Oh Shoot

Ah, you heard the whoosh, too. - OS

Goes well with your Sig, eh? - OS

Just doesn't sound like it jibes with the other accounts of how the situation ended, guy said he had had a stroke which was sort of apropos of just what?, etc. Just makes ya wonder if it really happened, and if so, why it was never mentioned before in any of the rather extensive coverage down there. - OS

Well, I guess. Sounds kind of screwy to me though. Then again, they did have him testify. - OS

Ah, well, that was a well over a year ago, it never got legs, but yeah, obviously they could change it on state level. I don't know of any similar bill under consideration at this time, though. - OS

You can't walk around town with a loaded long gun though -- only a handgun. - OS

The Donald himself has never been bankrupt. A couple of his casinos or whatever did, meaning one or two corporations out of many. Maybe he was down to a few hundred million or so of personal wealth instead of the 3 billion he's worth now, but that's just part of the risk of big biz, eh? - OS

Oh, pick any handful of movies, and any handful of the top critics, and you'll get wildly differing views, from each other and your own. That's why I said "FWIW". I have a feeling Ebert may have pegged this one, though. - OS

Don't see how that can fly, if you mean Chattanooga laws, since TCA preempts local control. - OS

FWIW, Ebert totally panned it: "...the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone’s vault. I suspect only someone very familiar with Rand’s 1957 novel could understand the film at all, and I doubt they will be happy with it." "...So OK. Let’s say you know the novel, you agree with Ayn Rand, you’re an objectivist or a libertarian, and you’ve been waiting eagerly for this movie. Man, are you going to get a letdown. It’s not enough that a movie agree with you, in however an incoherent and murky fashion. It would help if it were like, you know, entertaining?" Atlas Shrugged :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews I didn't realize it's really just Part 1, too. - OS

Um, if you have a permit, "fully prosecuted" means $500 fine, unlikely you'd even be charged since you didn't have it on you and didn't carry inside the building, but I guess you could be the test case, and a pretty odd one at that. For those with no permit, and gun is unloaded in car, there is no charge listed in TCA at all. Maybe you actually mean "fired". - OS

Second season is 13 episodes. Announced last year. - OS

Yeah, I've been up there -- I think that may even be designated as Signal Point or Signal Peak on some maps. There's a US Geo marker there of some sort. As the start of the Clinch range it and of course House Mtn. would be the logical observation points to track any movements from north or from Knoxville on your side of the Holston River. Emory Road and Washington Pike were like early super highways through there. Speaking of which, and I'm not real knowledge about the Civil War, but the nearest actual fighting that I know of to your area was over at the bridge that crosses the Holston on Mascot Rd. As I understand it, it was blown/burned three times, at least once by each side! - OS

Loans: Yes, biz partners can do it, because they can show the bank they have a legally contractual relationship, so that their assets can be lumped together. Same sex couples cannot as a matter of normal course. I suppose you can draw up papers of incorporation or of some other sort to perhaps link any two individuals together for the same purpose, but it's easier to just be "married" without additional intrigue. As far as life insurance, a company will NOT simply not allow you to make just any one your beneficiary. I looked into that. Being a "friend" or "lover", indeed even "ex-husband/wife" on a new policy doesn't generally qualify. SOME same sex couples are able to adopt, but it's almost always an additional hurdle. Most of them get the kid with only one having actual custodial rights. Most things are possible with the right legal documents, I guess, but married folks get a lot by default just by that marriage. And there ARE still the gummit issues that no legal contract can change, like SSI survivor benefits, joint income tax filing, military spouse benefits, I'm sure some others. - OS

I do believe that part was hyperbole to make extended point. The hate crime part of your argument is persuasive, though. I rather see it as an "anti sociopath" effort, though, and not sure we indeed do need it, as basically motiveless violence is already sociopathic. It's sort of like robbing a 7-11 with a handgun gets you more time than doing it with a machete. - OS

I'm convinced the Fair Tax would have beau coup benefits we haven't even yet identified. But it takes away gummit control, by making the source anonymous. And voting blocs can't be manipulated with tweaking the tax code. So we'll never see it. - OS

Holy crap. Totally lucid! Seriously, a great condensation of the societal logic behind different levels of criminal charges/punishment. - OS

No worries...I spent some real time with the Fed stuff when I got my CDL, 'cause I really anticipated being a total road gypsy for a few years, but wound up doing the FedEx thing instead, long story. - OS

Well, I knew (and found pretty quickly) that TN CDL requirements just mirror Federal ones. So I think that page on TNDOS is exactly accurate. Commercial motor vehicle groups. - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration - OS

Because it's not just the gummit. As mentioned above, it's insurance companies, banks (figure loans based on married joint income, whatever), adoption agencies, whatever, off top o' bean... - OS

From my experience, the ONLY one if asking about policy and rules. Any that usually answer the phone take with several grains of salt, if not the whole lick. - OS

Well, look at my link above, "do I need a CDL". It plainly states that manufacturers GVWR is the determining factor as far as the CDL requirement. Not debating that LEOs look at the plates, but the DMV will sell you whatever plate you ask for, I know this for a fact from owning International step van for FedEx Ground. Which leads me to quick story: Most of the guys in the Ground fleet put H2 or H3 tags on their step vans, because that's a good bit cheaper than H1 (I believe I remember the designations right, that H1 is over 16K or so, but no more than 26K, something like that). I've may have forgotten exact weights with tag designation, but point is, any given day depending on random loading, your step van would really need the H1 (heaviest) to be strictly kosher. Of course, doesn't usually matter cause we don't have to stop at scales, So one day guy (best I remember was doing Tazewell area) got into it with a county mountie over something, and the LEO makes a stink and does full investigation of his paper work and whatnot, one thing leads to another and he DOES get the thing weighed, and it exceeds the H2 or whatever he had it tagged for. Don't remember the outcome, maybe some fine, or he had to go to DMV and get correct weight plates or what. The guys that ran the bigger bulk trucks (straight trucks) generally went ahead and bit the bullet and got the heavier tags, as there was a history of their being checked. You'd think FedEx itself would require this to be correct, but you'd be wrong, since they only sit down on things on their contractors that would bring THE COMPANY into liability, couldn't care less as long as it only bites the contractor. Anyway, I think the point is, you don't have to tag the thing for what the manufacturer's GVWR says, but then again you can't legally run heavier than the tag you bought either. Although it's not like you'll be put under the jail for it or anything, and likely never even be brought to bear on it. Cause as you say, unless the LEO that stops you is a DOT guy who might really know the score, your rank and file LEOs don't. But the CDL part of the equation (FedEx ground guys didn't need one either, 'cept for the semi drivers of course) seems pretty clear,that it's the manufacturer's GVWR that determines that if push should come to shove. - OS

It also asks the 2 in 10 years question in separate sentence and checkbox, so maybe if both are admitted it saves even their running the check, since you disqualified yourself by your own admission and they make an easy 115 smackers? It also makes the two questions simpler by separating them, rather than lumping together in a more complex sentence, and this is probably the most logical reason, methinks. The statute is quite clear: Part 1: Two or more DUIs in last 10 years AND Part 2: Any of such convictionS occurring in last 5. If part 1 doesn't apply, then part 2 doesn't either. The difference between "and" and "or" is a significant one in statute verbiage, plus the plural is used in second part to make it even more clear. Incidentally, you get a single DUI after you have your HCP, and you do lose it for duration of the sentence, generally one year. - OS

Is it hot?

THIS is a good summary of benefits that same sex couples lack. Btw, there are indeed government bennies they lack also, like surviving spouse social security, and simply what is usually an income tax break by being able to file jointly. - OS