LastPommerFan

I should stalk better before making jokes :-)

###### winter. We came out of Africa, not ###### Norway.

Because I know you're in PA but don't stalk well enough to know where.

Because it's not accurate.

We traded Nazis for deserters.

Funny story. Until I arrived at my current job, a major industrial equipment manufacturer was mating fiberglass pressure containing components with bondo. The were shocked, shocked I tell you, when the joint failed immediately upon installation by the customer. And this: http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/search/hhh?sort=rel

So D4rk makes the sandwiches and Josie gets the car fixed. One a them "Modern" families. :-D

I think I agree with the mechanics at the dealer. It's all in Josie's head, and likely the result of not making you a sandwich. ;-)

Wife leaves today for 4 day conference in NYC. Me and the three boys, alone in the house is equal parts exciting and terrifying.

Regardless of where it comes from, I believe the right to self defense is one we are born with. Including all the implements thereof. I prefer to argue from the benefits restriction in protecting other rights.

If this is true, the Military screwed up huge. They conducted a complete investigation in 2010 and concluded that he was disillusioned, but not an enemy collaborator. If there were all these witnesses and colleagues just ready to jump on cable news and call him a traitor, how the hell did the Army investigators not get that story 5 years ago?

yeah, this.

I think this action would certainly endanger future POWs.

I literally mean the right to do anything we want. We start there, and then limit through government. This as opposed to starting with the right to do nothing, and then deciding which rights we "deserve".

I'm imagining something very low level and simple to start. Something like disclosure of donors over $1,000 to tax protected political groups. I might add on top of that disclosing the parties of any transaction relating to a political campaign that exceeds some limit, say $5000. It's definitely a trade-off. The right to privacy protects us from society at large suppressing unpopular opinions. (protection from the government, I believe, is already encoded in the 4th Amendment, although it needs to be more rigorously enforced) I believe that right to privacy from society is critically important, unpopular ideas aren't necessarily bad ideas, but it should end when the actor is engaging in actions in an attempt to influence the rules of society, and campaign speech is exactly that.

I disagree, All of the rights to complete freedom are our birthright. We agree to concede some limits of those rights to improve our society, especially to protect our other rights. For example, we all have the innate right to worship or not worship a god or gods as we see fit. We also concede that this freedom of worship is limited in some areas, and we are not allowed to perform human sacrifice as part of our worship. As another example, we have the innate rights to speech and privacy. I would like to concede a limit to the right to privacy when speaking (in any form, from a Letter to the Editor to purchasing $5M worth of TV ads) in the realm of politics. I believe our society will be better, and our other rights will be better protected, if we see who is attempting to influence our government.

Correct, "removed" is a poor choice of words. I could look it up in the Catechism, but I think the correct word is either completed or fulfilled. We rediscover the true law through Christ.

The FCC thing isn't just a bad PR move, it's terrible policy and a down right awful appointment.

Because the administration tried to parlay a PR coup into it. Negotiating for POWs is always bad news. It almost always involves a 1 for many swap of bad guys. We're really good at capturing people and really good at not getting captured. But getting they guys out is like making sausage. You don't brag to the public about how it's made. This administration is an abomination to public relations. It has been for some time now. I still like the policies overall, but I won't be sad to get someone in there who isn't constantly reacting to their own PR miscues.

Really unlikely since he's not Catholic.

I agree with everything here except the impeachable offense and not noting that this was a negotiation for a POW, not a civilian hostage, and it was with the group we originally went to war against, which at the time was the government of Afganistan, not some random terrorist group (I noted up thread the modern asymmetric warfare makes this a clouded mess). But the risk in the swap, the stupid PR play, the brazenness of his admission that some might rejoin the fight. All bad.

I don't think I lack character. I've made the decision to pass on B because C was coming down the pipe for sure in 3 months. C fell through and I ended up in A for another 2 and a half years and job D wasn't as good as B. Best of luck to you. I hope you get both offers on the same day :-)

You said Gospel, I give you the words of Christ. Then you respond with the old law. A law that is largely removed when Christ dies for us on the Cross. They way is not through the Law but through Him. So we can eat bacon, but we have to love our neighbors. It's a solid trade if you ask me.

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matthew 26:52

I think we are in agreement that intentionally taking job B knowing that you are leaving for C in two months is a bad move. I also concede that using Job B as leverage for Job C is a good idea. But at the end of the day, if C can't come through in time, I'm taking B. If C does eventually come through and it is better (better hours, pay, closer to family, etc.), I would have a hard time turning it down out of respect for Employer B. FWIW, this isn't a problem at the professional level in some other countries. In the UK, for instance, a lot of employees sign multi-year contracts with some limited guarantees of employment and limited opt out clauses. Something between a football contract and a hockey contract. So it's not purely at-will employment like it is here. Given this discussion, it's an interesting model.