Lyle

The USPS has been around for nearly as long as the country has been around. In the past ten years they have seen an incredible drop in profit to the point where they are needing to be rescued and it seems like the USPS has become the charity branch of the government where there is no profit instead it is a black hole for tax payer dollars.

Why? Could someone possibly explain to me why the USPS is still around? How about the fact that UPS and FedEx do the SAME thing that the USPS does but they are recording profits. Out with the old, in with the new. I vote bye bye USPS.

Sorry, this is kind of a long story.

My wife and I are separated, she cheated on me with her friends brother and then moved out of our home and moved into his home. While she was with me she was abusive to our daughter (only once that I saw and got pictures of). When I confronted her about the bruises left on our daughter's leg, she claimed that she had the right to punish her daughter as she saw fit. After she left, there has been absolutely no contact. She hasn't called, sent texts, or tried to come by the house to see her daughter. It's been over six months, and I have filed the petition for divorce. Our hearing was today, but yesterday her attorney came to the court house to file for a continuance.

Well, today I took my daughter over to see my in-laws for the first time in several weeks and they informed me that the reason my wife asked for a continuance is because she was going to sue for full-custody of my daughter so that she wouldn't have to pay me for child-support, so that I would have to pay her.

My lawyer has informed me that since it is no longer a simple, uncontested divorce it is going to cost more and he won't do anything to help me until I pay him, but I can't afford it.

Child-support is not an issue for me, I don't care if she doesn't want to pay, she doesn't have to pay. If she doesn't want to see her daughter, fine. I just don't want my daughter to be put into harms way. Which I feel she would be if I let her live with my wife.

Does anyone know of anything I can do? A lawyer service that will help me pro bono (fancy word for free).

This is something that has bothered me for a long, long time.

Why do liberals believe that forcing through more legislation for "gun control" is genius. I mean, how many laws are already on the books for gun control? The only thing I've been able to find is an extremely high 20,000+ number, and a 300 "relevant federal laws".

But still, 300 laws for gun control. That's a huge amount of laws concerning firearms that are ALREADY on the books. And gun crime still happens. Wonder why.

I've heard people compare guns to cars to the effect that cars kill more people each year than guns do. Ok, I can kind of understand why that is an absurd comment to make from a generic standpoint. However, if you pay close attention to the statement "Cars kill more people than guns do" and actually think about it. It's saying that even with all of the laws concerning cars, people still do stupid crap, and still get killed. D.U.I's, hit and runs, texting while driving, etc.

So the point of the statement made before is that with all of those laws, people still disobey traffic laws. Are they hardened criminals? No, most of the time they're just average citizens. If an average citizen is going to disobey a don't text while driving law, what makes you think a criminal is going to OBEY a new law that says there gun can't hold more than 7 rounds?

If a law is passed saying people can't own AR-15 "type weapons" then at that point, only the criminals would still have them.

I'm sorry, but to me it seems entirely absurd to pass NEW laws, and demonize firearms, instead of focusing on the real issue here. Informing people about how to use a firearm safely, putting emphasis on enforcing the laws ALREADY in place, and demonizing criminals not a 8 pound piece of metal and plastic.

It seems to me that a lot of people in suburbs around Atlanta are doing nothing but whine and complain about the dome. I can understand a few points, such as the fact that the city takes forever to do such small things as remove garbage piled in alleys, or abandoned lots not being demo-ed. But this is a big boon to your local municipals.

Think about it, the money from tax proceeds will go to the city, which should (in theory) increase funding. The building and construction of the dome will (in theory) provide employment for the suburbs. So why the big fuss? Is it because a man waved a check book and promised to build something new and the city jumped on it so fast?

Or is it because it seems that a lot of people will look around their neighborhoods, see crap they don't like (graffiti, trash, litter on the streets, etc) and decide that instead of doing something about it themselves, they would rather scream about how someone (not themselves) should do something about it. Whether it be cleaning it up, stopping it from happening, etc.

I believe JFK said something along the lines of "Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country." Shouldn't the same apply to local areas? I live in a nice neighborhood and when I see crap that I don't like, litter, graffiti, etc, I take the time to attempt to clean it up. Because no one likes seeing that crap.

Driving home listening to Sean Hannity, he has an interview with a dietician and some other lady, can't remember their names I was too busy laughing at the nut-job dietician.

The dietician believes that it is the government's job to step in and save the people from themselves. Liberals, let's hear it. Do you believe that the government should be allowed to pass laws to stop people from eating certain foods? Or buying 32 oz drinks? Oh by the way, you can buy 32 oz of coke, you just have to pay for two 16 oz cups, seems legit.

But if that's ok, what's next? Pizza? McDonald's getting attacked (again)? Ice-cream sizes? Let's hear when it's NOT cool for the government to tell you what you can and cannot eat/drink/"kill-youself-with"

Alright, so I'm extending this out into the Magical Land of Semi-answers, and (possibly) smarter people. Last week the starter went out in my car. I replaced the starter, at which point the battery didn't have enough charge to turn the starter and start the engine.

Replaced the battery.

The car started and I drove Wednesday and Thursday, on the way home from school Thursday the car died, battery was run dead. Lead me to believe the Alternator was bad, removed the alternator had it tested at Advanced Auto and the Alternator was no good.

Replaced the alternator.

The battery light on the dash came on Saturday after I replaced the Alternator, I thought maybe the alternator was no good. I removed the alternator and took it to Advanced and they did a bench test. The bench test on the alternator came back fail. Was going to swap the alternator for a new one had them test the new one, it came back fail also. They checked the tester and tightened the belt, tested the new alternator again, came back pass, tested the alternator (the one I thought was no good) it also came back pass. Reinstalled the alternator and checked the voltage with a voltage meter. The voltage from the battery was just under 12.5. Within normal. The voltage coming from the Alternator is less than 1 volt. Hoping that maybe the belt was worn out and causing slippage, I replaced the serpentine belt and checked the voltage again, again the voltage on the battery was just under 12.5 and the alternator came back less than 1 volt.

I am at a complete loss, any car guru's out there have any advice? Because at this point I'm out of money to through at the car and try and fix it. Come all ye sages. Help a brotha out.

I've replaced the battery and the alternator, both are brand new yet the light is still on, I'm at a loss as to what could be causing the light to turn on. Any ideas about this would be awesome.

I am a CCW permit holder, I carry about 90% of the time when leaving the house, in the winter time I carry concealed (Shoulder holster under my jacket) in the summer time I usually carry on my hip. If a Police officer stops me and demands my permit, do I have to present it to him? Hypothetically speaking, of course. I have no issues showing my permit to a police officer, just curious about the ramifications of refusal. I feel, personally, that it is easier to just go with the flow and hide nothing from Law Enforcement, but that feeling only extends so far. Making the officer feel as if I am not a threat is one thing, infringement on my right to privacy is another.

I have 100+ audiobooks, each audiobook has around 85-150 files, adding the files to I-tunes took absolutely no time, however most of the Audiobooks do not have track numbers, and when they were named they were named like this, The Lost World (1), The Lost World (2), etc. But without Track Numbers, they are ordered by I-Tunes as The Lost World(1), The Lost World(10), The Lost World(11).

My Question is how do I add Track Numbers to MP3 files without having to Manually do it? Any ideas?

By this I mean the following. I have a 1tb HD, I have nothing stored on it. If I reformat it to fat32 will I still have storage space for 1tb of information? or is it drastically reduced? I have heard in the past that the maximum you can save on an fat32 format was 4gb, does this mean that the largest SINGLE file size you can save is 4gb? (Meaning one file that is larger than 4gb would be denied?) Or does it mean you can only save 4gb worth of data all together. (100 files less than 4gb?) I'm a tard when it comes to computers please answer in laymen terms.

Think about the question before you answer. I'll give a few examples of power and you tell me which is more powerful.

There are three branches of the Government, The Legislative, The Executive and The Judicial. Which one is more powerful?

The Legislative creates the laws and passes them. The Executive Branch has to agree with the laws and sign them into being. The Judicial Branch interprets the law(s) when and if any questions are raised about the constitutionality of the law.

So, I ask you, which is more powerful? The House and the Senate Pass law A. The president shoots down law A and sends it back. The House and the Senate over-ride the veto and the Law goes into affect. The Judicial System looks at the law and says it's constitutional and it remains. Or inversely the Judicial System says it is not constitutional and it is killed there.

So, who has the most power here? The presidency is considered the most powerful office in the U.S. Government. However, The President is not a king, he can not get anything he wants for free, someone has to pay for him. He can demand all he wants from The Legislative Branch, but they can ignore him and do the opposite, but he still has to approve or deny, and even then they can over ride him.

So this brings my second question. How can President Obama demand the House and Senate leaders come to him like school children to the principal?

Term limits are set for the president. That's it. There are no term limits for governors, mayors, city council, Congressmen (I refuse to be politically correct and say the gender neutral B.S. Term), or Senators.

Why?

With term limits we would be plagued by the life long law makers who eventually may become corrupt. We wouldn't have as much to worry about the special interest groups or the lobbyists because hey, with a term limit of four years whats the point of bribing me with a campaign contribution on year number four? We would constantly have new members cycling into the law making seats. Pros? Cons?

Been thinking about a way to describe the Conservative approach to economics. "IE.: Lower taxes = increased revenue. Lower spending = Decreased deficit." This is what I have come up with.

You own a small chain of stores that sell anything. Imagine Walmart but roughly 1/25th the size. You know the economy is in a slump, you are not getting as much business into your stores so to fix the issue you decide to take actions to increase your stores revenue. You decide to decrease the overall price of everything in your stores by 10% and you do an add campaign informing the general public that you have done so. This should bring in the money that your store needs to stay in business.

Now, how does my theoretical model compare to the government? Let's talk about it. For starters the companies earnings are the governments revenue. The companies bills for the year is the government budget. The customers of the store are the citizens of the united states. The prices of goods purchased are the taxes levied by the government.

When the store is losing business due to the economy and decides to put up an ad campaign and a sale of 10% that increases the stores earnings by people feeling that they are getting a good deal and will shop in your store to gain the savings. The decrease in store prices is akin to a decrease in government taxes.

When people are saving the money they are going to spend more money. It is a sound business model. If this theory is true wouldn't the inverse be true? If the store decides during a down turned economy to raise their prices by 10% and higher more employees wouldn't the following be true? Higher prices means less people will spend money in your store. More money spent on employee's = less earnings for the store. Which means eventually the store will have to make real decisions to fix the trend. Which means either more taxes (higher prices) or just pray the store pulls through.

See any flaws in my theoretical model?

I asked this earlier but I don't think I was very specific. I'm looking for a website someone made and it is in the style of a man communicating via a HAM radio talking to 'whoever may have survived the Apocalypse' I'm having no luck finding it on my own, anyone ideas?

Seriously? What world do Liberals live in that Union Dues are merely 'voluntary'? Or is it voluntary when it fits the definition of Voluntary if the member wants to benefit from the union?

I was a member of a union previously, and the dues are not voluntary, you don't pay your dues they back log it and eventually they send you a big bill or they remove you. Hmm..... Voluntary.... Right....

I'll go a little further with this. The only people that we have put in office are politicians. A politicians first job is supposed to be the welfare of the country. But no. Politicians first and foremost job it seems is to be reelected.

"Why vote on something that may put me in the hotseat come reelection time, I'll just kick the can down the road and deal with it later."

We need people with the countries good in mind, people who want this country to survive. Not people mud sucking to special interest groups. Not people who are beholden to unions. Not people who are beholden to corporations. We need real people in the seats. We need doctors, farmers, business men that know how to make a business work. We need real people that know how to make things work and work right. Not people that will take a couple million in donations in a few years to get a policy on the floor for vote. We need people that will tell the big money interest groups and corporations to go soak.

We need real people. Not politicians.

I get a little teary-eyed every time I hear the song 'God Bless The USA' by Lee Greenwood?

A new law hit the senate for debate this week on more strict immigration controls. Do you agree with the decision to force illegal immigrants to go through the process of becoming legalized Citizens of the United States? I'll give my thoughts after a few your own.

So, if it is legally ok for the U.S. Government to require you to buy a private insurance policy from a company in the name of "Regulating Interstate Commerce" what's next? You must now buy only American made cars because it hurts Interstate Commerce to not? You must buy Broccoli because it's healthy and good for you and it would hurt interstate commerce if no one bought broccoli? How much more should we worry about government influence into our day to day lives?

Through 'spin' and the way topics are presented or speeches highlighted.

Media is the ultimate Spin Machine. Where a seemingly innocuous statement can be shown 'Just So' and cause a political scandal.