Trump's Final 100 days
Quote: Mission1461. We literally do it for K-12, what is the difference, other than just making it longer?
2. Work is a factor, academic criteria must be met. If the criteria is not met because the person is unable or unwilling, then they must take a loan and go to a private institution.
What we want is for people who are fundamentally bright, regardless of the family they are born into, to have closer to the same chance without incurring years upon years of debt.
It seems pretty fair to me. You have the chance of a
1. Just because we already do it, doesn't mean it's right. On top of that, I don't know how much it costs for a kid to go to K-12, but I'd think it'd be substantially lower than any university (if we went to a non-public school standard). Or to turn it around -- we already pay for college, why can't we do that for K-12?
IMO, that's how it should be. You have to pay to go to school. It's not something that is necessary that only the government can provide, which I think is the extent at which the government should be involved -- they only do what they have to do or only what they can do.
2. I'd have it no other way. But don't we already do this through scholarships and grants?
Quote: TigerWuDang, is a 33 ACT the cutoff for free college? I got a 32 and had to pay for every last cent. I was even an honors grad in high school.
30 was the cutoff at two of the colleges I applied to. 32 was the cutoff for the third.
Quote: mcallister3200I think everyone who still reads your posts probably knows that, you’ve told us multiple times. Congrats on what seems to be he crowning achievement of your life at the age of 17, you should be proud.
I am very proud of it, but would definitely not consider it to be the crowning achievement of my life.
Have a nice day! You don't seem bitter at all...
Quote: ams288I never paid for college because I got a 33 on my ACT.
#humblebrag
There's 33 degrees in Freemasonry. Coincidence? You decide.
Quote: RogerKintThere's 33 degrees in Freemasonry. Coincidence? You decide.
A M S 2 8 8
2 8 8
2 + 8 * 8 = 66
66
66 / 2 = 33
COINCIDENCE?
YOU DECIDE!!!
Quote: RSWait hold on......what? IQs tend towards being constant since it's based on the average score of other people your age.
Why would a university give a scholarship when, under your perhaps "ideal" scenario, the government will pay for these people to go to college? Whether the person graduated with a 3.4 GPA or a 4.2 GPA?
I assume private Universities will still want to operate profitably, and scholarships for certain students are a form of investment. Maybe the school believes the student will donate later, become renowned and have the University’s name associated with him/her or perhaps be a great athlete who draws revenue that way.
The majority of the additional kids qualifying for the free state education are those that the best private Universities would not give scholarships and perhaps not even accept, anyway. But, much like private elementary/secondary/charter schools, I don’t imagine private Universities will operate much differently than now.
There are worse things than socialism.
Quote: RS1. Just because we already do it, doesn't mean it's right. On top of that, I don't know how much it costs for a kid to go to K-12, but I'd think it'd be substantially lower than any university (if we went to a non-public school standard). Or to turn it around -- we already pay for college, why can't we do that for K-12?
Yay! It’s the traditional Republican MO. They want them born, by God they want those kids born, but they don’t care what happens to them after that.
As far as costs, ROI has already been mentioned. Beyond that, there would inherently be fewer students who qualify because of the requirements. I’m not an actual Congressperson, never will be, so the CBO hasn’t prepared me a review. Probably a more worthwhile investment than a big stupid wall. Finally, operations would be otherwise unchanged. I’m not planning a free lunch program, here, or even free dorms...I’m talking tuitions.
Now, the colleges would be highly regulated in terms of what they could charge for the other stuff.
Quote:
IMO, that's how it should be. You have to pay to go to school. It's not something that is necessary that only the government can provide, which I think is the extent at which the government should be involved -- they only do what they have to do or only what they can do.
2. I'd have it no other way. But don't we already do this through scholarships and grants?
Starting when? Three years old? Should toddlers have already become, “Productive members of society?”
Plenty of hard workers in those countries with lower levels of education.. Nothing wrong with manual labor. But we'll end up behind if we don't educate to the fullest extent possible. That means trying to be among the leaders in educating our citizens.
Quote: Mission146I assume private Universities will still want to operate profitably, and scholarships for certain students are a form of investment. Maybe the school believes the student will donate later, become renowned and have the University’s name associated with him/her or perhaps be a great athlete who draws revenue that way.
The majority of the additional kids qualifying for the free state education are those that the best private Universities would not give scholarships and perhaps not even accept, anyway. But, much like private elementary/secondary/charter schools, I don’t imagine private Universities will operate much differently than now.
Let me ask this again -- Why would a university give someone a scholarship when the government can just pay their way? If you were a university would you rather give someone tuition for free or would you rather charge the government for that person's tuition?
Quote: Mission146Yay! It’s the traditional Republican MO. They want them born, by God they want those kids born, but they don’t care what happens to them after that.
Who said anything about not caring or not wanting children to be educated?
Quote: MissionAs far as costs, ROI has already been mentioned. Beyond that, there would inherently be fewer students who qualify because of the requirements. I’m not an actual Congressperson, never will be, so the CBO hasn’t prepared me a review. Probably a more worthwhile investment than a big stupid wall. Finally, operations would be otherwise unchanged. I’m not planning a free lunch program, here, or even free dorms...I’m talking tuitions.
Is the ROI going to be higher because I pay money to the government instead of a school directly?
Quote: MissionNow, the colleges would be highly regulated in terms of what they could charge for the other stuff.
.....
When does it end?
Quote: MissionStarting when? Three years old? Should toddlers have already become, “Productive members of society?”
What're you talking about? What does paying for school have to do with 3 year olds being "productive members of society"?
I think the socialists here are a little mixed up. No one, or at least not I, is saying to get rid of school or anything like that. We're just saying you should pay for what you use and not be forced to pay for something you don't use.
Quote: Mission146Yay! It’s the traditional Republican MO.
Hypothetical situation: if the govt could spend $300 of your tax dollars to feed, clothe, and shelter the homeless, or $400 to just lock them all up, which would you choose?
Republicans will always choose the latter, cause ain’t no no gettin nuthin for free on MY dime.
It doesn’t matter what makes sense financially or socially. The thought of anyone who’s having a rough go of it benefitting from their tax dollars is an automatic non-starter. It wouldnt matter if the alternative is 10x the spend.
Scholarships and bursaries are usually paid for by donations to the College, not by the College itself. Scholarships are bursaries are given based on varying criteria, not just SAT/ACT scores. They can still exists because students and parents have other costs besides tuition. There's room, food, books, supplies, beer money, and so on. High quality schools usually have much better scholarships and higher bars of entry in order to entice a higher quality of students. In turn, these graduates go on to do better things. And in Canada, where tuition everywhere (when you live in-province) is capped at $6,700/year, there is a huge difference between getting a degree at McGill or University of Toronto (top 30 world Universities) then, say, Trent or one of the Universities of Quebec. Even if tuition is free, universities have reasons to offer financial incentives to students which should be obvious.
So I really don't understand the argument.
As for the cost of sending a child to K-12. costs average at $11,000/year which are all paid for in various levels of state and local taxes. The reasons we don't have a "pay as you play" program is obvious. Or oblivious.
Quote: gamerfreakThat has never happened though. And in the most recent attempt, SCOTUS ruled explicitly that the states may not nullify federal law.
First, SCOTUS itself is overstepping its constitutional authority. But I appreciate what you are saying, though I'm going to disagree. The federal government explicitly outlaws marijuana, and I don't think it even makes an exception for medical use. (correct me if I'm wrong on that). Clearly marijuana should be a state matter. And in the last couple decades state by state has passed their own laws legalizing for either medicinal use and/or recreational use. Now I don't know how many states have legalized it but it's easy to see a trend. The federal prohibition is not constitutional. The fed is overstepping its authority, and states are fighting back.
"Nullification" works, and we should hope that it becomes more common in the future to combat a federal government that has outgrown its proper role in so many ways.
Quote: bobbartopFirst, SCOTUS itself is overstepping its constitutional authority. But I appreciate what you are saying, though I'm going to disagree. The federal government explicitly outlaws marijuana, and I don't think it even makes an exception for medical use. (correct me if I'm wrong on that). Clearly marijuana should be a state matter. And in the last couple decades state by state has passed their own laws legalizing for either medicinal use and/or recreational use. Now I don't know how many states have legalized it but it's easy to see a trend. The federal prohibition is not constitutional. The fed is overstepping its authority, and states are fighting back.
"Nullification" works, and we should hope that it becomes more common in the future to combat a federal government that has outgrown its proper role in so many ways.
The feds schedule Marijuana the same as Heroin or Crack, high potential for abuse with zero medical benefit....which is absolute BS when it comes to MJ.
I'm not sure we really disagree on much on this topic, but when has nullification ever worked? No state has ever succeeded in nullifying a federal law, at least as far as the judicial system is concerned.
Quote:"Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification.[2] The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)
Quote: gamerfreakThe feds schedule Marijuana the same as Heroin or Crack, high potential for abuse with zero medical benefit....which is absolute BS when it comes to MJ.
I'm not sure we really disagree on much on this topic, but when has nullification ever worked? No state has ever succeeded in nullifying a federal law, at least as far as the judicial system is concerned.
I say it's working now, with marijuana. I acknowledged what you said, and my best answer is that it is GOING to work.
Isn't there a bit of irony in thinking that we need to have the federal government approve before we can disobey them?
Quote: boymimboDisagree. The month you are born matters. When you look at the distribution of birthdays in professional sports and look at birthdays of NHL players by month, you get the following: January 797, March 747, February 731, April 729, May 703, July 633, June 614, September 584... December 509. Being born in the early months gives you a 50% advantage over the later months. The same is true for MLB (August, and now May). The conclusion is clear that the older you are by a cutoff date, the more successful you are likely to be in professional sports.
The same effect in the NBA is there but is much smaller.
The month you are born matters primarily because of schooling requirements in your early years. The school district cuts off kindergarten/school enrollment eligibility by birthdate. Those who just miss it go into the following class, where they are older than their new peers. In childhood and into the teens, that means they are larger, stronger, more coordinated, and more mature than the mean in their class.
That translates into being better in sports, so are picked more often for teams and developed with more self-confidence and encouragement from peers, coaches, teachers, and parents. That translates into a greater love for that sport and more willingness to practice and play.
In short, champions are made, not inherently grown. Each time they are weeded, from pee-wee to Pop Warner (American football kid leagues -insert correct names for hockey/mlb/nba) to JV to starter to college, they have that few months advantage of maturation. Others may catch up physically, but they have been raised with relatively less of a self-image for a decade or more by the time college recruiters see them, let alone pro scouts.
The smaller, scrawnier, less coordinated kids (comparatively, remember; they may catch up or even surpass the bigger kids with time ) usually find other ways to excel by high school or continue to fight to the top of the elite if they have the self-determination to outlast the general preference for the other kids. And they have to do it every step of the way, without the sustaining appreciation of their team or coaches.
It's a relative thing. Not saying a team always has a goat. But anyone who's played team sports knows there's a pecking order, natural.leaders, starters, franchise players. Those guys are going to come disproportionately from the favored birthdates.
Quote: FaceNot for nothin' but Whitney was right. Children are our future. When we're looking to retire, or are old and grey and feeblin' around the place, these yutes below us are gonna be running things. And right now, your future is praying at the alter of YouTube, getting life lessons from Soundcloud rappers and eating Tide pods.
There are worse things than socialism.
George Benson.
Quote: bobbartopI say it's working now, with marijuana. I acknowledged what you said, and my best answer is that it is GOING to work.
Isn't there a bit of irony in thinking that we need to have the federal government approve before we can disobey them?
I don't think it's working with marijuana though. Successfully nullifying a federal law, I'd imagine, would make it unconstitutional for the federal govt to enforce said nullified law in that state. Otherwise, as long as that state is still part of the union, there would be nothing null about the law.
And that's what has been happening in "legal" states ... the DEA has raided several dispensaries/grow-ops, and charged the participants under federal law. I'm not sure how much this is happening, but Jeff Sessions and other prominent Republicans have signaled that it's their intention to crack down on state legalized marijuana operations.
Even if a state could nullify the federal law, it there would still be big problems for legal MJ operations with their business being illegal at a federal level. Banks and financial institutions will not touch dispensaries or growers. It's 100% a cash business, and they can’t even bank that cash.
Quote: RSLet me ask this again -- Why would a university give someone a scholarship when the government can just pay their way? If you were a university would you rather give someone tuition for free or would you rather charge the government for that person's tuition?
The Government will not pay for ANYONE to attend a private, for-profit, University...that's why. It only applies to state colleges and Universities.
Quote:Who said anything about not caring or not wanting children to be educated?
Well, if we're talking let's not have free K-12 instead.
Quote:Is the ROI going to be higher because I pay money to the government instead of a school directly?
The ROI is higher because the students will come out of college and produce more and innovate more such that the value of what they do is greater than the value it took to enable them to do it.
Quote:When does it end?
Probably Master's Degree. If you want to go for a doctorate, either get a scholarship, teach undergrad to supplement or get some loans.
Quote:What're you talking about? What does paying for school have to do with 3 year olds being "productive members of society"?
I'm not the one who led essentially with, "Why don't we go the other way and require K-12 be paid for."
Quote:I think the socialists here are a little mixed up. No one, or at least not I, is saying to get rid of school or anything like that. We're just saying you should pay for what you use and not be forced to pay for something you don't use.
See, the problem is that children can't pay for stuff. Because they're children. That's why public education is free. I'm just talking about extending how long it should be free and cutting off underperforming students.
Quote: bobbartopFirst, SCOTUS itself is overstepping its constitutional authority. But I appreciate what you are saying, though I'm going to disagree. The federal government explicitly outlaws marijuana, and I don't think it even makes an exception for medical use. (correct me if I'm wrong on that). Clearly marijuana should be a state matter. And in the last couple decades state by state has passed their own laws legalizing for either medicinal use and/or recreational use. Now I don't know how many states have legalized it but it's easy to see a trend. The federal prohibition is not constitutional. The fed is overstepping its authority, and states are fighting back.
"Nullification" works, and we should hope that it becomes more common in the future to combat a federal government that has outgrown its proper role in so many ways.
Well, let's accept for a second that constraining our actions to a bunch of words written on a 200-something year old piece of paper at a time when the authors had no idea what could/would happen in the future is not the most rational thing to do.
What I'm saying is the Constitution sucks. We also need to quit trying to bend legalize to fit a framework that was never meant for today's society, but rather a society breaking off from tyrannical rule, and thus, write a new one.
Marijuana, PASPA, you name it. We have a Federal Government that selectively takes control of whatever it wants to its own liking. I'm a states' rights guy to at least some extent. I think what you really need to do is rewrite a Constitution that is more explicit as to what the states are allowed to do on their own, and what aspects of society are controlled by the Federal Government.
Quote: Mission146
What I'm saying is the Constitution sucks. We also need to quit trying to bend legalize to fit a framework that was never meant for today's society, but rather a society breaking off from tyrannical rule, and thus, write a new one.
Here I'm not sure I agree with you,.
What do I base my assumptions on? Big operating systems.
Does an organization benefit by overturning their current systems? Sometimes. But oftentimes, tweaking it over time, achieves much the same thing.
Of course, I've rarely been impressed with people who claim they can fix a complex thing by ripping the guts out and nearly starting from scratch. Whether it's a system which has become overly complex like our tax system, or like a biological organism, or the entire Federal government as a whole, if you start ripping guts out without fully understanding how all the parts interact, you're likely to end up with a mess of parts and a non-functioning entity.
OTOH if you have a tested system to replace it, that may be an option.
I might sound like a conservative here on this one principle, but there is a difference. I believe like Thomas Edison, 100 trials* may be what it takes to find exactly what works; it didn't work the 4 times it was tried but that's hardly a test. But I do think you can reach similar goals starting from almost anywhere. That's why the US system has shifted in some ways and not others.. Even though others feel like that's some nefarious plot, I don't.
*of course, each trial should be somewhat different.
Quote: billryanGeorge Benson.
/ sigh. My whole life is a lie.
Quote: Mission146Well, let's accept for a second that constraining our actions to a bunch of words written on a 200-something year old piece of paper at a time when the authors had no idea what could/would happen in the future is not the most rational thing to do.
No, let's not. The founders were well informed on history and well informed on the future, because as technology may change, political principles are eternal, they do not change. Pick a deity and thank him for what the founders knew, because the whole world would be a sh*thole now had they not had the balls to fight English tyranny.
Quote: Mission146
What I'm saying is the Constitution sucks.
Have a nice day.
Quote: Face
There are worse things than socialism.
Oh really? Have you ran that by the people who are stuck in Cuba, Laos, Mozambique, North Korea? Or did you mean just a little bit of socialism, like western Europe? What is to prevent a little bit of socialism from metastasizing into a lot of socialism? Or into total socialism? Is there some kind of limitation on socialism that kicks in at a certain stage? What happens when the Little Red Hen gets tired of baking bread? What are you going to eat? Venezuelan food?
Mao and Cho murdered 60 million human beings in a twenty year period to bring about their brand of socialism.
Quote: bobbartopNo, let's not. The founders were well informed on history and well informed on the future, because as technology may change, political principles are eternal, they do not change. Pick a deity and thank him for what the founders knew, because the whole world would be a sh*thole now had they not had the balls to fight English tyranny.
The Constitution was a very radical document for its time. It would have never been allowed by people like you who declare the experiment over
Have a nice day.
Quote: Mission146
What I'm saying is the Constitution sucks. We also need to quit trying to bend legalize to fit a framework that was never meant for today's society, but rather a society breaking off from tyrannical rule, and thus, write a new one.
Whose society? Your idea of some communist utopia.
You probably should look for another country.
Quote: rxwineThe Constitution was a very radical document for its time. It would have never been allowed by people like you who declare the experiment over
Making up stuff now?
...and we'll see how long he lasts past it...
Quote: MaxPenWhose society? Your idea of some communist utopia.
You probably should look for another country.
What is everyone's obsession with this out of left field notion that I'm a Communist? Because I think education should be free for a few extra years to a reasonably high tier of promising academic achievers?
Also, you keep the framework and the intent of the old Constitution, but you recognize that it really makes no sense to base everything you do on something written over 200 years ago, that's all I'm saying.
Quote: Mission146What is everyone's obsession with this out of left field notion that I'm a Communist? Because I think education should be free for a few extra years to a reasonably high tier of promising academic achievers?
Also, you keep the framework and the intent of the old Constitution, but you recognize that it really makes no sense to base everything you do on something written over 200 years ago, that's all I'm saying.
The idea of you wanting to extend benefits to anyone beyond what it is what they call communism. Not realizing that state colleges are already heavily subsidized by the state already. And the slippery slope of more welfare and programs is seen as "too much socialism" leading to death squads and murders of its populations, not realizing that hundreds of millions are living very stable, happy and healthier lives in countries with programs with government paid health care and higher education.
Waiting to see how long it takes for the .... reference to come. I'll take the under at 3.
Quote: Mission146What is everyone's obsession with this out of left field notion that I'm a Communist? Because I think education should be free for a few extra years to a reasonably high tier of promising academic achievers?
Also, you keep the framework and the intent of the old Constitution, but you recognize that it really makes no sense to base everything you do on something written over 200 years ago, that's all I'm saying.
Socialism, communism...
Those are the labels that get thrown around when you start talking about things that are for the betterment of society for reasons other than that of personal financial gain.
Not to give the federal government.rights and powers. But to restrict its reach over the people it governs. SCOTUS is there to ensure that. It's a beautiful anarchy, full of SHALL NOT and NO and ILLEGAL.
Quote: mcallister3200Well, I guess we know why mission avoids the political threads now
Because everyone knows he's an avowed communist?
just kidding Mission.
(don't tap on the fish tanks, and don't poke a greenie, I always say, or just said)
In this communist utopia, that you may or may not believe in, do I get free full coverage medical?Quote: Mission146What is everyone's obsession with this out of left field notion that I'm a Communist? Because I think education should be free for a few extra years to a reasonably high tier of promising academic achievers?
Also, you keep the framework and the intent of the old Constitution, but you recognize that it really makes no sense to base everything you do on something written over 200 years ago, that's all I'm saying.
Quote: petroglyphIn this communist utopia, that you may or may not believe in, do I get free full coverage medical?
Before or after you are lined up and shot?
Quote: Mission146What is everyone's obsession with this out of left field notion that I'm a Communist?
I brought up communism, but I never implied anyone was a communist, I never even thought it. You mentioned "capitalism" and I merely tried to point out that the term "capitalism" is often used to describe what we are. But that usage is not correct. It's as if capitalism and communism are opposite of each other. But they're not. We are all capitalists, even communists are capitalists. The distinction should be who controls the capital. Under free enterprise, the private sector owns and controls it. It's not a system, it's the natural result of restricting government. Opposite that is a sort of monopolistic capitalism, whether the capital is controlled by the state, or even by corporate entity.
I didn't say anyone was a communist. I used to be one.
Quote: beachbumbabsThe Constitution is a beautiful thing, because it's written to say.what the federal government will NOT do.
Not to give the federal government.rights and powers. But to restrict its reach over the people it governs. SCOTUS is there to ensure that. It's a beautiful anarchy, full of SHALL NOT and NO and ILLEGAL.
That is EXACTLY right. And may be one of the all time best posts on this forum, or in political-type threads.
For instance, our right to free speech does NOT come from the 1st Amendment. The right to free speech existed BEFORE the Constitution was even written. The 1st Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law .... restricting the freedom of speech.....". It does not say "You have the right to free speech", it says Congress shall NOT MESS AROUND with your right to free speech.
Kudos to Barbara for GETTING IT RIGHT!
Quote: petroglyphIn this communist utopia, that you may or may not believe in, do I get free full coverage medical?
Basic, preventive and emergency would be free.
Quote: Mission146Basic, preventive and emergency would be free.
A state matter.
I hope you know I was funning with you.Quote: Mission146Basic, preventive and emergency would be free.
Would there be competition for drug prices?
Quote: bobbartopThat is EXACTLY right. And may be one of the all time best posts on this forum, or in political-type threads.
For instance, our right to free speech does NOT come from the 1st Amendment. The right to free speech existed BEFORE the Constitution was even written. The 1st Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law .... restricting the freedom of speech.....". It does not say "You have the right to free speech", it says Congress shall NOT MESS AROUND with your right to free speech.
I agree that free speech is one of the most important things we've established, but all rights are invented. Every one of them. We've invented animal rights, rights of minors. Even rights for aged people and disabled people. All of it is complete fabricated human created fiction.
Not one is not an invention of human imagination no matter how basic.
Quote: rxwineI agree that free speech is one of the most important things we've established, but all rights are invented. Every one of them. We've invented animal rights, rights of minors. Even rights for aged people and disabled people. All of it is complete fabricated human created fiction.
Not one is not an invention of human imagination no matter how basic.
Well, I can see that you have quite an imagination. (or quite a college education) It looks like you're having a little trouble wrapping your head around what some of the greatest minds in history have ever written.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
So you see, basic rights didn't come from Man, nor the Constitution. They came from our Creator. And that means that they ALWAYS existed. Even if someone is an atheist, their rights still came from the Creator. I hope that's not too heavy for you. I assume you went to college, so I realize this may be futile.
Why do only the smarter people get to attend or stay in college (for free) while someone else who is dumb, but tries really hard, can't stay in college for free? Isn't the purpose of college to learn?
If someone's income is through means not through a free-college degree, does that person still have to pay taxes towards the "free colleges tax plan"? Seems a bit backwards to have to pay taxes into something you not only do not use but do not want (and which is not necessary). I mean, the entire thought of it is just completely nuts to begin with.
Quote: RSIf someone chooses not to go to college so they can do something else more productive (to them), do they get a tax break on their "college taxes"?
Why do only the smarter people get to attend or stay in college (for free) while someone else who is dumb, but tries really hard, can't stay in college for free? Isn't the purpose of college to learn?
If someone's income is through means not through a free-college degree, does that person still have to pay taxes towards the "free colleges tax plan"? Seems a bit backwards to have to pay taxes into something you not only do not use but do not want (and which is not necessary). I mean, the entire thought of it is just completely nuts to begin with.
You obviously cannot see the benefit of this communist utopian ideal.
How sweet it would be if she got a restraining order, most especially if she, like Elaine, went for the jugular.
Imagine the orange baboon being restrained from being within three hundred feet of his wife's residence (the alt.white house).
Ah, the stuff dreams are made of.
A former forum member is a carrigage trade divorce lawyer: maybe he'll get the call.
tick tick tick
