Travis In Austin

So who plays Stanford in the Rose Bowl now? Does OSU move in ahead of Iowa?

Here is how the science of biology defines it. The last sentence being applicable here.Definition noun, plural: fetuses The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth Supplement Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development. In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn. That is a general definition for all mammals, including marsupials, dolohins and whales, and then at the end it say fetus, infant and newborn. Nothing abiut a person.The law defines what a person is for purposes of a crime, constitutional protection, etc. You are not going to get therebwith science. Oh..you meant "p-e-r-s-o-n". I hadn't realised you were being literal. I just mean adult human, and science clear defines a fetus as a different entity than the "infant" or "newborn." I'm just not at all confused personally about this. You clearly are confused. Laws of science, let alone definitions don't determine the law. Law, statutes and case law, is based on piblic policy and moral judgements subject to the constraints of the state and federal constitutions. Let's say science, uniformly, defined a fetus as anything inside the womb, up to and including post-partum and able to breat on its own for 3 minutes. That has zero bearing on whether one state wants to say it is five minutes and another state saying it is 7 months gestation. Science may help prove the number of months of gestation, but it doesn't prove whether it is a fetus or not. The high school textbook, or whatever the source, wouldn't even be admissible in court.

Not the ONLY chance. Most people die a natural death, or are killed in a car, plane, or other crash, whatever their mindset, and whether they are armed or not. My dad got me a 22 @age 7, 13 years later, i was pretty thankfull i could hit something, i killed more gooks than most people have friends, just doing as instructed at the time.No remorse, and Zero feelings, However i did learn the difference between dieing for something, and dieing for nothing, KILL them First. Youi just deal with life anyway you wish. Peace Thank you for your service, again. Now we have open trade with them, open travel, refugeez from the 70s going back to visit family.

Not the ONLY chance. Most people die a natural death, or are killed in a car, plane, or other crash, whatever their mindset, and whether they are armed or not. I wonder what the odd are of dying in a domestic terrorist attack, an attack by a foriegn terrorist in the US, getting killed in a car wreck, being struck by lightning, dying of heart disease or cancer?

Yes, and the some of the strongest advocates of separation of church and state at the time the constitution was written were various religious groups, because they wanted to follow their own religion without someone else's religion being imposed on them. Exactly right.

Quite simply internally displaced people, like those that have been pouring out of Syria cannot be vetted. The government could not properly vet the female involved in the terror attack in California. The utter failure here has had horrific consequences on people just going about their lives. So in the 70's you had thousands of "refugees" come in from Iran, thousands from Vietnam, and then I cannot remember how many from Cuba. I think the Cubans who had criminal records were put in camps within the City of Miami, eventually I think they were all processed eventuakly. Syria had a lot of refugees come in during the beginning of the 20th Century. We get refugees from all over, all the time. I don't understand why we dont just shut it all down, close it off to everyone. No visitors, no tourists, nothing. Maybe diplomats on official business, but that's it. Microsoft can just find its engineers from the US.

Quite simply internally displaced people, like those that have been pouring out of Syria cannot be vetted. The government could not properly vet the female involved in the terror attack in California. The utter failure here has had horrific consequences on people just going about their lives.I didnt realize she was a refugee or that she was from Syiria. I thought she got in on a "fiancee" visitor visa. She was apparently radicalized in Pakistan? Do you know how many Pakistanis immigrants there are in the US? How many own 7/11's, let alone professors, doctors, engineers? No, we need to start doing some major roundups quick. Well it doesn't really matter, I am pretty sure the decision to accept refugees is a matter solely within the perview of the Executive. Even the letters from the Governors are of no effect. Is the border secure between Canada and the US? Or is it pourus? Canada has 3,000 already Syrian refugees and will have, is it 10,000? within the next 12 months?

27 million views and counting. https://youtu.be/IL357BrwK7c

No Bozos, no-no

Here is how the science of biology defines it. The last sentence being applicable here. Definition noun, plural: fetuses The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth Supplement Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development. In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn. That is a general definition for all mammals, including marsupials, dolohins and whales, and then at the end it say fetus, infant and newborn. Nothing abiut a person. The law defines what a person is for purposes of a crime, constitutional protection, etc. You are not going to get therebwith science.

Letting them sit there in captivity is not "vetting." They sit. The state department vets. I have heard interviews of our state department officials saying there is no reliable information to be had. I've heard nobody on the other side (or even on the same side) dispute this. Maybe it has been disputed, though. Reluable information on what?

I would agree with that, very well stated. However, sometimes the political or religious agenda can only be inferred, and is sometimes never fully known. Additionally, a religion can consist of just a very few people, and a political agenda includes hate groups which can consist of a single person.This would include the Manson Family Timothy McVeigh Ku Klux Klan Unibomber A tossup would be Zodiac killer, he sent letter to media saying he was going to hijack school bus and kill kids on it. Parents drove their kids to school all over the Bay Area for months. Don't terrorists usually claim responsibility for their actions in order to effectuate either a change, or protect the status quo (regardless of how misguided it may be)? Should that be part of the definition to distinguish it from a mass murderer? Is terrorism ever justified? Absolutely Travis! An example would be the American Revolution! Roger Finally, a shining light. One's man's revolution is another man's civil war. One man's solider is another man's terrorist, extreamist, radical, reactionary. Isn't that the point of all of this? Depending on what you call it justifies the response. Those 23 guys and two gals must think we are all idiots.

How do you document the history of a person when there is no documentation of the person's history? This is not a "refusal" as you suggest. It is impossible. You don't, at least historically. When "war" breaks out you detain and deport "them."In WW II it was Japanese, Germans and Italians. Those that couldn't be deported, because they were US citizens, were detained in camps, some after they served their country in combat. There have been, and continue to be, domestic terroristic organizations from right before independence up to the present. So what we do, time after time, after time, after time, is somehow latch onto some fear mongering politician, or group of them, and agree that it is ok to ignore the rights of whomever the "them" happens to be at the time. None of this is new, and none of this is lost on experts who run election campaigns. What are motivators? It is well studied and documented in marketing, advertising and psychology. Water and food obviously are top motivators, but money is a big one, so you have issues loke promises to lower taxes, or a chicken in every pot. Fear is actually a bigger one according to most studies. During the cold way the fear of being nuked was always exploited in campaigns. You will see the importance of an issue that involves fear be at the top. If a campaign or politician can create fear, no matter how irrational, and provide an answer, no matter how ridiculous, he/she will gather a following. That following will build unless, and until, another campaign can either create more fear, provide a better answer to the fear, or effectively communicate how the other is making a tempest out of a teapot. Sometimes there are legitimate things to be fearful of and addressed, and other times there isn't any substance at all. The key is for people to determine whether there is any substance to it, and if so, who, in anyone, is coming up with the right solution. I think you have described the issue correctly, but you have ascribed the wrong motive. You think people are wanting to be racists. I think the number of people in the category is pretty small. What I think is happening is a real issue concerning how to react in order to try to save our society from escalating violence.This is not easy issue at all. I would liken this problem to the catch-22 you see with cancer. Everybody hopes to find a way to target only the cancer cells, but so far, though a little progress has been made, the state of the art remains to blast patients with radiation and chemo-therapy. This, we all know, harms the good cells, too. But if you don't blast everything, including the good cells, the patient will die. We have an argument going on over the politics of containing terrorism. The state of the art, as far as specific cell-targeting, is clearly not working. People are arguing the morality of the only options remaining. O was just truing to point out what has been stated by much smarter than me, that those who ignore history are bound to repeat it at their own peril. I don't think people "want" to be racists, I am not sure how that happens. The way they are raised, the biases and prejudices people develop about any number of things I am sure develop for a whole host of reasons, but there is a reason we study things like the Salem Witch trials, McCarthy, the Civil War (War of Northern Agression, trying to be politically correct), Japanese internment and so on. Response to fear results in some pretty obscure and unjust results. Trying to explain failed crops and other calamities from the Bible results in far worse. Creating fear is going to result in prejudice, and it will result in extremists. Money can motivate people to violence without any regard to their viewpoints on gender, race or religion. I'm pretty sure Daniel Shays and his 4,000 friends were upset about why farmers were saddled with so much war debt. The "escalation of violence," I am not too sure about that. From what reference point? There have been mass shootings and bombings in the US since before 1900. I guess I feel that when you see 25, roughly, political candidates getting their panties in a wad over a shooting they just seem disingenuous when they send their thoughts and prayers and blaming it on some "evildoer" and their beliefs and that is why we need to get 70,000 boots on the ground in Syria. Yet just last week when a cop, along with several others, we don't need to do anything. There are terrorists in the US, born here and anglo-saxon Protestants, They are real, they exist, and they are plotting. The FBI has a whole list on their website if anyone is interested.

That is a pretty good definition. Here is what your government says it is: A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism. Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52)

The first 2 contained no calls for violence. With an 0-2 record, I didn't bother with the 3rd. Don't be ridiculous in your expectation or how YOU want to identify radical. The call to violence is inferred. If you hear they are dismembering babies down the street, would you NOT go down and stop it by any means possible? If you say no, you are a heel. If you say yes, you understood the inference. Ummm, no. They are dismembering babies, and it did not make me go down the street to shoot the people doing it. It is sickening that the law condones it, but let's not go down this road. Let's get back on topic. They might be dismembering fetuses, but not "babies." And, to not understand the difference is to not understand the subject matter. Oh, I fully understand. You (and others) want me to accept their terminology in order to put lipstick on a pig. Sorry, Homey isn't buying today. They are babies by every ordinary sense of the meaning. How many expecting mothers do you hear saying, "My fetus is 20 weeks old?" When we like them and want them, we call them, "babies." When we don't, we objectify them by calling them, "fetuses." How convenient.I think you both missing the point on this and have been sucked into the propoganda of your respective political viewpoints. It matters not whether you call it killing babies, or fetuses, or embryos or anything else.IT IS A CONSTITUTIONALY PROTECTED MEDICAL PROCEDURE. We are a nation of laws and the rule of law is one of the things that set us apart. The LAW sees it the same whether it is an abortion clinic, a Baptist Church, a bank, a post office or McDonalds, and for that matter, at work, at home, What I am more concerned with is how radicalized the guy in Carolina who shot all the people in their church. They didn't send thiughts and prayers, they took the flag off the dome, and then finally dragged it off the capital grounds. What about all the rapists and murderers that Mexico sends us evey year. I would be more worried about them being radicalized. Actually, I wasn't that interested in the law. My interest was in the moral stance of the public. In deciding right from wrong, they have placed more value on an adult life than on a prospective or future life that has not yet met the scientific definition of a person. A life not yet begun, one could say. For me the law is less interesting than human behavior, psychology and sociology, because it is primarily a political institution. I've never been impressed by the argument, "the law is x, and the rest doesn't matter." Because the law can be changed like underwear, but human behavior can not. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Actually, contsitutional law takes quite a long time to change once it is defined on an issue. It took a major war to change Dred Scot and the Civil War Amendments, it took a 100 years to change Plessy and Jim Crow it condoned, Roe v Wade is over 40 years old and still good and enforcable law. Abortion wasn't even a major national campaign issue in last 4 cycles. The law should be important to you, because logical argument that you are most capable of doesn't work the Christian right who are typically the most passionate about this issue. They believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old (which it very may well be) and that intelligent design is "science," not religion, that should be taught in schools. The courts, based on constitutional law, keep telling them they are wrong, it isn't science, it is religion. They keep trying to say that a prayer in school that is non-denominational isn't religion, they keep being told they are wrong; that the 10 Commandments are not promoting religion, they just a good summary of basic morals that everyone agrees should be followed, and they are told they are wrong. Every once in awhile you get an elected official that thinks her morality or religion trumps constitutional law and a judge shows her the inside of a jail cell for a couple of days and things start moving forward. You should be concerned with constitutional law. It is the only thing that stands between you and someone else's morality being forced on you or your children. P.S. I don't think there is a scientific definition of a "person." There may have been a medical one at one point, but it probably wasn't based on science. The Hyppocratic oath originally prohibited abortion, the modern oath does not I don't believe. It was an ethical/moral issue before Christ, and it will always be a moral/ethical issue. Science doesn't answer those questions, by definition. As soon as you start to apply a judgement it is no longer science. The law determines what a "person" is for purposes of things like murder, wrongful death, corporate "being", etc. When "life begins" is a question used by pro-life advocates in response to the Court's decision that said it wasn't the government's business what happened between a woman and a doctor in the first trimester. Pro-choice legal advicates then tried to prevent abortions by arguing an unborn (pick whatever term you want here and fill in the blank) was a "person" subject to equal protection under the 14th amendment, which, thus far, has been rejected.

How do you document the history of a person when there is no documentation of the person's history? This is not a "refusal" as you suggest. It is impossible. You don't, at least historically. When "war" breaks out you detain and deport "them." In WW II it was Japanese, Germans and Italians. Those that couldn't be deported, because they were US citizens, were detained in camps, some after they served their country in combat. There have been, and continue to be, domestic terroristic organizations from right before independence up to the present. So what we do, time after time, after time, after time, is somehow latch onto some fear mongering politician, or group of them, and agree that it is ok to ignore the rights of whomever the "them" happens to be at the time. None of this is new, and none of this is lost on experts who run election campaigns. What are motivators? It is well studied and documented in marketing, advertising and psychology. Water and food obviously are top motivators, but money is a big one, so you have issues loke promises to lower taxes, or a chicken in every pot. Fear is actually a bigger one according to most studies. During the cold way the fear of being nuked was always exploited in campaigns. You will see the importance of an issue that involves fear be at the top. If a campaign or politician can create fear, no matter how irrational, and provide an answer, no matter how ridiculous, he/she will gather a following. That following will build unless, and until, another campaign can either create more fear, provide a better answer to the fear, or effectively communicate how the other is making a tempest out of a teapot. Sometimes there are legitimate things to be fearful of and addressed, and other times there isn't any substance at all. The key is for people to determine whether there is any substance to it, and if so, who, in anyone, is coming up with the right solution.

From another site, same problem, but he mentions possibility of anti-sweat valve can cause warm water to fill and tank and to check for that first. Richard, General questions: 1. I noticed that the bathroom was remodeled three years ago. Is this the first time that this problem (if it is a problem) has surfaced. 2. Is the water in the tank, actually warm or hot. You indicated warm. Warm is a classic sign of anti-sweat fixture being installed. I would recommend you do a follow up inspection on this situation. Things to check for: 1. Shut off the main hot water supply. Flush the toilet. If it fills with cold water only, then this would be a strong indicator that there is a anti-sweat valve present. If it doesn't fill then the toilet is more than likely hooked up to the hot water supply line, especially if you turn the hot water back on and it fills (then, I would recommend to the client that the discrepancy be reviewed by a qualified contractor/plumber). 2. If you can, follow the water supply line to the toilet to determine its source. 3. Is there a anti-sweat valve installed. They are known to go bad. If the toilet is filling with Hot water (make sure you run the hot water in a nearby fixture, i.e. tub or sink first to ensure that the water is good and hot coming up to the bathroom, flush the toilet a couple of times and observe the water temperature coming in, being careful not to burn your hands). If the water entering the tank is very hot, try adjusting the anti-sweat valve. If adjustment is not successful more than likely a new anti-sweat valve is needed. Sometimes a good cleaning of the anti-sweat valve system (i.e. particle build up from solder, hard water, etc. ), may be the only thing required. In this instance you should recommend that a qualified contractor/plumber be consulted. Doing these things may be beyond the scope of a Home Inspector, especially if the plumbing is within the walls/floors. Anti-sweat or mixing valves are normally in sight. Occassionally the plumber/contractor will put them in a wall with an access panel. However seeing as how the client is your mother.... Please let us know how you made out. John Bowman

I was wondering that myself but then thought ceramics could handle hot and cold just fine. I guess some ceramics are better suited for this than others?

Look it up. How about the '72 Olympics. You remember the word terriorists being used then don't you? It just all really who is doing the reporting and if we are in an election cycle.

The first 2 contained no calls for violence. With an 0-2 record, I didn't bother with the 3rd. Don't be ridiculous in your expectation or how YOU want to identify radical. The call to violence is inferred. If you hear they are dismembering babies down the street, would you NOT go down and stop it by any means possible? If you say no, you are a heel. If you say yes, you understood the inference. Ummm, no. They are dismembering babies, and it did not make me go down the street to shoot the people doing it. It is sickening that the law condones it, but let's not go down this road. Let's get back on topic. They might be dismembering fetuses, but not "babies." And, to not understand the difference is to not understand the subject matter. Oh, I fully understand. You (and others) want me to accept their terminology in order to put lipstick on a pig. Sorry, Homey isn't buying today. They are babies by every ordinary sense of the meaning. How many expecting mothers do you hear saying, "My fetus is 20 weeks old?" When we like them and want them, we call them, "babies." When we don't, we objectify them by calling them, "fetuses." How convenient. I think you both missing the point on this and have been sucked into the propoganda of your respective political viewpoints. It matters not whether you call it killing babies, or fetuses, or embryos or anything else. IT IS A CONSTITUTIONALY PROTECTED MEDICAL PROCEDURE. We are a nation of laws and the rule of law is one of the things that set us apart. The LAW sees it the same whether it is an abortion clinic, a Baptist Church, a bank, a post office or McDonalds, and for that matter, at work, at home, What I am more concerned with is how radicalized the guy in Carolina who shot all the people in their church. They didn't send thiughts and prayers, they took the flag off the dome, and then finally dragged it off the capital grounds. What about all the rapists and murderers that Mexico sends us evey year. I would be more worried about them being radicalized.

Holy cow, would never have thought of that. Never seen a seal other than wax. Is there such a thing? If so, are they better than wax in any way?

That is so awesome. Thanks for sharing. Beautiful baby. Travis

I recently saw a television documentary made by a British filmmaker. His brother became a terrorist and is now in prison. This filmmaker began making the documentary when his brother first joined what he called a radical islamist group in England. He ate dinner with his brother and his friends and said the guys all seemed very nice and fun to be around; but, then he attended one of their (for lack of better word) "meetings" and he was amazed how these nice guys were suddenly talking violent and it was scary.He interviewed the top dog of that radical group...he mentioned that some accuse him of brainwashing these young men. The guy responded, "if brains need to be washed..." There is a great documentry on HBO called the Nuburgh Four about FBI using an informant to "bust up" an "Islamic terrorist" bombing plot. The informant is Muslim and goes to his mosque and recruits 2 or 3 others with undercover video and audio in his house and car. The premise of the film is whether they were terrorists to begin with who were caught, or were they innocent people entrapped by the FBI because the informant was trying to get out of other charges and needed to find some guys to avoid prison. Regardless of which view you take, and I will let people make up their own minds, the motivator the informant used to recruit the 2 or 3 others was money. They were radicalized with the promise of a little cash. Here is link to HBO site about it http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/the-newburgh-sting

Everybody always leaves out the Irish. There were more Irish slaves over here than black ones. Oh really? You probably might want to check that out before posting that in a public forum under your business name. I would also look carefully at any source that claims that. You might want to start by looking at the difference between a slave and an indentured servant. They are not the same thing. By the way, which president freed the Irish? I'd rather not wreck this thread any further than this response, but... Apparently the problem with history today is that historical documentary producers and historians for the Center for Research and Globalization can just make up whatever crap they want to. Who are you supposed to believe? This isn't exactly crazy conspiracy theorists that are saying things like this. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/27/1265498/-The-slaves-that-time-forgothttp://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963 You are not wrecking it, you bring up a very valid point. The reliability of historical information. It is very, very difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. It appears that you have tried the approach by your links. I start from the source, as you pointed out it started from an article by Martin on the Worldresearch website. I tend to always check out the website first by doing Google search or seeing what rationalwiki has to say about them. Worldresearch uses different authors, but many original articles have been debunked and discredited. They are conspiracy theory heavy. Then you have to look where it goes from there. Typically a commentator, blogger, or even a nut, will take a snippet from an article and come up with an outlandish conclusion. "More Irish slaves than black slaves in America" for example. Then someone cites that and says "there were more Irish slaves in US than black ones." Basic history tell you that is B.S., 20% of the population in the colonies right before we declared independence. Roughly 700,000 slaves. Where did all the Irish go? Then when you dig a little deeper you see that they are talking about during the colonies, in ALL of the Americas, and in North and South and the Caribbean, there was a time when ENGLAND was sending Irish, Scottish and whomever else James, and Cromwell couldn't get along with, to the Cononies as indentured servants in numbers greater than African slaves. Africans were first sent over as indentured servants who obtained freedom but their status was quickly changed, by England to chattel slaves. Meaning they were always a slave, and their children were slaves. That is how we got to over 4 million African slaves by the civil war. What I always fail to understand is that these bloggers and fringe authors like Martin don't need to resort to a revisionist history or embellish. There is a valid point in what they are saying that gets diminished when the story gets distorted: We were taught in grade and high school that indentured servitude was a romantic notion. That those that couldn't pay for passage to the New World could agree to work it off and then buy land and share in the bounty of the new land, or similar notion. The fact was there was involuntary servitude, it wasn't pretty, and there was just as much suffering to go around while they were under their master's grasp. I think it is very valid to discuss whether that needsnto be more accurately taught and when to children. To go from the conditions of involuntary servitude and equate it to slavery where the whole thing breaks down. White Cargo, the book appears to be historically accurate, but their was criticism of the subtitle, as even the authors acknowlede that whites were indentured and that differs from slavery. Here is one review: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3664862/The-forgotten-history-of-Britains-white-slaves.html Who knows, the subtitle could have been inserted by the publisher to sell more books. Headlines and titles arena whole game unto themselves. I first try and go to snopes to check stuff out, it saves a lot of time, but I checked in their site and it did not appear they had an article directly addressing the subject. I was surprised because the Irish Slaves catch phrase has been floating around for several years on Facebook and other places. But all you can do is what you did, find the source of the article and see if other credible sources have reviewed it, that and to see if what someone says it says really says what is says. As in this case, what you will frequently find is that articles keep going back to the same source, Martin. That is a major red flag. Then information superhighway takes more work sometimes to sort out what is real. This forum has saved me from audio overhype and myth so many times I couldn’t even begin to ciunt.

I agree with that entirely. Yet, I think the decision to go to War, invade, attack another country should be at the top of the list, and by a wide margin. It just seems too easy sometimes. Now you have a contest of who can come up with a way to say that they would be as war with Assad, and how many many more troops they would have then the guy who just answered, and how much quicker they would be in there.Yes, good point. I can figure out how to rationalize a war decision made by a general who will be on the field. I've never figured out how to rationalize that decision when made by a comfortable, cozy, safe, politician. I can't see how that stain on the soul can ever be removed. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk You do it by using terms that marginalize life. Like "Boots on ground" instead of, I'm am going to send your sons and daughters over there.