They'll grasp at every last penny they can in an effort for tax money.

Kind of ironic, since the story involves California, which has Prop 13.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

It wasn't really reversed. They made the "male" version all genders, but still have all female competitions.

They should just have all open events. (They also have female poker tournaments, and every once in a while, a guy wears a dress and enters it.)

No, it is not about the home VALUES, but literally the building quality and how long they should last.

I mean, I know a poorer constructed building have a lower value, but that's a consequence, not the subject.

Again, I have no idea if this shoddy workmanship applies to commercial buildings.

would it be worth someone's time to buy some of these unwanted out-of-the-way buildings and then fund (possibly fully) the construction of a line and station covering that area?

I have no idea if this is true for commercial buildings too, but there was a freakonomics podcast episode (2/26/2014 "Why are Japanese homes disposable?") that described that homes aren't built to be long lasting in Japan. Would definitely be worth researching before trying to do this.

I have no idea what you're talking about. My argument is that if people who believe an invisible man in the sky can refuse to pay for others getting their jollies, why can't atheists?

(Yes, I think in general people should pay for their own health care --- or their own insurance. Yes, insurance is "evening out the payments", but I'm talking about doing it willingly. BTW, both of the major presidential candidates were for at least some mandated health care, so I am not choosing political sides here.)

BTW, I feel the same thing about viagra, which IIRC, insurance companies pay for too.

OK, then why can't I be a "closely knit ownership structure" (I did already hear that part today, btw) in the "Church of Money", and my church believes I shouldn't have to pay for things people can pay for themselves?

So I hope that a business can refuse to pay for it even without having to pretend to believe in an invisible man in the sky..

If not, I hope one of them sues, because the government is then preferring one religion over another.

(I think this, and many other things, should be paid for by the person themselves...)

Funny that I get one troll and one insightful comment in the same thread.. Plus, I'm registered R.

My attorney is the lead partner of probably the most succesful firm in Portland, OR and he disagrees with you. Under no circumstances should you trust a cop, EVEN if you are innocent, words directly from him to me. That means no talking, etc. That doesn't mean you have to be a complete arse, but you're being disingenious by suggesting most cops are decent folks, they are not, and even the ones that are are institutionalized into sticking up for the scumbags.

Emphasis mine. Wait, do you mean the cops or the lawyers?

e.g. Mike Garagos sounds like a great guy when he's on Adam Carolla's podcast. But the actual lawyerly things he does are IMHO scumbaggy, like a lot of other lawyers (all of the OJ defense lawyers).

OK, I didn't mean "let them" in terms of literally saying ok or giving body language to mean the same thing... but basically not protesting since you "knew" (wrongly apparently) it would be inadmissible..

But with your other answer, I will RTFA.

I didn't RTFA, but wouldn't the tricky/slimy answer be "let them search it, so then all of the evidence gets thrown out"?

I agree with getting rid of the subsidy (and all other subsidies, even ones I like), but why tax it any more than sugar? Are you one of those who have unscientific beliefs that corn syrup is worse than any other sugar?

Inductive charging wastes power. Don't you care about the earth?

I don't get why Republicans made up death panels, since that should be a Republican idea to limit mandated health care!