It's here for your commentary any time you want to take it to task. Then again, you didn't care to comment on it then... why should anything be different now? God forbid you look into the horse's mouth.
It would be awesome for government to act with fiscal discipline as businesses must do in a competitive market. However, when government can grant itself whatever funds it wants as both buyer and spender, then the "free market" is pretty much rigged.
Re-watched the game again last night. For whatever reason, Anderson seemed to be hitting his receivers in stride more often and got the ball out much quicker than anyone else. May have to do some more eval with that for the next game up.
I like the idea, but from who? Between EPA, IRS and NSA those three alone have a mountain of crap that went unchecked in broad daylight. Congress has its own world of corruption that continues to run unchecked and all the while gives America a wink and a nod as if to say "Trust us... this time, we mean it."
What I saw from stew last week did not impress me at all. However, the o-line play was much more encouraging. I think short, johnson and star will make a marked difference in our D. If they remain healthy, then a solid run game will get us enough for the post season
Check out the Fair Tax. It addresses these issues directly. Of course, it is suspect to the whims of Congress to change rates of taxation as well as what is deemed a staple for living. However, it at least more directly addresses standards of living than a simple across-the-board SoL wage irrespective of regional differences.
At the federal level, the issue STARTS with the levels of spending that exist for no other reason than to perpetuate bureaucracy. If you don't think this can be accomplished, look at how New Hampshire has done it for decades.
You are on the nose in that motivation expressed through behavior is exacerbated as a driving force in a free market in my opinion. It's simply that we are now seeking fail points in economies now that governments rip the free out of markets. Tipping points become the line where merit is no longer perceived to be aptly incentivized to justify expenditures in resources.
Spend a day in the courtroom and let me know if intent means nothing there. That you are purporting that non-monagamous marriages are prevalent now and that this is the clientele for which AM was soliciting, you are either kidding yourself big time or rationalizing heavily to avoid "going down a rabbit hole". Of course consensual extra-marital relations happen, but they are clearly the exception and not the rule. If you want to be taken seriously, stick to believable points.
It's not a hard concept. Courts invoke precedent all the time. This is part of the deal of marriage being further ingrained as a governmental institution. If it were a matter of civil contracts, then each case would be individual (though likely homogeneous given the social mores). Releasing STD records is not exposing a business built primarily on engaging in said behavior. It would be exposing individuals via health care records that provide a myriad of services (none of which are primarily to treat STDs). What has been exposed are knowing and willing clients of a business predicated on a breach of prior contract.