The way you might disagree at a friend's dinner party. You might express a strong opinion, but you wouldn't start insulting the other guests. Well, unless you were drunk and an ass. Which is how it comes off here.

Most of the companies that took money didn't go bankrupt. and wouldn't have. But because uncle sam is on the scene, they're supposed to not give up their pay to the corporation?

Then they should be clear that they're instituting pay cuts and why. Bonus is just part of the negotiated pay structure. If you hit the numbers, you get the kicker. For all I know, it may not be legal not to pay it. That's a retroactive pay cut. I think paying the bank's employees is a different issue than punishing the folks that got the banks screwed up on the first place.

I read a report about this company somewhere. Apparently, once you give them your credit card, they just keep billing you. They apparently think most guys won't want to admit to the nice lady at the credit card company that they're being taken by a company that sells dick enlargement pills.

People are hung up on the name. That's why many companies try to talk about it as variable compensation. It's part of my pay, it's not 'bonus'. If we hit certain financial targets, it's mine, end of story. It's not "if I've been a good boy" money.

It's politics. Talking out of both sides of your mouth is a job requirement. consistency of your position isn't. It's hardly unique to Steele or the republicans, though I'll grant that this is a pretty amusing bit of inconsistency.

Yeah, isn't that always the way? I had a scheduled appointment in southern cal one time. Guy blew me off on the phone, decided he didn't want to drive over to see me. whatever. But then a couple of months later he sent me several emails trying to hook up. I was kinda WTF. The area code of my cell I gave him wasn't local. But then I figured it was probably just as well he blew me off. That kinda stupid might be contagious.

I think they believe in the total abolishment of age of consent laws. I don't remember. I think that's clearly dangerous and appalling. But like adamsmith said, the government gives me not comfort in their turning teenage picadillos into legal horror shows.

I find that equipping my bedside table with a cum towel reduces the lost sock process

Yes, I've come to the opinion that our society, as a whole, just is too hung up about ideas of childhood and sexuality to have this debate in any kind of productive way. Interesting link. I think the changing definition of childhood is probably warranted in our much more complex industrial society, but biological sexuality hasn't changed just because society has creating a gap that we don't address. So we have people trapped in the liminal state between adulthood and childhood where they are sexual, but aren't supposed to be. But, as you say, we're not going to address it any time soon. It's hardly the most pressing social issue, but I'm saddened by the human cost. There was a guy in Maine who got convicted of statutory rape. I forget the exact details but it was with his girlfriend and she was 16 and he was 18, or there about. He had to register as a sex offender. Some vigilante decided that he was going to "protect his community" and murdered the man. Sadly, that's hardly an isolated case.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/09/po...ry4854325.shtml I suspect Eric Cantor is taking this approach because the poll numbers in the link above show that even most republicans approve of stem cell research. Certainly most Americans do.

He reminds of a total hottie pothead that I had a crush on in my early 20s. I guess it helps if you know who he is when you look at the screen captures.

While this makes good copy, I'm dubious. This strikes me as a lone loon trying to get attention, or an attempt to discredit the already discredited. I had some sympathy for NAMBLA in my naive youth, because I think the country needs healthy debate about age of consent laws and how best to handle these things. Of course there was nothing healthy about the debate they generated. I still wish there was something that could drive that debate.

There were 2 other threads about Rush here. If they aren't here now, that should tell you something. But go on trying to make a point on the Internet. I'm sure that will work out for you.

So if we don't care to have heated pointless arguments about politics, we're avoiding thought provoking debate. Do you not see where this line of discourse leads? These debates provoke, but I don't think it's thought they provoke.

Yeah, let's just shut down the whole internet cause people are doing pervy stuff on it!

What I didn't like, was that the previous administration wanted to call it a war, but didn't want to treat the prisoners like it. It's either a police issue, and courts apply, or its a war, and the geneva convention applies. I think there can be a case for both definitions, though I lean toward war myself, with the important caveat that you have to define a scope. Otherwise it becomes a blanket endorsement to lock up whoever you want, for as long as you want. That I don't feel comfortable with.

There were several. If they're gone, it's because political discourse is discouraged here. No one changes their mind about their politics based on what's posted on the internet, and the discussions end up in a lot of heat, and no light.

I don't know you, but you clearly have a chip on your shoulder. It's a free country, you're allowed to do what you want. But if you're really interested in having a conversation, this probably isn't the best approach. But then again, you create a thread just about you, so maybe you're getting exactly what you want, no?

I doubt it. Rush has made a career out of entertainingly trash other people. He's always the loyal opposition, even when the republicans held sway. That isn't the kind of person that can build something up.