Running Gator

Yes. With my job we sometimes have multi day schools that require us to be out of town from Monday to Thursday. About 5 to 6 of us go and we stay at a hotel in our own rooms. We eat dinner together and have been known to have a drink at the end of the night. Then we go to our rooms and get ready go to bed. We are all adults and can control ourselves. The only thing about your scenario that is different is that it is not often, only once or twice a year.

Yes, there are lot's of "too fars" for me. I would not be alone in a hotel room with a woman not my wife or family member. I would not eat at a romantic restaurant with a woman not my wife. I would not engage in flirtatious or suggestive talk with a woman not my wife. But I will drive with one in a car, and I will eat a meal with one (except as mentioned above), I will give one a ride if they have a flat tire. I am not given to allowing others perceptions dictate my actions.

You call these things "extremes" but they happen. My wife reminded me of the time when I was deployed for 6 months with the Marines. There was the wife of one of the Marines from my squadron that was friends with a male from a unit that was not deployed. Both of these people attended the same church we did. The man and woman went out of their way to avoid being together even when talking in the foyer after the service. After a couple of weeks them doing this my wife was approached by the wives of a couple of the deacons who wanted to talk to her about the two people. It seems that they went to such extremes to avoid each other that it was actually seen as a sign they were having an affair and were trying to hide it. It is my opinion that people totally misuse the 1 The 5:22 and that the KJV actually mistranslated the verse. The ESV gets it right...Abstain from every form of evil.

The office I work in is roughly 60/40 women to men. Often we have to go on the road for a day either to meet with a producer or with some of our field enumerators for training. The people that go to those things are determined by whose commodity is being dealt with. Often that involves a man and a woman going some place in the company car, often that place is 2 to 4 hours away. There are people on this board that say they would not do that, I find that to be unreasonable.

Do you think that if 50 Christians got together in a room they could decide what was "reasonable" and what was not? I have been told on this forum it is wrong to ride in the car with a female not my spouse or immediate family member. This includes work situations to the point that people would take their own vehicle instead of being alone in a car with a woman. I find that outrageous and totally unreasonable. Yet for some it is totally normal.

The problem here is that everything can be fodder for gossip. I have seen people gossiped about because they were seen walking down the "beer" aisle at the grocery store. Recently at a church I used to attend one of the deacons had rumors of a gay tryst due to the amount of time he spends with a male friend. This is an impossible situation unless you never leave your house and never have anyone come to your house.

I do not personally believe we are all that close to the end times. Since the day that Jesus left this earth people have thought we were in the end times. As such I have a 401K, my wife has a 401k, life insurance, plus a good sized retirement portfolio. If I am wrong and we are in the end times, I have lost nothing because I will not care about that money. If I am right and I live out the rest of my life with not rapture then myself and my family will be taken care of. Seems a win/win situation.

Which is why it is an optional service. If one had expensive items being delivered during the day I can see this being useful. What they call "porch pirating" is becoming a real problem and people are losing packages to people who just drive around behind the UPS/FedEx truck and steal them right off the porch.

Perkins Coie represents almost every Dem member of congress and have had Obama as a client since his days in the Illinois Senate. The fact they are getting money from Obama is a "well no Duh" situation, not the smoking gun people are dreaming about.

First we had TDS and now we have COS. Clinton Obsession Syndrom

Please provide some proof to support this accusation.

Don’t forget the 8 years before that when we had all sorts of freedoms and rights taken away with such gems as the Patriot Act and the NSA spying

They didn't pay for the dossier to contain false information, they paid for dirt on Trump and the people they paid added false information. That is on the people making the dossier, not on the one paying for it to be made. The charges with the FEC is something substantial.

Thanks. Not really what I was looking for. This shows that people that have jobs are getting paid more (tough as a statistician I cringe when I see the word "average"). It does not really speak to the jobs that are being created.

So what? This is SOP in politics in this country. Paying people to find dirt on your opponent happens every election.

Yes, and it is calculated exactly the same way now. Nothing has changed. Actually, it reached 10% under Obama. Under Obama when the official rate hit 10% the U6 (which is what you are talking about) was 17.6%, not double but very high. Right now the official rate is is 4.2% and the numbers you are talking about raise it up to 8.3%. Again not double but close to it than Obama came. I have seen this said before and it is just partisan banter, I have never seen a single bit of evidence to show today's jobs are any different. If you have some such data please present it, otherwise they are just empty words.

I have no issue with this, if people are naive enough to give up their rights to a class action lawsuit then they get what they get.

Once again, the process for calculating unemployment has not changed since Trump took office. Unemployment rates under Obama peaked in October of 2009 and with the exception of a couple blips due to seasonal reasons dropped every month after that. That means that for 10 of the 96 months of Obama's term unemployment rates were trending upwards and for the other 86 they were trending down. By comparison unemployment rates trended down only 40 of Bush IIs 96 months. The process for counting jobs created has not changed under Trump, it is the same as it was under Obama. They count everything including jobs with temporary hiring agencies like Penmac. Part time jobs and minimum wage jobs are also being counted now. NOTHING has changed.

That is a bit misleading. In May of 2007 unemployment started going up from a low of 4.4%. Between that date and Jan of 2009 when Obama took office unemployment climbed to 7.8%. In Oct of 2009 it peaked at 10%, keeping in mind this was still under the budget submitted by the previous president. Since Nov of 2009 the unemployment rate has been dropping at a steady rate and during the 8 years Obama was in office the unemployment rate dropped for 6 of those years. The unemployment rate is counted was counted the same under Obama as it was under Bush II and now under Trump. If you accept the numbers Trump is giving you cannot change them for Obama. I say all this as not a fan of Obama and as one that does not give him credit for the drop in the unemployment rate. But the facts are what they are, you cannot deny them. Another fact for you, in the 4 years prior to Jan 2017 the economy added an average of 214,000 jobs per month. Since Jan of 2017 that number has fallen to only 148,000 per month.

I was referring more to the free speech part than the religion part. Is any law restricting what can be said by an individual an infringement of the 1st? Do libel laws run afoul of the 1st in your opinion since they infringe upon what one can say?

I would disagree with this, but I do wonder if you look at the 1st amendment the same way? Is any law restricting what can be said an infringement of the 1st? Do libel laws run afoul of the 1st in your opinion? I think if you are going to go down this road that you cannot limit the 2nd to firearms as it just states "arms" so any arm should be available to whomever can afford to buy it. That would include tanks, flame throwers, fighter jets, bombs, and etc. Do you think that anything regulating arms in anyway is an infringement and unconstitutional?

Trump claimed to have committed those actions, are you saying he lied?

Seems to be a well done analysis following fairly standard economic modeling. A few interesting tidbit in the conclusion section. Third, the model assumes agents are rational, forward looking, and face no uncertainty. The GGM also models firms as perfectly competitive I realize for the sake of modeling this has to be done this way, but it did make me laugh. What in our country is "rational, forward looking and has no uncertainty"? I found this conclusion very interesting as well... The UF tax reform, while roughly half as good as the Better Way plan, appears worth enacting. But we are concerned that the UF’s personal tax provisions will disproportionately help the top 1 percent. Moreover, revenue neutrality is hardly a desideratum in an economy like ours that has a massive long-term fiscal gap. Hence, we would encourage Congress to modify the Unified Framework tax plan in ways that reduce the apparent redistribution to the rich and that produce addition revenue

I am sort of close, was born in Kansas now live in Illinois. But to get to this point I lived in Kansas, Iran, Florida, South Carolina, Japan, Arizona, Illinois, North Carolina, and back to Illinois.

This is the world we now live in, the world of "alternative facts". Russia did give money to the Clintons, they gave it to the Clinton Foundation... It is not unlike when people said that Trump never filed bankruptcies, just his companies did. We see this sort of thing all the time now, going back to what the meaning of "is" is...