RyanH

UV light is killer on plastic. Free radicals are formed from exposure over time and change the chemical composition of the plastic...in a nutshell, the plastic has cancer. Todd's suggestion of sanding makes the most sense aside from trashing and replacing it. PS--UV is emitted do some degree with almost all lights, except perhaps infrared (heating lamps).

RyanH is going to pick up his wand this spring again and go after some of the homes in his area. Judging by the multitude of dirty homes, I'm guessing there is a shortage of qualified workers. Plus, Pwashing is damned fun.

Budges suprlus = more taxes collected than spent. Plan on politicians to fix this problem immediately, although by increasing spending, not by reducing taxes. Relative peace = keep your mouth shut and accept the bullying. I'm sure the members aboard the USS Cole thought the peace they endured was nice. I'm sure the victims from the FIRST trade towers attack thought the peace we had THEN was blissful. Oh yes, it's so easy to dismiss inaction as peace. Felatio = ....... = ...... = .....hmmmm, can't find any problems there. Of course ,the whole purjury thing is ignored. The tax increaess are ignored. Hey, atleast he had sence to pull out of Kosovo once the media turned it's head instead of making a career out of it. I still maintain that the ONLY thing of any importance Clinton did while in office was to get the line item veto put in place. Too bad more politicians don't make use of that little gem. I'd like to take a fraction of the money we are spending on Iraq and build a wall around us. I'd like to take another fraction of that amount and invest in fusion research for cheap energy. Then I'd like to use the results of the research, if they prove fruitful, and help to develop other nations so we don't have to keep supporting them...give the tool of agriculture and let them solve their own problems.

Earth First!. We can destroy the other planets later

It's your integrity and the way you present yourself that combats the lowballers. It's not something you actively do to work against them, it's something you do that sets yourself apart from them. Effectively, you are in an entirely different class of competition. Ken Fenner has made some truly fantastic posts here on this concept, much more elegantly than I can reproduce from memory.

Someone should host an ipewood derby.

There's a definite reason for that. If I ever make it to a RT I'll have to tell my funny story of, um, a guy I know, and what happened to me--I mean him--at a certain Disney resort. :photo:

Celeste, That's something else that really gripes me. People can't even manufacture their own liquor for personal consumption because the government wants to tax it. Talk about a limitation on the mind. As a chemical dork, fermented and distilled libations are my "cup of tea." I can go to the store and buy apples, grapes, rice, potatoes, etc., and nobody raises an eyebrow. I can throw them in the garden and they can rot and nobody says a thing. But let me put them in a large bin and keep them in the basement for a few months, all of a sudden someone cries "mash" and I would get taxed $1.28 for that?? That's one the few things that actually sucks about America. When I was in Germany, people were actually proud about their individual endeavors of making and improving their own personal brews. They invited me to their homes to test out their own unique styles of wines, champagnes, beers, brandies, etc. Here, you get fined. Gripe me, I"m guessing the big liquor distributors have had some say in that somewhere along the lines. Can anyone point out a case where making your own wine harms anyone else or limits their freedoms?? Oh well, I guess NC could be worse...in GA O.S. is illegal. Hmmm. (OS: Clinton's most infamous contribution to what minimal legacy he leaves behind)

And don't forget the rules about carrying around more than $8k cash on you (or somewhere around that limit). Government should have no say in how much cash you can carry at any given time. I guess one can make the argument that the paper currency belongs to the treasury, and that having large quantities like that may increase the risk that it is destroyed, but I doubt that's the case. Yeah, I'd clean up some of these stupid government interferences. Hilary would probably say "nobody needs that much cash, so they shouldn't be carrying it. Besides, we (government) can do more that money than he can." Shiver me timbers if that woman gets any more authority than she already has.

Model it after the car in iRobot or Minority Report...both looked very sleek going either direction, upside down, and sidwways :) Funny you bring this up...a coworker and I were discussing the "best PD car" and ways we could build the absolute car. We use 3D modeling software dailiy, so we could do it in that and calculate the center of gravity. We couple that with the moment of inertia for the wheels and axles and get the best balance out of those guys. THEN we could stick the model into our air flow analysis program (virtual wind tunnel) and see where we could shave corners or add spoilers to make use of directed air pressure. Of course, after 30 minutes of passionate discussion and diagrams, we looked at each other and realized what a bunch of dorks we are and that the ultimate purpose is to have fun and spend some bonding time with our kids. Of course, if I teach HIM to use the programs and methods........

I really really really really hope it's not red. I think the white balance on my camera was off when that was taken as it appears to be more blonde now. Personally I hope it darkens up. This Verizon internet phone has been great...I brought my laptop but the hospital doesn't have wi-fi...this has been a very easy ordeal for me while they have been resting. Babies are cool! And like every other father's kid, mine is the coolest! I have a shirt on order... "Worlds Greatest 6,523,156,290 th Dad!"

Dribble a little on your hand. If the contact spots turn white, it's a safe bet that it'll work okay for cleaning. I spilled some on me a few years back and it burned like hell, more than acid. Heed Rod's points, though...decomposing peroxide liberates pure oxygen gas and can make for a flammable environment under the right conditions. It's also possible that the stuff has decomposed to plain water by now if it has a vent lid on it or he vented it while draining.

Thanks. No, not a Jr., although the wife really wanted it. I don't think I've done enough important things in life yet to warrant naming another life after myself :) http://www.holbird.com

Okay, time to clear the air. First stance...I think anything that causes someone to become addicted to it's use is bad. That "thing" can be drugs, cigs, porn, ***, snickers, or coffee. When you lose the capacity to control your own motives, you have lost to some other motivation. In a nutshell, everything is good in moderation so long as it does not affect the life and liberty of someone else. As for how this debate got started, I am against a government establishing and enforcing a law where the primary target is an individual whose actions only affect themselves. When I look at drugs, for the most part the person most affect by the self destructive tendency is the user. One might argue that the drug "trade" causes wars in our streets, children to be born or left into impoverished and abusive situations, or people to act more dangerously than they would off drugs. In my opinion, I belive the violence associated with the drug trade stems from the illegal nature. Like I've said many times, you don't aggressively protect yourself when there is no possibility of a negative consequence. Basically, the drug trade is a violent one because there are aggressors: dealers and police. The aggression may come from one or both parties and can be mixed within the parties (dealer vs. dealer, for example), but that's an issue of human behavior, not a direct result of the drugs themselves. Does drug use destroy familes? Yes. But that question in itself is a straw man, set up as an intention to knock down the argument for legalizing. I know of three different, unrelated couples who currently are in abusive relationships. In all three, the abuse happens when one of the members is drunk. One might argue that while hard drugs are more dangerous, alchohol is more readily available and that's why it outweighs the statistics in abuse. One can extrapolate on that argument and say that if you combine the extremely dangerous nature of hard drugs with the easy access of alcohol, you are creating a firestorm with unknown reprocussions. I say this: out of the millions of people in our country, how many--of legal ability--have abstained from alcohol abuse because of their understanding of the consequences? I'm betting a dizzying majority of our population. For the hard questions: Do I still want drugs legalized? Short answer--I don't want drugs legalized, whether the qualifier is "still" or "did you ever want them...." I want to see them decrmininalized, there is a difference. It's very easy to try and destroy the argument by setting it up in a manner that it destroys innoence, such as "getting a hit of extasy with your happy meal." The absurdity of that juxtaposition doesn't warrant argument, but here it is anyway. Whatever argument you currently use for any other substance that is known to cause an alteration in control over personal actions, apply the limitations to the drugs. You don't make this stuff freely available by marketing it, but you do remove the seriously negative implications associated with conviction. In this manner, you are still minimizing exposure, but you are taking away the incentive for people to use violent means to obtain or protect it. That's the first step. The next step would be to raise awaremess and support for demonizing the substance. Offer reahabilition for people who want it. Currently, if you are a drug addict and need assistance in overcoming your addiction, you are effectviely admitting to using them. There is no penalty for attending an AA meeting, but as long as it is a *criminal* act to be under the influence, you are going to seriously reduce the number of people looking to cure themselves. Would I vote for drugs to be legalized in my town? Again, not "legalized." For obvious reasons, I would prefer them to not be made available for brown bagging at the gas station. But I also don't want a user to endanger others by speeding away from a cop because he has some drugs in his trunk. Start off by allowing a "what happens in your house stays in your house" policy as it relates to drugs. We apply the same limitations we do for alcohol or certain presecription drugs: no operating heavy equipment, no shooting up at the bowling alley, etc. When I was in Jamaica they had this same policy. I had easy access to pretty much any drug I wanted, and I wouldn't have been arrested for it. But when cops walked by a group who were working out the details of a drug deal, a "find a more appropriate place for that" statment from the cops was all that was needed for the guys to disband with few words. No running away, no cops tackling someone and putting a knee in their back for posession, no fear of guns being drawn by either party, just amicable results. Parents told their kids about the evils of drugs and treated abusers as lowlifes, there was no allure to using drugs. Hell, I think I would have a harder time telling parents they need to be accountable that I would have convincing people that we should stop filling our prisons with drug offenders. I don't know if I answered the direct questions or not...probably not as I'm going on about 50 hours of frequently interrupted naps, but I hope I made my point. I would prefer to see *** offenders, thieves, wreckless drivers, etc. occupying our prisons than someone who only bought a joint because they wanted a little fun that night. Surely someone wants to discuss matters of fiscal importance, right? Is everything hinging on drug use?? And John T., you're right. This thread is all in fun. Cheers!

Sorry John...my wife went into early labor yesterday morning and gave birth to our son. I haven't kept up with this thread. When I left it was 4 pages...now 8??? Holy crap what did I start! I'll have to go back and re-read the yes/no question as I don't remember what the question was. And that's not a political dodge :)

How's that? Yin and Yang? I value personal freedom, choice, accountability, and responsbility. Hillary values turning the population into group of slaves dependent upon the government for their every need. That's like matter and anti-matter, only in government that doesn't result in explosions, it results in a endless impass.

See my comment about economic reasons for not doing them...they impair judgement and performance and most jobs would not allow you to be on them. Why don't more people show up to work drunk? Alcohol is legal. Why don't more people light up a cigar in their office? Because action has been taken at the local or professional level to prohibit these things. You miss my point...my goal is to take the millions we are dumping into the war for an outcome that will never be realize and redivert the efforts to remove the demand, not the supply. The way we are currently approaching this concept reminds me of hundreds of guys climbing all over a dam about to rupture patching with duct tape. And when more leaks spring up, we hire more guys and buy more duct tape to block the flow, never thinking to redirect the river. Police and law enforcement have been trapped in the paradigm of prevention for as long as I've been born. I've seen the devastation drugs has on families and I've personally known people who have been so far under that they were in a state worse than death. I also know people who have recovered, gone to treatment (often under the order of the courts), and brought themselvs out of the state and have become productive again. They teach their experiences to others, and in turn create new avenues for rehabilitation. The laws didn't keep them from obtaining drugs then, and they aren't what prevent them from turning back to drugs now. It is the knowledge they now have and the contrast of before / after that keeps them straight. Make all the laws and issue all the guns you want...you'll NEVER pass a law that limits man's thought and desire, and as long as that desire (demand) exist, again I say, you'll never win. You'll just keep patching holes in an inevitably broken system. But the whole "drug" thing is but one of the many many areas for improvement in our country, and low on my list of gripes with what is wrong with how we are approaching things.

John, Your points about just walking down to the candy store are valid, and if addictions form they can't be as easily broken as alcoholism and cigarrettes, although a similar addiction might be argued about eating fast food (obesity is certainly an epidemic in our country). I'm comparing the situation we have to the situations in some other countries where drugs aren't necessarily legal, but they aren't criminalized to the same degree ours are. Drugs are available, people know where to get them, they aren't nearly as expensive because they aren't as difficult to obtain, and there aren't constant wars between gangs to control selliing ares. As for addiction, it is a well known fact in these areas that the drugs cause impairment and can destroy your life, and it's this knowledge that keeps people from jumping into using them. You can use persuasion by force, which we know does not consistently work, or you can provide better education against using them. There can be economic incentives to not use drugs as well. Testing positive for drug use at a place of employment can result in termination...workplaced don't fire you now for using them because they're illegal, they understand that the impairment can negatively affect performance. Similarly to DUI, driving while under the influence of drugs can result in similar penalties. We have open container laws for alcohol, so apply the same principle to drugs...don't smoke or shoot up in public. My goal is to see an inversion in the supply/demand theory when it comes to drugs. We are expending such a huge effort to reduce the supply, but as long as the demand remains strong, we will never win the war. Like I said earlier, simply passing something into law doesn't remove the desire in man's mind. But if you act to diminish the demand for this stuff, kind of like the Truth.Org commercials that are popping up, you can start working from the other end of the problem to obtain the same solution.

I had picked up a combo meal from some fast food joint and was passing a panhandler on the exit ramp of the interstate. I was in a particularly good mood so I put down the window and gave it to him...I mean, if you're begging for money to buy food, I just saved him the trip to the food place, right? Apparently he wasn't really hungry because when I passed the same spot two hours later, he was gone and the food was sitting on the ground, unwrapped and untouched. That was going to be a really good sandwich, too. The ******* didn't even have the decency to dispose of it properly

How much do you think is currently being spent to fight the war in our streets? It seems to me the violence stems from the scarcity of supply, the high cost of the product, and the determination not to return to jail. Know why so many gang wars still exist? Arguments over drug "turfs." Who has the "say so" to deal their drugs and where. How about fighting the addiction and desire to start? Currently we're doing nothing to diminish the demand, only the supply. How about working to reduce the demand, then the supply will go elsewhere. Amazing how simple that concept is, aint it? Actually, now that I think about it, I am not explaining it completely the way I imagine it in my head. Perhaps "legalizing" isn't the proper word..."decriminalizing" works much better.

On prostitution and other issues.... Someone said that I am immoral because of my stances. Am I? Do you simply think that by legislating something you remove the intent from the minds of men? Making something illegal doesn't remove it from society, it just makes it less visible, and it makes it more dangerous. In Atlanta the DA and investigators are running around in a wild orgy (pardon the pun) trying to find previous "clients" of a famous porn star -turned prostitute. Seriously, what harm has it done to our society that these guys had *** with someone for money? I wasn't harmed by it. My neighbors kid was never affected by the act, although now his parents are having to explain why the media whores are constantly talking about it. Prostitution doesn't affect anyone's rights and it doesn't prevent me from pursuing life, liberty, and happiness. So I don't see the big deal. If prostitution is illegal, how about *** on the first date? How about swingers? How about people who go out to clubs every week simply looking to "hook up?" How come it only becomes illegal when you bring a financial exchange into the picture? I can go to a club and find a girl and have a night of fun, and nobody says anything. But the moment she says "That'll be $XX" and I accept, all of a sudden I'm a criminal? Sounds to me like the only reason it's illegal is because the money exchange won't be taxed. Another reason for the FairTax. Placing limits and laws will not improve morality in any society. If you want to attack the degradation of our morality, there are two sources: our media, and Hollywood. Our culture is so fixated on entertainment it's sickening, and both of those sources pander to that. Why else does our news show mostly apartment fires, wrecks, murders, American Idol highlights from the night before, etc. Most don't care about being responsible, only about being entertained. Rome fell because of it. One day we will too, laws or no laws.

The point behind legalizing drugs is not to make revenue from taxes (that was a side comment). The point is to not make the crime such a serious offense. When you are sent to prison for mere posession, there is incentive to do everything possible to not get caught. Unfortunately, the one thing that doesn't cross supid people's minds is TO NOT HAVE THE IN THE FIRST PLACE. But I really am tired of husbands and fathers getting killed by someone who is in posession of drugs simply because they don't want to go to jail. John, has the number of drug-related arrests declined since you've been on the force? If it truly has, then perhaps the 'war" on drugs is warranted, but I don't believe the statisitics show we are winning in this manner. If we truly want to win, perhaps we need to stop having so many cops out there busting guys with pot in their back pockets, and start putting the emphasis on rehabilition and prevention. Personally, I wish drugs weren't a part of our society, I am against any addictive substance. But I firmly believe the reason the drug problem is so bad is because they are an illegal substance. Anytime you restrict the manufacture or distribution of an item, the cost goes up. The same principle applies to gasoline, cancer treatment, and cocaine. While drug use does have a negative impact on lives, the act of getting and concealing it can be even worse. I'd like to see a new approach, not one that says "hey, drugs are cool!" but one that truly pushes the idea of why drugs are bad. Currently, the mentality of the cops and anti-drug authorities are "if you do them, we will bust yo ass." Yeah, that sure works on kids when the only incentive they have to not do something is not getting beat. There are many ways to acheive the same end result, but the game can be played many ways. The way we've played the drug game has not been very successful.

Fife, Don't base it on taxes, base it on contribution. For example, I know people who are VERY smart with their money and put most of it into investments that are tax deductible. They also happen to be very frugal, so they keep just enough income to "get by" without buying extravagant things. That's not to say they don't earn a lot of money, they just put it away carefully. Now, these same people are involved in business that generates LOTS of money for businesses, and, in turn, individuals working for these businesses. Their efforts generate a lot of economic prosperity for many segments of our society and continue to keep the economic engine booming. Should they be penalized for being so good with their money that they don't pay much in the way of taxes? Or what about real estate brokers? Same situation. Sell a property, keep just enough to eat with, and put the rest back into another property. Deduct all business expenses such as cars, phone, etc. Voila, low taxable income. So on a tax-basis, these guys would look flat broke, but in reality they do more for the economy and society than your average grease monkey paying more in taxes. Just a point to ponder while you are playing tongue in cheek :)

This should be a thread of it's own, not to hijaak the original post from Celeste. On my views regarding "moral" issues, the overall point is I don't think it should be anything other than local issues. Too many people turn to the Federal government to decide how local authorities should operate. As for the "drug" thing, being legal or illegal won't change people's desire to or to not use them. Remember prohibition many years back? The many gangs that arose as a result? Anytime something is made to be illegal there will always be parties willing to war over them. Legalizing drugs isn't going to cause a nation of drug addicts, but it WILL keep tennagers from shootings cops in the face when they are pulled over for speeding and they don't want the cop to find the small baggie of pot under the seat. It will keep an army of cops from tearing down the door to someone's house and terrorizing the occupants because there is *suspected* drug trade going on (Atlanta recently). Alcohol and cigarettes are all around us, and I never chose to smoke, and I drink so rarely it's not even an issue. I went to Jamaica a few years back, easy and legal access to pot and coke, and I stayed clear. Look at how much money is spent fighting drugs in our country, and it isn't improving. People find new ways to get it here and manufacture it in their own homes. The profit margin is so high that traffickers can afford to pay humans to pack this crap into their systems and travel from point A to B to transport. I"m saying take away that incentive. It may not be a perfect plan, but when selling pounds of drugs ranks above serious crimes like rape and murder, something is seriously screwed up in our society. My wife works in a law firm and many of their clients are in on drug possession charges...many of these people have been responsible and respectable members of society for YEARS and now that they were found with drugs, all of a sudden they are deserving of YEARS in prison? To serve what purpose? As a deterrent to others? Whatever. I say preserve our prisons for those who would do harm to our society. There is a difference between outright legalization and regulation. And not saying my focus would be go get these things legalized, just saying how I would swing should the issue come up. My focus will be grounded in security and fiscal responsibility (no building bridges to nowhere on my watch!)

:lgjump: Keep your eyes open....I'm going to start working on something in the next 5 years. I'd be doing something now if I didn't have so much fun in my current job. I'm going to have to bite my tongue though and most likely enter under one of the two super-parties. Hmmm....I'm just liberal enough when it comes to certain issues that I will most likely run on the democratic ticket. Drugs? Regulate them like alcohol. Heck, tax them even. Take the money we currently spend on the drug war and put it into rehabilitation. Stop the use by education, not with more guns on the street to stop dealers. Prostitution? Personally not for me, but who am I to judge if someone else wants to pay for a little strange every now and then? Gay marriage? Only a fool would think that a "marriage" can be anything other that something sanctioned by a church, but I'm all for legal unions. Gay adoption...I have many reservations about that. I'd have to draw the line there Alcohol? Jesus partied with the best of them, and when the house wine ran out he turned water into even better wine. So I have no problem with drinking, although the idea of getting drunk and losing capacity of one's own self is rather pathetic and I do look down upon that. Yeah, Republicans won't like me too much for those issues, but they WILL like my capitalist approach and fiscal conservatism. And most "hard working Americans" should appreciate my fresh approach of not taking any crap. If what you say isn't true, I won't gloss over it during a debate and let you get away with it, I"ll make you defend yourself to the very end and, if I disagree with it, I'll say with certainty and clarification why I disagree. Americans deserve representatives who represent them, not someone who just wants a government paycheck and only needs to say some words and dress nicely to get it. My main detraction is I haven't served in the military, but I HAVE personally thanked a few hundred when I come across them in the airports and sit next to them on planes. I may not have served, but I do appreciate and applaud their committment.