So, Hannity is really reaching with this "Obama Orders Burger With Elitist European Condiment" Sean Hannity then plays the old "Grey Poupon" commercial, as if having seen that commercial 20 years ago is the only reason an adult man who lives in Chicago (where ketchup is not considered an acceptable condiment for a hot dog, btw, Mr. Hannity) would want "spicy mustard." Then he literally says this: "I hope you enjoyed that fancy burger, Mr. President."

See clip here: http://gawker.com/5244126/obama-orders-burger-with-elitist-european-condiment?skyline=true&s=i

I guess Bush is an elitist too haha Check out his recipe for Deviled eggs. Hummm deviled eggs! Maybe Bush is a secret (or not so secret) satanist too??? And look again...it isn't just an elitist European condiment he is endorsing but....Yucatan Sunshine Habanero sauce...surly that indicates his support of illegal immigration from central and south America.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/independenceday/2004/recipes.html

President and Laura Bush's Deviled Eggs Recipe

12 large eggs, boiled hard and peeled
1 Tbsp (plus) soft butter
1 Tbsp (plus) mayonnaise
1 Tbsp Dijon mustard
1/2 tsp Yucatan Sunshine Habanero sauce
Salt to taste

Cut eggs in half and set aside. Put egg yolks in food processor and add all ingredients. Process for 20 seconds or until mixture has blended. Check for taste and increase mustard, salt or Habanero sauce if desired. Place mixture in piping bag with star tip and pipe into egg halves. Sprinkle with paprika and chopped parsley. Chill for about an hour before serving.

Note about Yucatan Sunshine Habanero sauce: Habanero is a type of hot sauce, which can be substituted with Tabasco sauce. Yucatan Sunshine and other brands of the sauce can be purchased at most local supermarkets nationwide. The Bushes used the Yucatan Sunshine Habanero when living in Texas, and now the White House chef uses the sauce in a variety of recipes.

I remember hearing many years ago about the move to get electricity to remote areas of India in order to cut down the birth rate. People with other things to do have less sex.

Home more with nothing to do? Why not knock one out? hehe

More sex equals a higher incidence of pregnancy whether or not children can be afforded.

Oh and Smiless and ThomasJB you two should also emphasize the anti-depressant qualities of semen as well. Might help you to ummm spread the joy.

That would be my first thought too.

Won't stop nanny state folks from trying to ban them or require buyers to be 18.

Call me callous but the dad might be looking for a pay day too.

These drinks weren't around when my kids were young but coffee was. They weren't wolfing it down but then they knew something about moderation. Occasional coffee, tea, soda and beer was always available to them if they were responsible.

Funny how that works? Teaching and expecting personal responsibility, thoughtfulness and moderation usually works. Act otherwise and accept the consequences because you can bet there will be consequences.

Remember the big bruhaha over Palin and rape victims paying for their own rape kits?

Seems Alaska isn't the only state to have issues over payment. This from Texas:

Rape Victims Forced To Pay For Evidence
By Stephen Dean

POSTED: Thursday, May 7, 2009
UPDATED: 8:25 am CDT May 8, 2009
HOUSTON -- Victims of sexual assault are getting bills, rejection letters and pushy calls from bill collectors while a state crime victims' fund sits full of cash, Local 2 Investigates reported Thursday.

"I'm the victim, and yet here I am. I'm asked to pay this bill and my credit's going to get hurt," said a single mom from Houston.

She received bills marked, "delinquent," after she visited a hospital where police told her to have evidence gathered. Officers assured her she would not pay a dime for that rape kit to be handled.

"That was unreal," she said. "I never thought I'd be out anything for what I went through."

She was 44 years old when she was attacked in her own bed. She said she awoke to find a burly 15-year-old friend of her son assaulting her. He was found delinquent, meaning he was convicted, in juvenile court, thanks in part to the evidence gathered with the rape kit.

"It is set up legislatively so that the criminal justice system pays for whatever evidence collection occurs," said Kelly Young, with the Houston Area Women's Center, a rape crisis facility.

Police departments are reimbursed for up to $700 by the Texas Crime Victims' Compensation Fund, but many departments cover the bills if they exceed that.

After that happens, victims can apply for other costs associated with the rape kit hospital visits to be covered by the fund.

The Houston Police Department made one payment toward the single mother's hospital bill, but when she submitted the $1,847 worth of remaining bills to the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund, she received a denial letter, telling her that law enforcement should have paid.

"She's getting the run-around," said Young at the rape crisis center, which was not involved in her case.

"There may be lots of survivors who have this happen and we don't know because they don't know that they shouldn't be getting the bills," she said.

"A lot of people aren't going to ask. They're just going to go ahead and pay it and move forward with their lives. They don't want to keep re-living that experience," said Young.

Texas State Comptroller's office figures show the fund has tens of millions of dollars left over at the end of each year.

In September 2006, the balance was $67,058,646 and one year later, the balance was $57,669,432.

In 2008, that figure was up again to $66,572,261 that was left unspent in the fund.

Attorney General's spokesman Jerry Strickland said the crime victim fund is enforcing strict guidelines imposed by the legislature as to which bills are paid and which victims are sent a denial notice.

Otherwise, he said that fund could become "insolvent."

He said state law is clear that crime victims must exhaust all other potential funding sources, such as local police or their own health insurance.

"The legislature set it up that way," said Strickland.

When asked for a number of how many denial letters had been sent out to Texas rape victims in the past, Strickland did not have an answer after checking with his crime victims' compensation office workers.

He said the attorney general's office constantly trains hospitals and health care providers on how to help victims in getting reimbursed for their expenses.

Health care workers and rape crisis counselors told Local 2 Investigates that victims have come forward with denial letters for varying reasons, such as police listing the case as inactive, paperwork being filed incorrectly, or expenses falling into the wrong category.

Young, the advocate at Houston Area Women's Center said, "They're not dotting the Is and crossing the Ts to make sure that the person who was victimized does not have to re-live it six months later because they get a bill."

When Local 2 Investigates contacted the hospital where the single mother had her rape kit performed, hospital leaders quickly canceled her bill when they found out the state would not be paying the charges She now owes nothing.

She said she's amazed it happened to begin with, adding, "I don't look very kindly to them. I mean, I would expect that they would have had a little more feeling for me and they didn't."

For the triumph of common sense, for this town council and for the reporter who shared this story.

Our View: Three cheers for Tremonton council

Knowing when you made an error, taking quick action to correct the error, and taking steps to ensure the error does not occur again are traits of quality public servants.

The Tremonton City Council showed those traits and we'd like to congratulate council members for how they quickly resolved an embarrassing law -- passed two weeks ago -- that would have required those under 18 to get parents' consent before checking out books from the city library's "adult" fiction section.

It was clearly a goof. Had the law been enforced, and it never was, youngsters would have been stopped from checking out books by, say, J.R.R. Tolkien, author of "Lord of the Rings," or even Gerald Lund's LDS fiction "Work and the Glory" series.

Within hours after the vote, council members realized they had made a mistake. No one tried to obscure the issue or assign blame elsewhere. Tremonton's council stood up and took the blame.

Wouldn't that be a refreshing change for Washington D.C. or even our state Legislature?

On Tuesday the law was repealed so now kids with more "adult" tastes can check out Stephen King, John Grisham, or even Agatha Christie if they have a yen for mysteries.

It's also nice to see the council not only correcting a mistake, but wanting to learn from it.

The original adult fiction ban started as a suggestion on a piece of paper. No one's completely sure where that suggestion came from.

To fix that, the Tremonton council agreed that if a request is placed on an agenda, those who made the request must appear before the council and pitch their case. It's a good idea that will go a long way toward ensuring that infamous ordinances such as the Tremonton library ban aren't repeated.

Finally, we appreciate that the Tremonton officials can find humor in the unfortunate, short-term book-restriction law. Council member Lyle Holmgren provided an earthy analogy for the whole experience. He compared it to stepping on a cowpie.

"You know you've done something wrong the minute you did it, and it stinks, and it takes awhile to get the stink off," he said.

For now, at least, the stink has been completely deodorized in Tremonton's library.
http://www.standard.net/live/news/172292/

If you aren't teaching your kids about their bodies, sex, responsibility and all the attendant issues until they are pre teens or teens you have already missed the boat.

No.2

My ex husbands sum total sex ed was "keep your zipper up"

I found out in unpleasant ways.

I was determined to do better for my children. When my daughter asked the earliest questions like she did when I brought home her new little brother I answered honestly, using correct terms, giving the information she wanted and leaving the door open for more questions.

Honesty and a little humor.

Sex ed wasn't "the talk" but an on-going conversation that arose out of real life situations. Changing my sons diaper and my daughter asking, "What's that? I don't have one!" to "Hey mom if I have testicles why don't they call what girls have breasticles?" We still use the term breasticles...it's funny.

By five having asked and been answered, having observed family and friends express affection and have babies my son understood the facts and knew the terms. So, when a little boy down the street announced that babies came from the oven and that the reason some people were black is because they were burned my son volunteered to educate the kid properly. He explained, using the correct terms sperm, egg and how a baby is born in rather accurate detail to his little group of friends. "Adding, your mommy lied to you. I wonder why?" That evening I received three angry calls. To which I replied had they not lied to their children they wouldn't find themselves in this position.

My children are all adults. We had no unplanned pregnancies and no STD's. They are all open, sexual human beings.

When you hide things and create taboo's you create fertile ground for misunderstanding and possibly fatal mistakes. When you tell some alternate version like babies coming out of ovens you have lied to your child about one of the most basic of human functions.

Kids remember lies. How can they come to you as a young person when they are under pressure or confused about what is right for them when you started the conversation based on a lie.

Trust you child to do the right thing or abandon trust and expect them to not do the right thing...children seldom disappoint when your message is clear.

Maybe more parents should look at the message they are truly sending their children.

If you have good values and impart them in all aspects of your life, if you walk the talk and if you establish a trusting and honest relationship with your children then someone in school telling them how say birth control works it will not make them suddenly go nuts and throw all the rest away.

Facts don't lead children to bad decisions...inconsistency, hypocrisy, fear and ignorance do though.

So you want to criminalize legal reasoning and analysis? the next time you need the advice of an attorney think how helpful he would be if he had to fear his opinion only of the law could make him potentially prosecutable.

That's nifty! Welcome to the dark ages.

Was the legal reasoning in the torture memo's bad work? Perhaps. Was it done to justify a policy Bush had already decided to put into place? Maybe. Was it criminal to offer a possible interpretation of the law. NO

Talk about thought police!! haha

At any rate...

Was Lyndie England acting under orders? That question is vital.

If she or the group of individuals she worked with tortured a later order to torture issued to another individual or group does not make her actions legal.

It appears Bush sought legal opinions to justify torture. While torture was authorized by the Commander in Chief at some point when did and how did this order move down the chain of command? Again another vital question in determining responsibility.

Those who tortured without acting under orders certainly are criminally culpable. I don't have an issue with that. I do have issues with holding people criminally responsible for acting under a direct order. It is the superior who is responsible.

From Reason On-line

Majority Support for Marijuana Legalization?

Jacob Sullum | May 7, 2009, 12:43pm

In a recent Zogby poll, 52 percent of voters said they supported marijuana legalization. As far as I know, this is the first time a national survey has found majority support for repealing cannabis prohibition, as opposed to merely decriminalizing possession for personal use. A couple of caveats:

1. According to a press release from the Marijuana Policy Project, the survey, commissioned by The O'Leary Report, used "a sample of 3,937 voters weighted to match the 2008 presidential outcome—54 percent Obama voters and 46 percent McCain supporters." This sample may be skewed in a pro-reform direction if, as seems plausible, left-leaning Americans were especially motivated to vote in the last presidential election, while conservatives were dispirited. I'm not sure what the exit polls showed on that score.

2. The wording of the question seems slanted:

Scarce law enforcement and prison resources, a desire to neutralize drug cartels and the need for new sources of revenue have resurrected the topic of legalizing marijuana. Proponents say it makes sense to tax and regulate the drug while opponents say that legalization would lead marijuana users to use other illegal drugs. Would you favor or oppose the government's effort to legalize marijuana?

Respondents were presented with three arguments in favor of legalization and only one against, and it was pretty lame. Why would legalizing pot make people more likely to use heroin? Because pot would lose its "forbidden fruit" cachet? That sounds like an antiprohibitionist argument. Also, the phrase "the government's effort to legalize marijuana" makes it sound as if this is something that's already happening, which makes the idea seem more realistic and credible.

Still, this sounds like good news, and it's in line with building support for marijuana legalization in other surveys, as well as recent comments by sitting public officials who say they'e open to discussing the idea.

Rush is everywhere! Ever wonder why? This might be a factor.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ever wonder why Rush "Boss" Limbaugh's syndicated radio show is all over the place like the proverbial cheap suit?

If you do much driving in rural areas -- e.g. between cities -- "Boss" Limbaugh's bloviations are often the only thing you can pick up on a car radio. Hey, that's what CD players are for.

Did Rush accrue hundreds of local radio affiliates across the country because his political views are mainstream? That's obviously not it. OK, so why IS his show so "popular?" Why do hundreds of stations around the country carry his show, the most widely syndicated talkfest in the country?

Glad you asked.

The real story is not generally well-known. The only reason I know is through my covering the business of radio for years for several major daily newspapers and also, for industry trade magazines like Radio World.

It's because -- ready for this? -- Rush's show was, and presumably still is, given away for free to many local radio stations.

This shocker is because of a little-known practice in broadcast syndication called a "barter deal." (Barter deals were briefly mentioned in Michael Wolff's first-rate recent piece on Rush in Vanity Fair).

Here's how a barter deal works: To launch the show, Limbaugh's syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks -- the same folks who syndicate wingnut du jour Glen Beck -- gave Limbaugh's three hours away -- that's right, no cash -- to local radio stations, mostly in medium and smaller markets, back in the early 1990's.

So, a local talk station got Rush's show for zilch. In exchange, Premiere took for itself much of the local station's available advertising time (roughly 15 minutes an hour) and packed the show with national ads it had already pre-sold.

Think Gold Bond Medicated Powder.

It's a very sweet deal for local radio station owners, explained Bill Exline a respected radio broker (he helped people buy and sell local stations). "Not only does the local station get three hours of free programming," Exline explained, "but that's one less local talk-show host on staff they need. It makes small- and medium-market radio properties more profitable and attractive by cutting down staff expenses."

Shocking, isn't it, that Limbaugh would allow jobs to be cut to advance his dubious career? Not to mention helping to make small radio stations far less local?

Major-market right-wing talk stations, like San Francisco's KSFO-AM ("Reichstag Radio") have to pay actual money, of course, to carry Boss Limbaugh's daily proclamation-a-thon. (Note: KSFO, which I referred to as "Sieg Heil on Your Dial" in my column when it first switched to righty talk, is the same station that gave hatemonger Michael Savage his first radio megaphone).

Radio sources say that small- and medium-market stations still get Limbaugh's show for free, or pay only a token amount of cash for it. I asked Michael Harrison, editor of radio-syndicator-friendly Talkers magazine about this, and he claimed he didn't know how many Limbaugh affiliates still barter. .

So, when you hear Rush bellowing as you're passing through Birdseed Junction, Beanblossom, or Pyrite, just remember: The radio station's getting what it paid for. Or, more accurately, DIDN'T pay for.


Bill Mann

TV-Radio critic, www.dcweasels.com

The ultimate responsibility is held by the Commander in Chief who solicited the legal opinions on upon which he justified and ordered that torture be used.

To criminalize the giving of legal advice would send us back to the dark ages.

Yes, torture is wrong and indeed some individuals along the way did in fact say that despite the legal advice given them and the orders of their superiors they would not torture.

Let's be clear here. The man who is responsible for authorizing torture is Geo. Bush and it is he who should be held legally and morally responsible.

Don't get me wrong. Memorials are fine and good but to seize land to do it?

This is absolutely wrong in my opinion.

PITTSBURGH – The government will begin taking land from seven property owners so that the Flight 93 memorial can be built in time for the 10th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks, the National Park Service said.

In a statement obtained by The Associated Press, the park service said it had teamed up with a group representing the victims' families to work with landowners since before 2005 to acquire the land.

"But with few exceptions, these negotiations have been unsuccessful," said the statement.

Landowners dispute that negotiations have taken place and say they are disappointed at the turn of events.

The seven property owners own about 500 acres still needed for what will ultimately be a $58 million, 2,200-acre permanent memorial and national park at the crash site near Shanksville, about 60 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

"We always prefer to get that land from a willing seller. And sometimes you can just not come to an agreement on certain things," park service spokesman Phil Sheridan said.

"Basically, at this point, we have not been able to acquire all the land we need," he said.

Even with willing sellers, Sheridan said title questions, liens and other claims can arise that would have to be worked out and could delay the project.

"We had a group of people who took some very heroic actions. It's just fitting and right that we get this done in time for the 10th anniversary," he said.

The next step will be for the U.S. Justice Department to file a complaint in federal court. A court would have to decide the matter and would set a value on the land.

Two owners account for about 420 acres the park service plans to condemn, including Svonavec Inc. — which owns 275 acres, including the impact site where 40 passengers and crew died. About 150 acres are owned by a family that operates a scrap yard.

Most of rest of the land to be condemned are small parcels, two of which include cabins.

Tony Kordell said the park service visited him late Friday afternoon and made him an offer for his 150 acres. He declined to give the price, but said his attorney requested the appraisal used to determine the value on Monday.

He's not gotten that appraisal, he said Thursday. On Wednesday, he was told the park service would condemn the land.

The property Kordell owns includes the scrap yard, which must be relocated and he said cost to move the business also hasn't been determined. The property includes where the visitor center, parking lot and park walkways will be placed, he said.

"We've been working with (the park service) all along. We've given them rights to come on the property" to do planning, he said.

"All it's going to do is cost a huge amount of money for attorneys," he said.

Randall Musser owns about 62 acres that the park service wants to acquire.

"They apologized about the way it's come together, but what's sad is they had all these years to put this together and they haven't," he said.

Musser served on the committee that helped establish the park's boundaries and said landowners were promised in 2002 that eminent domain would not be used.

"It's absolutely a surprise. I'm shocked by it. I'm disappointed by it," said Tim Lambert, who owns nearly 164 acres that his grandfather bought in the 1930s. The park service plans to condemn two parcels totaling about five acres — land, he said, he had always intended to donate for the memorial.

"To the best of my knowledge and my lawyer, absolutely no negotiations have taken place with the park service where we've sat down and discussed this," Lambert said.

Lambert said he had mainly dealt with the Families of Flight 93 and said he's provided the group all the information it's asked for, including an appraisal.

While he knew that condemnation was a possibility, he thought it was an unlikely scenario and that the park service and family group had wanted to acquire the larger parcels before dealing with owners of smaller properties.

"I was never told that May was the drop-deadline," he said.

Patrick White, the vice president of Flight 93 Families, welcomed the park service's action and had planned to ask for it at an upcoming meeting with Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.

"We appreciate the timely nature of this decision, which will keep us on the timetable for the tenth year dedication of the permanent memorial," he said in a statement.

Sheriden said condemnation is rarely used. The last time the park service used it, he said, was to acquire a tower at the Gettysburg battlefield in 2000. The tower was demolished to return the battlefield to the way it looked in 1863.

In February, government officials and representatives of the 33 passengers and seven crew members killed when the plane crashed on Sept. 11, 2001, pledged to dedicate a memorial on the site by the 10th anniversary. Officials said then that more than 80 percent of the needed land had been secured.

United Flight 93 was traveling from Newark, N.J., to San Francisco when it was diverted by hijackers with the likely goal of crashing it into the White House or Capitol. The official 9/11 Commission report said the hijackers crashed the plane as passengers tried to wrest control of the cockpit.

___ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090507/ap_on_re_us/us_flight93_memorial

Give this some thought please.

So...I have an assignment.

John (our client) is accused of DUI. These are the known facts. John was found standing in the vicinity of an auto that hit a school bus. There were no witnesses. However the prosecution is fairly sure John drove the car that hit the bus killing six kindergartners.

My assignment...gather known facts, check the authenticity of those facts, come up with possible scenarios and then research. Statutes, case law and other sources both primary and secondary along with expert opinions.

We are defending John.

I come up with possible scenarios and quote sources of law and other opinions that are or could be factors in our situation and then assess our chances of successfully defending our client.


Someone in the prosecutors office does the same thing.

So, if I locate case law or opinions supportive of my clients position along with any other pertinent information and write a legal memo advising my employer that we may have precedent on our side have I committed a crime?

Reminds you?

You are 34 years old? Certainly you weren't there to witness such an atrocity.

Perhaps it reminds you of something you read or maybe a movie you watched? Was Chuck Norris involved?

Oh, but wait...you support torture don't you?

Especially against foreigners invading or threatening your country.

No need for a Geneva Convention right?

If that method of torture was actually used...that's okay right? Every post you've made on the subject of torture up to this point supports it after all.

Okay...now that I pointed out the obvious...my sympathies to this man and a wish...that you get out and investigate the state of VA facilities here in the states. Bush spent tons making war but slashed the budget for taking care of those who have sacrificed for this country right or wrong.

I know many of you all don't like to throw money at things and you hate to pay taxes but...

I have posted since my first days on these boards about the sorry state of the VA and the services (if you want to call them that) provided or not provided to our vets.

It is my hope people continue to speak out for and work for our vets.

I am a strong supporter of parental and personal responsibility.

I won't argue those things should come first.

Still...stop please.

Did you, no matter what your relationship with your parents was, have secrets from your parents? Sometimes secrets that had nothing to do with what you did yourself but hurtful secrets?

Teens are killing themselves because they have great supportive relationships with their parents?

I can see parents now thinking...that happens somewhere else...not in my house...until it happens.

I must add I think it's funny that some here who are saying this legislation isn't needed are the same people who think that offering protections to their children in the form of sex education or condoms is wrong too.

Line em up like ducks...

For Christ sake...these are your children...protect them...clean up the moral mess afterward. (Some argument could be applied here about parents first) Look again...parents aren't there on a massive scale...children are being molested, pushed into heinous acts and even dying. Even the children of parents who are "there" are victims.

You also want pedophiles hung...I do not disagree...but guess how children are got there? Coerced, manipulated, threatened...

If this charge is one more way to make potential predators to think twice or go to jail for longer...well then...let's think about it.

With this language?

Maybe not but certainly with some type of charge.

My father (a man who thinks there is no God but him) refused to allow my baptism in the Catholic church, something usually done quite soon after birth, until I was a year old. He wanted to wait longer but succumbed to the hand wringing of my mothers family.

His point...if God really cares...and if he is real...everything will be fine without the ritual.

My father and I butted heads many times over the years, he is a smart evil bastard, but he actually told me one day he was damned sorry he let them baptize me because it should have been my choice.

He is right.

We have no choice about what nation we are born into, who are parents are, what our sexual orientation is, how tall we are, what color are hair is or if we will even have any...but we do have a choice about our relationship with our Gods or God (which ever you like) and to have someone rob you of that...even posthumously seems pretty damned disrespectful to the person and to his or her (and even your) God.

Personally I am a person of great faith...I just have very very little in my fellow human beings.

Stuff like this proves it.

Paul is Dead

Nuff said...

I think this is the law trying to keep up with new technology. Is it badly written? Yeah looks like it.

If any cares to review our history or the history of any society with laws they will see that laws follow new technology. Often in ways that seem embarrassingly ill conceived, badly written, limited or over broad in scope and so on.

It is the nature of the law.

Law is after all always evolving.

It is one of the things that makes law so beautiful and intellectually satisfying.

Laws are not black and white. They live. They are forged. They evolve.

Laws can only try to anticipate future circumstances. They cannot be perfect instruments.

The forging of law only starts with legislators and administrators. These instruments are then handed to lawyers, prosecutors and judges and....

BEFORE YOU START YOUR RANT...

to jurors....to you and I.

Anyone who has more than a passing knowledge of history must surely understand this.

When you have an adult woman who can knowingly and with malice convince a young girl to suicide and find there is no charge to bring against her because there is no law that addresses what she has done....well...some legislation is sure to arise.

Is this a poor piece of legislation? Maybe...I would like to read it and not what you've posted.

Should something be done? Ask the friends and family of that girl, or the girl who killed herself after being sexually assaulted by someone who tormented her about the assault...

Saying just because he was arrested there is " prolly something there" is scary. I wouldn't want you on a jury that's for sure.

Innocent people are routinely arrested, some jailed and some even put to death.

What about due process, the writ hebeas corpus ohh heck let's throw in the assumption of innocence.

This is kind of funny. Will S.C. go after Mingle2, Adult Friend Finder or Plenty of Fish too? I mean seriously...some peoples personals on so called dating sites are little more than thinly veiled solicitations.

I get a big kick out of the official saying that they didn't need that sort of thing "brought into S.C." which is really interesting. Aren't the citizens of the state who are posting and using this service responsible for what they post and who they choose to engage for umm erotic service?

Don't kill the messenger. /smirk

The Phoenix AZ prosecutor is in it to get his 15 minutes of fame in the national media too.

So, should these sort of ads be stopped? If so where do you stop them?