TampaYankee

Perhaps. But consider also, that for a knowing unscrupulous type, you open yourself to potential extortion. Not saying it is too likely to happen, only that you are at risk -- not only for money but for a scorned young lover too. Ok, maybe that last one is a stretch.

No, we won't divulge anyone's information beyond what they wish to share. We owe that to every member. That doesnt mean I won't necessarily give an opinion if I feel so moved. I'll just say that with no definitive information available to me at this moment, everything I know about daddy through interactions and observations over the last decade, I would not expect him to make these posts. I would never have taken the writing for that of daddy's either. I'll assume for now that it is someone misguidedly acting on his own trying to help out daddy or trying to stir shit over here for negative reason. Nothing posted in this thread warrants any trashfest of daddy or his site. Any assessment of him or his site should depend on what happens over there, not here. Those issues have been discussed in other threads at other times. No need to dredge them up unless new facts are present. It interesting that this minor chapter indicates that we must be causing some currents over there whether openly or subrosa.

And here I thought that Neil Patrick's baby bump was just a Sam Adam's Lager summer pouch.

To be clear, under United Stated Code this does not free US citizens from threat of prosecution for sex with a person under the age of 18, no matter where the act occurs. You can and will be prosecuted if they can make the case. I believe some other countries (eg. United Kingdom) also have similar laws that reach beyond their own borders.

That is the only legitimage and thus safe course of action for anyone in their right mind. Any possible exceptions depend on age difference, position of authority, and remuneration issues and possibly other conditions. Too many if's and maybe's make it a roll of the dice. And the justification defense falls on the defense with attorneys, grief, publicity, grief... more grief...

Good news.

Click on your 'My Profile/Account' link located under the top banner and then select ' View Your Favorites'.

Sequence is irrelevant as you bring just one gorgeous hunk after another. Keep em coming...

YOU were my link of all local things NY!! A fantatastic link at that.

Professionally speaking, all these kids won. Yeah, the prize money is nice and the 'title' too, but how many Idol winners have been professional out-shined by their runners up. This was a successful launch of their careers -- all fantastically talented far beyond audience 'favorite'.

If it goes to the Court you can count on four votes against because the words Gay or Homosexual never explicitly appear in the text. I believe Kennedy will embrace the trial judge's comprehensive ruling, something I was very unsure of when this process started. However, the case that the team of Olsen and Boyes layed out with the extremely weak response of the opponents and the Judge's very thorough fact-based ruling leave the only contrary response to be based in legaleze-shrouded homophobia unless someone can pull a hutch of Constitutional rabbits out of a justice's robe. Based, in part, on Lawrence v Texas, I cannot see Kennedy denying the main thrust of the lower court ruling. When you think about it, pretty amazing turn of events if it comes to pass. Maybe there is hope for legalization of marijuana and that aspect of a long miserable costly and violent chapter of the War on Drugs.

Judge Walker: I Doubt Prop 8 Ruling Can Be Appealed PAUL ELIAS and LISA LEFF | 08/13/10 12:03 PM | AP SAN FRANCISCO — The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban has more bad news for the measure's sponsors: he not only is unwilling to keep gay couples from marrying beyond next Wednesday, he doubts the ban's backers have the right to challenge his ruling. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday rejected a request to delay his decision striking down Proposition 8 from taking effect until high courts can take up an appeal lodged by its supporters. One of the reasons, the judge said, is he's not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling. By contrast, same-sex couples are being denied their constitutional rights every day they are prohibited from marrying, Walker said. The ban's backers "point to harm resulting from a 'cloud of uncertainty' surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents' appeal is resolved," he said. "Proponents have not, however, argued that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse." Walker gave opponents of same-sex marriage until Aug. 18 at 5 p.m. to get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether gay marriages should start before the court considers their broader appeal. Their lawyers filed a request asking the 9th Circuit to intervene and block the weddings on an emergency basis late Thursday. They argued the appeals court should grant a stay of Walker's order requiring state officials to cease enforcing Proposition 8 "to avoid the confusion and irreparable injury that would flow from the creation of a class of purported same-sex marriages." Depending on how the 9th Circuit rules, same-sex couples could begin tying the knot in California as early as next week or be put off while the appeal works its way through the court and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court as well. California voters passed Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment in November 2008, five months after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had married. In refusing to suspend his ruling for more than a few days, Walker agreed with the lawyers who sued to strike down the ban that it's unclear if Proposition 8's sponsors have legal standing to appeal. Although he allowed the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored the measure to defend the lawsuit during the 13-day trial over which he presided, the judge said appellate courts have different rules for deciding when a party is eligible to challenge a lower court. Based on his interpretation of those rules, it appears the ban's sponsors can only appeal his decision with the backing of either Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or Attorney General Jerry Brown, Walker said. But that seems unlikely as both officials refused to defend Proposition 8 in Walker's court and said last week they see no reason why gay couples should not be able to tie the knot now. Walker also turned aside arguments that marriages performed now could be thrown into legal chaos if Proposition 8 is later upheld by an appeals court. He pointed to the 18,000 same-sex couples who married legally in the five months that gay marriage was legal in California as proof. San Francisco Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart, who during the trial helped argue that Proposition 8 should be overturned, said that while it will not be up to Walker to decide the eligibility issue, "it's very realistic" that the 9th Circuit could reach the same conclusion. "We allocate the decision-making authority over how to enforce and defend and prosecute the laws to the executive branch," Stewart said. "Do you want every Tom, Dick and Harry second-guessing what the attorney general does and challenging every ruling the attorney general chooses not to?" The ban's backers addressed the potential for such a roadblock in their emergency stay request, saying California's strong citizen initiative law permits ballot measure proponents to defend their interests when state officials refuse to. "We are confident we do have standing to seek the appellate review here, and we realize this case has just begun and we will get the decision overturned on appeal," said Jim Campbell, an Alliance Defense Fund lawyer who is part of the legal team defending Proposition 8. Other legal analysts think the appeals court will allow the group that raised $40 million to pass Proposition 8 to formally challenge Walker's ruling. "What Judge Walker's ruling means is you can sponsor a proposition, direct it, research it, work for it, raise $40 million for it, get it on a ballot, successfully campaign for it and then have no ability to defend it independently in court," said Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota constitutional law professor who supports same-sex marriage. "And then a judge maybe let you be the sole defender in a full-blown trial and then says, 'by the way, you never can defend this.' It just seems very unlikely to me the higher courts will buy that." Walker's order clearing the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California for the first time since 52 percent of the state's voters approved Proposition 8 nonetheless raised hopes among gay couples who flocked to government offices to await word that they soon will be able to exchange vows. "We just want equal rights. We're tired of being second-class citizens," said Amber Fox, 35, who went to the Beverly Hills Municipal Courthouse on Thursday morning in hopes of marrying her partner. The couple wed in Massachusetts in June but wanted to make it official in their home state. Teresa Rowe, 31, and her partner, Kristin Orbin, 31, said they were still happy with the decision even though the ceremony didn't happen. The couple went to San Francisco City Hall early Thursday morning to fill out a marriage license application. "It's sad that we have to wait a little longer, but it's been six years," Rowe said. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/judge-walker-i-doubt-prop_n_681224.html

Medicare is not particularly well run IMO. It does run with a low overhead which many consider a good thing, including myself. There is a lot of fraud in Medicare and that can be better policed, probably at some cost to overhead. Also, clearly more of every dollar spent goes to health care, which after all is its purpose. That is a big plus over profit health care providers whose purpose is to make profit. I remain to be convinced that private companies running Medicare do a better job generally. I know of one example (University related) that seems to provide good service. I'm not sure it is better because I do not know how to quantify 'better' . Also, I know of two private companies my parents used that provided abominable service very much worse. I know they were worse because they discouraged doctors from seeing my parents 'too often'. They simply refused reimbursements after some number of office visits without regard to the nature of the complaint. I KNOW that is worse than regular medicare. That's all I know first hand.

Bonuses are good.

Actually, the WPA did not build us out of the Depression. It did employ many thouands of workers so they could feed themselves and their families and it did provide us with some very important infrastructure that benefitted the country far beyond the investments to create them. Think TVA/hydroelectric dams as examples. It helped keep people alive and prevented a lot of public disarray, violence and possibly potential revolutionary activity. What got us out of the Depression was the biggest stimulus program in history -- WWII. Overnight, we created more jobs in more industries and farming that worked around the clock. No one worried about deficits. Everyone worked four sheets to the wind over five or more years toward a single goal. After the war, a million plus soldiers came home to another million stateside needing jobs. There was lots of demand and the government pumped more money into the GI bill for education and jobs training. Stimulus does work. No one familar with history can deny it. Our train system does suck but we as a society are not ready for widespread rail transportation. It is realistic only for high density corridors like the Northeast and California. It wont be realistic for the rest of the country until we force ourselves off of gasoline as an everyday fuel. As a society, we are incapable of coming to grips with that. It will have to be imposed externally. It would not be cost effective to build railroads that didnt attract enough ridership to pay for itself.

Two things the government knows how to do are collect money and spend it. Government, at some level, has always been the financier and general contractor for top level architectural studies for infrastructure projects. It decides where roads and sewer lines need to go and specifies throughput requirements etc. Then they hire companies to refine the details, execute the construction, and hire the labor force. Nothing new here. To imply the government cannot do what it has always done is a red herring. True there is much the government should not get into but that doesn't mean they do not have an important and significant role to play, especially when they are the player of last resort and we are pretty near last resorts. Or we can languish through a decade of slow growth. That will be minimally acceptable to the wealthy and those lucky enough to keep a job. For everyone else it will be hard times.

I'd sign up to adopt this one. Why do skinny twinks of white or latino background always sport big dicks. I realize they are skinny so more of what they have is on display but even accounting for that... jeeze. This looks like a young Trevor of BA fame. He is hugely hung.

Cop fired over gay porn film fights to keep certification Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2010 By Steve Rothaus | Miami Herald Former Hollywood cop Mike Verdugo, fired after word spread on the Internet that he was in a gay porn film, is now fighting to keep his Florida police certification. On Tuesday, Verdugo's lawyers held a news conference and rally in Wilton Manor seeking support for him. Hollywood Police Department fired him for not disclosing previous employment — the porn film — on his job application, Verdugo's lawyers said. Verdugo, who also was a former Design Star contestant on HGTV, has sued to get his job back. The suit is scheduled to be heard in November in Broward Circuit Court. Hollywood police spokesman Lt. Manny Marino said Tuesday his department would not comment on the Verdugo case. Verdugo, 36, is appealing to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to allow him to remain a certified officer. The FDLE tentatively agreed, but the city of Hollywood is fighting his request and wants him stripped of his certification, his lawyers said. An FDLE hearing is scheduled Thursday in Tampa. Hollywood has offered to drop its case against Verdugo if he "drops his case against them," said Norm Kent, an attorney and longtime gay civil-rights activist. Verdugo says he won't: "I want my case to be an example of what happens in Florida." "I still want to be a cop," he said. "My goal — not a practical one — is to go back to Hollywood." Regardless of how the FDLE hearing turns out, Verdugo says, he will continue to lobby for passage of a federal gay rights measure — the Employment Nondiscrimination Act — that would prevent gay and transgender people from being fired on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Hollywood police fired Verdugo after a 1996 video turned up online showing the future cop in a 15-minute bondage scene from a gay porn flick called Rope Rituals. HGTV's Design Star also dumped Verdugo, who was known as Mikey V. Verdugo, who grew up in Hialeah, says he made the film for $700 at age 22 as a way of exploring his sexuality. He performed nude in a bondage scene, but didn't engage in hard-core sex, he said. Three years later, he decided to become a police officer. Read more of this story at MiamiHerald.com http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/11/99039/cop-fired-over-gay-porn-film-fights.html#ixzz0wPKzjiTl

In view of the new FinRegs, my bank sent me a letter informing me, because of my excellent record, they were extending overdraft protection to my account. Should I wish to decline this courtesy I needed to inform the bank via writing or phone. I was on the phone in a New York minute. I wonder how many people would put forth the effort to decline who dont really desire this option. Odd that one has to opt out of an option. Makes it seem like the real option is opting out. Overall, I have no complaints with my bank but I didn't need this.

But everybody needs love. In this case maybe tough-love.

I am certainly no expert, not even an armchair expert, but I seldom let that stop me. What ails the US is somewhat different from what ails Europe and the rest of the world. I know even less about those issues. We have gone through a very bad recession -- the worst since the Great Depression. The reasons for that have been apparent, rooted in the housing crash and the attendant finance industry crash. That rolled into impacting small and big business ability to operate. Not only could they not short-term-borrow to meet payrolls they could not borrow to buy materials and supplies for manufacturing or resale. Dominos fell. That led to a shedding of workers at up to 750,000 a month. Major part of the solution was to pump massive public spending to keep the economy from spiraling into a black hole. Now many believe we have come through the bad times and now we need turn to austerity measures to wring all that money out of circulation before inflation spirals out of control. This will eventually need to be done or it will become a very very bad problem. But it is premature at this time. We really haven't emerged as many think. We only feel that way, which is not only very good but essential to emerging eventually. We wont fully emerge until housing and unemployment make a comeback. New housing is our biggest economy component. A healthy housing sector employs hundreds of thousands and requires all kinds of materials and supplies that support tens of thousands more jobs, and financing with those jobs too. We have a glut of housing now. The supply outstrips the demand. Why? Because we have millions out of work -- many who have lost their homes. New housing demand will not come back in a big way until unemployment is drastically reduced. Also, our banks are still sitting on a mountain of bad mortgages unwilling to write them off even though they really are not worth the paper written on. Paulson was suppose to buy them up to unburden the banks. Instead he gave the banks the money by buying stocks and let the bankers declare early profits and take big bonuses. The bottom line remains: they remain reluctant to loan because their real-worth underpinnings are too thin to protect them against more non-performing loans. So much for TARP. Unemployment is the key. Real unemployment is estimated at somewhere between 16% and 22%, not withstanding usual government numbers based solely on unemployment applications. Unemployment in an economy working at full capacity hovers around 4%-5%, which represents workers in-between jobs or dropping out to attend school, etc. This translates into millions and millions unemployed. I believer the number of jobs lost in this deep recession is seven million jobs (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aVmZJLQoKv2g). It is claimed that 100K-150k new jobs need to be created each month just to hold the unemployment rate steady. With the current economy we are at best breaking even. To restore seven million jobs in five years will require an additional 120,000 jobs to be created on average every month. That is not on the horizon at this stage of the recovery. But without continued application of stimulus, unemployment won't be significantly diminished for years. That is a fact, whether or not existing stimulus funds have been best spent. It is a no brainer that thousands of our roads and bridges in this country are crumbling under us. Municipal water, gas, and sewer systems are patchworks as much as a century old in some cities. The national power grid is a patchwork of antique and modern technology that leaves us at significant risk of sabotage by a committed enemy. There is lots of serious need for serious refurbishment of our infrastructure that not only provides jobs but lasting value with real return on investiment. Some believe mistakenly that lower taxes always create jobs. That can happen in certain enivronments, maybe. What the proponents fail to take into account is that massive joblessness without massive public spending causes product and services demand to evaporate. The real unemployment rate just does not support any real demand now. Cutting the taxes of people out of work doesn't add to their ability to buy a new home or new car or new washing machine to put in the home they no longer own. People with jobs are not looking to buy new homes in this environment. Small businesses are begging for loans they cannot get. I doubt tax breaks can fill that void on a regular operating basis. Cutting taxes is unlikely to spur investment in this environment of low demand. Big corporations are sitting on mountains of cash they do not want to invest in this climate -- that is what the cable business channels tell me anyway. They are not waiting on tax cut incentives, they are waiting on demand. Cutting taxes does increase the deficit. Even the argument that it will create more demand with so many out of work just doesnt mesh with business actions at this time. Given our indecision as to what our biggest problem is, I do not see us affecting either unemployment or the deficit much. In the face of that indecision, I see a slowly improving economy with millions remaining out of work for some years. My own view is that our bus is stuck in a ditch (sand, mud, snow, your choice) with no outside help available. We must use our own engine to 'rock us' out. We must apply whatever gas is needed to get the job done. We also must be cognizant that keeping the engine rev'd once we free ourselves has dangerous consequences to avoid. However, we cannot be too timid in applying the foot to the pedal, else we will remain mired. We need the application of more stimulus and better targeted. We also need a post recovery plan to excute once we pull out else we will have an inflation armageddon. The big fly in the ointment remains the banks. Are they really strong enough at this time to underwrite an ecomonic comeback?

Your buy-in won't be necessary for it to proceed.

Why should this or any of the rest of it be surprising? After the greatest paragon of freedom and individual liberties in history, America, decides it has a greater need to spy on its citizens communications (Patriot Act), why should anybody be surprised that other countries would follow suit as brazenly. Just because they don't have the equivalent of our NSA, they have to be a little more public about it. In addition to our NSA we also coopted telecoms too to spy for us -- to break our laws; and then Congress passes expost facto legislation to get them off the hook. So... why is it that anybody is suprised? It is worthy of lament but not surprise IMO.

Why is it that pure premeditated theft is sanctioned by the Govermenment in that regulators often turn a blind eye and when caught, in this case by active customers throught the courts who refuse to settle for getting screwed, the penalty is oh... you will have to give the money you stold back? Even this happens precious little of the time. More of the same with the Wall St Big Banks and garbage mortgages scam with the subsequent Wall St meltdown. If any of these scams were pulled by individual con men they would go to jail but it seems that if such blatant thefts are big enough and committed behind a corporate letterhead then it just aggressive business. Harm but no foul.... Bullshit. This is the corruption of American Capitalism, not only sanctioned by the Government but abetted by the Government: Screwing the American People is just good agressive business if they are raped by trickery and slight-of-hand, rather than at brazen gunpoint. But then con men don't use guns either.

Wells Fargo Overdraft Lawsuit: Bank Ordered To Pay $203 MILLION In Fees Over 'Unfair' Charges (AP, Eileen Aj Connelly) -- A federal judge in California ordered Wells Fargo & Co. to change what he called "unfair and deceptive business practices" that led customers into paying multiple overdraft fees, and to pay $203 million back to customers. In a decision handed down late Tuesday, U.S. District Judge William Alsup accused Wells Fargo of "profiteering" by changing its policies to process checks, debit card transactions and bill payments from the highest dollar amount to the lowest, rather than in the order the transactions took place. That helped drain customer bank accounts faster and drive up overdraft fees, a policy Alsup referred to as "gouging and profiteering." The ruling detailed the experiences of two Wells Fargo customers who used their debit cards for multiple small purchases, and were then charged hundreds in overdraft fees because the order the purchases were cleared by the bank depended on the amounts. The judge found the customers, who were part of a class action, were not properly informed of the bank's policies on processing payments and were unaware the bank would allow debit purchases to go through when their accounts were overdrawn. "Internal bank memos and e-mails leave no doubt that, overdraft revenue being a big profit center, the bank's dominant, indeed sole, motive was to maximize the number of overdrafts," Alsup wrote. That policy would "squeeze as much as possible" from customers with overdrafts, in particular from the 4 percent of customers who paid what he called "a whopping 40 percent of its total overdraft and returned-item revenue." The judge dismissed Wells Fargo's arguments that customers wanted and benefited from the policies, and detailed evidence he said showed efforts to obscure the practices in statements and other materials. Wells Fargo's online banking system, for example, would display pending purchases in chronological order, "leading customers to believe that the processing would take place in that order." "The supposed net benefit of high-to-low resequencing is utterly speculative," he wrote. "Its bone-crushing multiplication of additional overdraft penalties, however, is categorically assured." Alsup also criticized the bank for allowing overdraft purchases after accounts had been drained by offering a "shadow line of credit" that customers were unaware existed. The decision noted that the Federal Reserve has outlawed some of the practices detailed in the case, most notably debit card overdrafts permitted without customers agreeing to accept overdraft protection. Judge Alsup ordered Wells Fargo to stop posting transactions in high-to-low order by Nov. 30 and to reverse overdraft fees charged to customers from Nov. 15, 2004, to June 30, 2008, as a result of the policy. A study cited in the decision by a Wells Fargo witness put the restitution at "close to $203 million." Wells Fargo spokeswoman Rochele Messick said the bank is "disappointed" with the ruling. "We don't believe the ruling is in line with the facts of this case and we plan to appeal," she said. Messick noted that Wells Fargo changed its policies earlier this year, and customers can no longer incur more than four overdraft charges in one day. Wells Fargo shares closed Wednesday trading down $1.47, or 5.3 percent, at $26.30, as the broader markets dropped sharply on economic concerns, with banks being particularly hard hit. The case, heard in the U.S. District Court for Northern California, is Gutierrez vs. Wells Fargo. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/11/wells-fargo-overdraft-law_n_679178.html