You are going to find this harsh, and I am sorry for that, but very simply put, your attitude is disgusting.

Your entire post is about YOUR CONVENIENCE an what YOU WANT. You mention if yuo become pregnant by accident... I have to ask "how do you become pregnant by accident? did you trip and fall into a vat of sperm and could not get out before some of it found its way into your vaginal tract?"

Very simply, if you do not want to become pregnant (which is completely all right and I respect 100%) then DO NOT HAVE SEX.

I mean, COME ON, you cannot tell me that you do not know pregnancy is a possible consequence of having sex. And if you are going to take the risk, then yuo have to accept that you are giving up any "rights" you had in regards to being the sole judge of what happens if you become pregnant.

I don't think I need to post any specific articles regarding prison reform to have most people agree that it is a serious issue and needs to happen. But what I am curious about is how would you reform it? Without violating current laws and constitutional requirements, name three things you would change and how you would change them. Also explain WHY you would change them please.
In my case it would be as follows:


1: Make Marijuana legal across the board (Federally). not just medical marijuana, but full personal recreational use. Follow Colorado's example of regulating it and taxing it, but make it legal.

The reason for this, is no matter what anybody says or does, marijuana simply is NOT any more dangerous than a cigarette. We definitely need to have similar laws as alcohol in regards to operating a vehicle while under the influence and make it for adults only, but there is absolutely no reason to have it be illegal, and definitely no reason for our prisons to be filled to the bursting point with people who had such little amounts on them.


2. Child Support: Stop basing child support off of a persons individual income and base it off what it costs to raise a child to age 18 in that state. Every state is required to provide information on how much it costs each year to raise a child to age 18. So if the parents are not together, you make BOTH parents responsible for HALF of the cost of raising their child to 18.

let's say it costs me $100,000 in 2016 to raise a child to 18. Divide that by 18 years and you have $5,555.555555556 as your yearly cost per child. now divide that by 12 months and you have $462.96 per month. Divide that by two (one half per parent) and you have $231.48 per month that BOTH parents are responsible for providing, regardless of income. Working 7.43 hours per week at $7.25 (Federal minimum wage) would meet this number.
Now, in 2017 let's say it costs $200,000 to raise a child to 18. $200,000 divided by 18, divided by 12 divided by 2 equals $462.96 per parent. If one of the parents wants the child(ren) to have more, they have to provide it, not the other parent.


3. I would make a law that mandates the punishment be fitting of the crime whenever possible, with jail/prison being used only if a legally suitable punishment can not be found or agreed upon. For example:

You get arrested for shoplifting groceries because you can not afford to buy them. instead of throwing them in jail, making them lose whatever little income they may or may not have and causing even more hardship for their family (and them, when they get out), put them to work for the community. We used to have what was classified as "public works" jobs; street cleaner, park cleaner, pruning of public trees and plants, etc. Bring all of those back and put the convicted shoplifter to work at minimum wage for a certain amount of time based on their theft, with minimum being 6 months. That's 40 hours per week at minimum wage, Monday thru Friday. This serves so many different purposes it isn't funny, but to name a few immediately: cleans up the public areas in each city. Does not put a hardship on the citizens in regards to providing jail room for someone who does not need to be in jail. It HELPS the shoplifter get income for 6 months so they can eat and feed their family. It gives them honost work experience which will make getting another job after those 6 months (or however long) of working for the city.

I don;t know anything regarding how secured the gun was int he officers home, just that it had been stolen from there; so I can not comment on if it had been better secured. However I have to agree with the fact that if it had been microchipped, or had a trigger that was only an eighth of an inch wider so it could read his finger print in order to be operated things may have been different.

As far as harsher sentences for who you murder, I have never agreed with that. Murder is murder, pure and simple. it is no more evil to take a police officers life than it is to take somebody's grandmother who is having her hair permed at the beauty parlor. The officer wasn't better than the grandmother, and I am sure the grandmother was not better than the officer, lol.

Yes, we are effected more if it was a little old lady or a child that gets killed versus a punk on the street that tried to steal a purse, but in the end it is still just murder and the sentence should be the same across the board (based on the individual case and not the victim). This is why people who have been busted for having an ounce of pot on them three times are now looking at life in prison with no parole and murders and rapists are looking at only 5 - 10 with time off for good behavior.

Thanks, someone else reminded me (obliquely lol as I saw it in another thread somewhere) about the filters and I applied what I could.

As far as other pictures I don't have anything relatively current, except ones I wouldn't want to put public (such as half dressed ;-) )

close relation to Miley Cyrus the twirker?

No Conrad I will not. If you are interested in following up on it you are more than welcome to read the constitution yourself, and the many, many judicial rulings in place regarding what is meant by the constitution.

rrraawwwrrrrrr!!!!!!

Sorry Msharmony but no it can not due to the very clearly written separation of church and state. By that constitutional law, the government (all levels) can not put in place any law that promotes or denies a single religion, which means any government employee can not refuse to do something based on religious belief, because they are acting on behalf of the government when performing their duties. Thus the ONLY option the government has is to require all clerks to issue marriage licenses, or remove the law requiring marriage licenses in the first place. Me personally, I would rather they went with option B and stopped requiring licenses to get married as the only reason for that process to be in effect is to bring in revenue for the government.

No, very simply, if a persons religious beliefs prevent them from doing something that a job would require them to do, then they need to find a different job. T here is no harm in doing so and they are not being denied the job to begin with.

Please explain how this is sexist? The definition of sexist is to very simply claim, act or behave in a manner that promotes one gender (sex) being better than another. Now, if you mean the fact that rape victims tend to be treated as if they are the ones at fault is sexist, I have to agree with you.

However, since I used it as a correlation between blaming the rape victim for getting raped and blaming would be women infantrymen for men who can not behave appropriately, no it is not sexist. I specifically stated also that BOTH are wrong and the one to blame is the one that is misbehaving (which in both cases is not the woman). I also stated that the one at fault should be disciplined for it (prison for the rapist, discharge for the infantry person)

And yet you obviously read it to know that I asked you for an explanation ;-)

Well said. Personally the judge was lax in letting her out of Jail for contempt as he told her she would be int here until she agreed to obey the law and only held her for what, a week? Maybe thirty days for each license she denied or caused to be denied would have been a good sentence ;-)

First, I have to ask, why the aggression? I have done nothing to warrant aggression from you or anyone else ;-)

As far as your comment that I am reading too into your personal opinion and then refusal to say how, I will ask specifically, how am I reading too much into your personal opinion?

Your opinion very specifically states that there is a problem when a woman is captured and eventually raped, as if it only happens to women and happens all the time. You also ask if both genders receive training on how to deal with rape (which I understood to be training on how to deal with it before it has happened), which I explained there is no such thing.

Finally, you say you feel it is pointless to respond to me (and then get aggressive), but in the end you did respond (in a way)...

So I am asking, how am I reading too much into your opinion?

Overall I have to agree with you. In regards to ANYTHING she posted on twitter, so long as she did not use school property to do so, she can not be touched (and that has been proven in court numerous times the last several years.

As far as the first amendment goes however, what a lot of people fail to remember or realize (mainly due to poor educational standards across the nation) is that until you are an adult (or emancipated by a court of law) you do not have the same rights as an adult citizen. You do NOT have the right to free speech for example. You DO have the legal right to be heard which means if you have a problem or if you need to address something you have to be listened to and considered. You do not however, have the full freedom to say what you want when you want however you want.

Now, with that said, it doesn't really mean much at this point anyway because nobody is going to refuse to listen to a teenager or a child just because they are not an adult as well all know. BUT it does cover the fact that she does NOT have the right, and more and more schools are enforcing this, to say what she wants in school without fear of reprimand.

In regards to the school taking her phone and searching it? That is a direct violation of the fourth amendment (which minors DO HAVE FULL RIGHTS TO); and again this has been upheld in court numerous times over the past several years. This does not mean the student was right in recording the conversation without stating she was going to first (she does not need permission to do so, she just needs to state she will be recording so the other person(s) can refuse to talk while on tape). The proper and legal path has to be followed in order to obtain it, and under most circumstances it will be disregarded unless the recording was used to bring harm to the other person or is used as evidence and it will then be tossed out.



What it boils down to is if it did not happen on school property or at a school function, and it did not involve school equipment, the school pretty much has no authority. IF she is bullying someone via the internet and not from a school resource, then the only thing that can be done is to involve the police and have the police investigate the matter.

pet peeves....

No picture on your profile but you are "looking" for a relationship"

Your profile says you are mature, dont like to party or go to bars, etc, that you are laid back, respectful and looking for someone that shares these traits, but your picture looks like yuo were trying to imitate Myley Cyrus and you got caught with your booty in the air, nose on the ground and shorts that would make Daisey Duke blush in shame.

your entire profile consists of the single word "hey" and nothing is filled in

First, let me ask when I mocked or belittled you or anyone else? Because if yuo can give me one actual time that I did, I will apologize for doing so. But let me be blunt also: putting a name (which the dictionary supports) to a behavior is neither mocking nor namecalling.

Second: you state that you never said anything about terminating a mission in order to go rescue a woman if SHe was in danger. yet your response was 100% directly linked with the part you quoted which is "I think it can put a whole unit in jeopardy. Then the focus turns to saving her and away from the battlefield. " "...THEN THE FOCUS TURNS TO SAVING HER AND AWAY FROM THE BATTLEFIELD" sO, I am sorry that you feel I misunderstood your statement, but I understood very clearly what you said. If there was a misunderstanding it was on your side in regards to what you wrote.

As far as your rewrite in which you bring up the fact (yes I agree you are correct on this) that we, as a Nation, are programmed to automatically drop what we are doing and go to the aid of a woman or child... Again I agree that we still have a problem with people being trained (all people not just military) to behavior in this manner, and I am sorry but it is wrong. I mean, the training of this method is wrong. It SHOULD be that we are all raised to automatically aid ANYONE who is in need regardless of who they are or what they are. But in regards to soldiers following this pattern of behavior, as I said, yes there are a few that can not seem to drop the training they received as kids in regards to this and not try to help even when it puts everything else into danger; and those soldiers need to be discharged for failure to meet military standards; because NO MATTER WHAT, you HAVE to be able to follow your mission and your duty, regardless of what it is even if it means letting someone else suffer.

I never claimed that you said a man could not control themself, nor did I say you accused anyone of rape. I used the VERY COMMON argument regarding how we tend to treat rape victims as if it was their fault and that THEY are the ones that need to change something and not the rapist and the fact that that is what needs to happen in regards top a soldier who can not follow orders.

It's not about who can do it better. it's about whether or not a person can do it within a reasonable standard of time and performance. YOU have no business ever having been in the military by your own words and standards, because I guaruntee there was someone better than you, more physically fit, more capable; you were not perfect and SOMEONE was better. Thus YOU did not meet the requirements because YOU could not do it as well as he did.

What's that? Not relevent? Completely different? You COULD do it WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME FRAME AND SET OF STANDARDS?

Guess what? That's a double standard, it's defined as discrimination, and when you use it to claim men are better than women, even just in certain things, it makes you sexist.

in this quote you are saying that on a daily basis, not only do individual soldiers, but entire units forget their training, forego their mission assignments and throw everything to the wind in order to save the *** of a female soldier who is in trouble.

I can not stop laughing at the outrageous assumption that our soldiers and units are this undisciplined. Yes there are a few individual soldiers that would do this. They are also the ones who would forego their mission in order to go after the next booty call, or to smoke the next joint or any other number of things, and they do not belong in the military to begin with. Let's look at a different scenario, but same results that are being stated...

A woman is walking down the sidewalk in a two piece bikini (yes, I am going here). A guy sees her, can not control himself when he is aroused by all that flesh she is displaying and takes her into an alley where he rapes her. My question is this:

Who is at fault? The woman wearing the bikini? or the man who can not control himself and forces her to do something she does not want to do? Who do we hold accountable for the rape?

The same thing goes with our soldiers and all areas of their behavior. If a male soldier lets the fact that a woman is working next to him distract him from his mission to where he does not perform said mission adequately, he needs to be counseled (not medically, but professionally) on his behavior. If it continues, he needs to be discharged for failure to meet standards, if nothing else; same thing goes for a woman that lets the fact that a male is working next to her, distract her from her duty.

If you truly feel that our current Marines would abandon their mission or endanger the unit to go after a single member of that unit who is in danger or captured then you need to address the problem itself, which is lack of discipline, not the fact that someone was in danger or captured.

Very well put and this is why I do not agree with the military being able to prosecute you after you have been tried and convicted in a civilian court. yes, the soldier should be dishonorably discharged, but the military should not be able to wait for you to serve twenty years in court, then make you serve another twenty years in the Brigg.

and yet again you show how sexist you truly are. Get it through your head, more muscle does not mean more competent. More muscle, does not mean better suited. You get hit by a bullet you are gonna bleed and possibly die, depending on where you get hit, JUST THE SAME AS A WOMAN. Someone breaks through the lines and jabs you with a bayonette, you are still going to bleed and die, same as a woman.

It was definitely my pleasure to do so ;-)