Yea, like women don't consider penis size in a perspective date? Yea right!!!!

You see, thats the thing to it: unfortunately, 99 per cent of all women are gold diggers by nature. Its pretty much part of their biological makeup.

Have we forgotten, that by the FBI's definition of terrorism, that George Washington was a "Terrorist". Thing is these days that the government wants to say that any time force is used against the government its automatically terrorism. What no one wants to admit is that it is the corruption of the government that leads to this crap in the first place. So once again, we are talking about this WHY..????

Only thing I got to say about that is if the towel heads would quit trying to at like Stewie off of Family Guy, always trying to blow everything up and kill people, then there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. But No, they can't Give up the idea that their going to convert the rest of the world to believing in their cult religion that they largely ripped off the Jews anyways.

Frankly, I'm for removing ALL of the MLK monuments everywhere, AND getting rid of the federal holiday because his originally noble intent has turned into a complete atrocity not deserving of memorization in the slightest. I would then replace them with JFK monuments and institute JFK day as a federal holiday in their place...at least THAT didn't lead to a bunch of crack-smoking thieves whom complain about their rights when arrested by the police for their crimes.

Not true...The Cherokee tribe has been systematically stealing from people in Oklahoma via operating gambling parlors in which they intentionally fix the odds in their favor for the better part of the last 10 years. I think I would call that an influence.

I'm speaking from the typical standpoint of the GLBT world there, But, given the nature of humans in general, I'm willing to bet that straight people pretty much operate in basically the same fashion, though being a bit more subtle with it. Either way, it's still applicable.

Actually, it is common for a judge to rule on the pleadings. Most of the appellate cases which are brought by criminal defendants are ruled on in this fashion. Determination of the facts of the case is an issue for the trial courts to address and therefore the appellate courts almost never address determining new issues of fact. Secondly, in general rules of appellate procedure do not provide a right to oral argument, unlike in the trial courts, and this has been longstanding tradition in criminal law, and really is nothing new.

I'm sorry, but as a Gay Man, I think this has less to do with hate and bigotry, than it has to do with a pragmatic and common sense approach to things. It is indecent and sexually inappropriate to expose females to individuals whom have a penis dangling between their legs, within the context of a restroom or locker-room environment. period. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that wearing a mini-skirt into the Men's room probably- no definitely- isn't a bright idea, for much the same reasons. This is a different breed of things than homosexuality.
For one thing, homosexuals do not have the obvious gender discrepancy issues unlike transsexuals, and further more, just because I'm gay doesn't mean I want to plow every straight guy I happen to come across either- so the issue of the perception of one's intent is just misinformation most of the time and ergo constructively moot for the intents and purposes of what we're talking about.

So what are we left with to solve the accommodation issue? I mean, what? giving these people their own labeled bathrooms and locker-rooms isn't enough? (And if you complain about the equal protection principle of the fourteenth amendment, I'm game. Would make it MUCH easier to get laid if we had "Gay" restrooms, etc. in fact, we used to call those things "tea rooms" back in the 50s and 60s.)

I'm sorry, I just don't see what the complaint really is, apart from some bad behavior in the form of comments which were made by certain politicians whom are deserving of impeachment anyway, on any number of counts.

I'm pretty sure we're ALL single, or we have NO BUSINESS on here...

Cheating takes its root from one of three issues:
either:
1) The cheater devalues the relationship in the first place, at least enough to make cheating "worth it" in their mind.

2) The cheater suffers from some form of an impulse control disorder and needs psychiatric treatment.

3) The cheater is dissatisfied with the relationship due to a lack of honest communication within that relationship, concerning individual needs.

Sad to say, but items 2 and 3 are the more common, as in condition 1 it just simply means that a person doesn't have big enough balls to simply move on.

Concerns about the underage issue are duly noted and are appropriate. As for the morons that post up a picture of some chick...well sorry, in my book...that has absolutely NO PLACE in my life as a GAY MAN, unless it happens to be his mother. And then I have to ask myself WHY he's posting a pic of his mother on a gay dating site, which is a cause for grave concerns in a potential relationship.

That said, one should always ask themselves the question as to whether or not the real reason they are not "attracted" to a person is really just due to their own self-centered egotistical vanity, or because they WANT something that is not necessary, and often not particularly conducive, to a strong relationship. (i.e. You don't NEED your man to be a greek god, or to make X amount of money, etc.- The sorts of things that lend toward an arrogant and prideful personality- which mark my words- sooner or later, will DESTROY a relationship anyways.)
If one then finds they are not attracted to this person out of their own egotism and selfishness, then my suggestion would be to take oneself OUT of the dating environment, until you adjust yourself mentally to where one is CAPABLE of maintaining a relationship, which means being capable of treating other people the way they want to be treated, as opposed to devaluing them in an effort to suit one's own needs without regard for others.

***HUFF***

Well, I will present my proposal on how I'm going to deal with my recent breakup (He's in prison for cheating on me with a female, who, unbeknown to anyone at the time it actually happened, was 14, and LIED her way into a bar...long story!!, but I regress...)
But as I was saying:
Step One: Morn the few good points of the relationship.
Step Two: Sign up for a dating site and find someone new.
Step Three: Make his life as much of a living HELL as practically possible,
using whatever completely lawful means which may be at my disposal,

Step Four: Build New Relationship with someone else.

Step Five: Finally, move on.

All this said, Would be interested to know if anyone has any patent objections to my plan...

These can be dangerous. You can electrocute yourself with one of these if you don't know what your doing...

Um, and the lie detector determined THAT was a LIE...
so much as FINDING a relationship is HARD WORK in the gay world because everyone's either neurotic, psychotic, OR they just think that they HAVE TO HAVE some relatively trivial aspect, property, or physical quality that YOU just DONT HAPPEN to have, for whatever reason, but yet, never mind the reason!
But yet, these people try to convince everyone that their still single based upon absolutely no fault of their own. This, friends, is the dictionary's definition of INSANITY....

The problem I see with this is that given the fact that the federal government uses the theory of promissory note to secure legal interest into the loan, then by operation of 18 USC 13, (which states where, if, no federal statute comments on a legal issue, then the law of the state controls as federal law), and the fact that every state in the union has a statute on the books that sets a statute of limitations upon which a lender may collect a debt secured by contract, It then would follow that the matter was dead to begin with. As for contempt of court- contempt of court only follows IF, and ONLY IF, there is valid proof of service of a summons, which was apparently the supposed issue, meaning that technically no contempt was committed. That said, this was one of those rare cases where a Habeas Writ was called for, and most likely would have been granted with the potential for false arrest damages, as the U.S. Marshall's service should have reasonably known that the warrant was issued under less than honest pretenses, thus subjecting them to the potential for a civil action pursuant to Bivens V. Six Unknown Agents.

The facts of the case here really appear a bit spurious, and I would doubt, if the appeals continued to the federal courts, that the federal circuit court of appeals nor the SCOTUS would reach the same conclusion, based on the inherent fact that there was no articulable reason to believe that injured persons were within the restricted portion of the dwelling (based upon what you've said were the facts of the case, anyways, and assuming this was the way the government defended the case.) However, I would also state that this wasn't a case that would have required a warrant anyways, based upon the fact that it was search incident to arrest, based upon the simple possession charge that properly lied before the search. The facts also, based on what I read, would allow search based upon the federal decision in Terry V. State of Ohio, due to the need to secure the scene for officer safety.