JohnnyD

We said the pledge every morning. I went to a very small school in a farming community and sometimes (especially in the winter) the buses wouldn't arrive at the same time. The pledge was used in the lower grades as kind of a mental tool that meant after its said, we sit down and its time for us to behave and start class. Worked fantastically. In the later grades we said the pledge as it was originally written and used that with our US history class. Again, I think it was a great tool to get our attention and teach us something.

Does anyone know what the physics of this are? I mean if you jumped off a 185 ft tall bridge the outcome would be bad at best. How can this be pulled off without injury?

This would be the appropriate time for the TTIWWOP attachment.

BFD. Accidents happen. Be glad you're not a bush pig, then you would be getting laughed at. Guys got a treat from mother nature. Move on.

So, the higher the volume the more money they lose????

Right, but you still have to sign up for it right? Its not just a given?

WTF is a moral waiver? Also - not sure if this is still true - when I was in you had to sign up for the GI Bill. It wasn't automatic.

Again, its not criminal court. There is no accusation and no innocence or guilt. There is something in the taxing authority's computer system that is different than the information that the taxing authority's computer system has received from the taxpayer. That is generating a notice. A notice is not an accusation of guilt, it is a notice that changes have been made to the taxpayer's information. If the taxpayer believes the notice is incorrect, the taxpayer has the opportunity to respond and correct or clarify the information that generated the notice. Its pretty simple really - the computer says this is what I have and this is what you gave me. This is what I'm proposing to do and this is your opportunity to respond. Generally speaking, these type of notices are very easy to resolve.

Will her dad get you a job?

Coming up with something - anything - that you can give them to show them where you lived shouldn't be too tough. I know the kind of emotion and response these types of correspondence tend to bring to the surface, but try to understand you are not being accused of anything. Something in their computer system triggered this and your response will be the first time a human being on their end will have seen it. It will be easy to resolve and you can just move on. PSA - When dealing with taxing authorities, you are on the clock. Taking the stance that you will "put the ball in their court" and "make them do the legwork to prove their case" is absolutely the wrong way to handle these things. If you take that position, you will continue to be on the clock accruing interest and penalties and there is a word for "putting the ball in their court" and "making them do the legwork to prove their case" and the word is audit. It is not the way you want to go when you can solve the problem with a bill and a letter.

Don't waste your time proving to them that you didn't live there. Just flat out tell them that you didn't live there, and that if they think otherwise, it's up to them to prove that you did. And until they do, you insist that they cancel this bill. Put the ball in their court. Make them do all the legwork to prove their case. When they can't, they'll realize their mistake, and drop the matter. That is the WORST advice in history. If you ignore them, they will start putting liens on your assets and destroying your credit. In the time it took the OP to type the post complaining, a copy of a cable bill, phone bill, or whatever could have been copied with a short response. When dealing with taxing authorities, you don't "put the ball in their court".

Really? I don't remember too much outrage when McCain famously cracked a joke about her.

In a nutshell.

Are you married, or does your protest end at your doorstep?

It is? I am an athiest. I got married by a man who was not affiliated with a religious group in any way at a casino in Las Vegas. Am I not married?

I guess I missed the part of that video where the jenga blocks were set on fire. And *I* must have missed the part where they explained how fire modifies the effect of gravity - can you point me to a reference? His opinion is that the bottom of the iron support structure would have to be compromised for the building to collapse in the manner that it did. That would mean that the jet fuel and fire would have had to have made it all the way to the bottom of the building. He didn't think that was feasible. It was his opinion that the jet fuel would have burned up while it was still on the upper floors of the building and the base of the building would have had to have been blown for the collapse to occur. He said he could also be wrong and that we should recreate the circumstances to see what would happen.

Well, then this should keep you occupied. https://www.mybedazzler.com/ Even better than jenga blocks.

My guess is that you've missed quite a bit. I'm prepared to be dazzled. On one hand, I have a Navy SEAL trained in demolition and experienced in it as well talking about crashing a jet full of fuel into the upper levels of an iron framed building. He doesn't believe that the collapse of the building is consistent with the circumstances, but would like to recreate the circumstances to either support or disprove his theory. On the other hand, I have Quade. You have high school physics and jenga blocks. Tough decision as far as credibility.

He should retake high school physics then. Yeah, that SEAL demolition training has nothing on high school physics. Apparently not. The buildings fell exactly as they should have according to very basic laws of physics; specifically Newton's 1st and 2nd. They fell more or less straight down for the same reason the Jenga blocks in this video do not topple. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9BmTmMEOhQ I guess I missed the part of that video where the jenga blocks were set on fire.

He should retake high school physics then. Yeah, that SEAL demolition training has nothing on high school physics.

Probably invaded Mexico by now. FREE TACOS AMIGOS!!!!

Well said. I remember a while back Ventura was going on about how he believed in the 9/11 conspiracies. Whatever respect I had for him being a maverick was completely lost when I realized he was also a moron. I can't watch the youtube video, did he mention if he still believes in that crap? He said yesterday that the collapse of the WTC buildings is inconsistent with his demolition training, however, he also said that he could easily be convinced otherwise by setting a building on fire instead of blowing it up when it has been scheduled for demolition. He said he didn't believe the building would fall directly down as both did unless they were blown.

I think the Pope is actually Roman Catholic.

No, he said they were water boarded. Perhaps you don't realize that on the planet the rest of us live on waterboarding is considered to be torture. Even worse - on this planet there are things such as the Geneva Conventions that deem torture to be illegal. How's the weather where you live?

I'm calling bullshit on that. Can you substantiate it? That *was* one of the complaints in a lawsuit against Walmart... Locking employees in a building is a violation of fire codes. Sounds fishy to me. Hope it isn't true.