Hts121

Who is dome and why do I keep getting hate texts about him?

I'll take you word for it. Certainly wouldn't be the first time the PD's reporting was misleading. Correct my timeline if wrong: 2003 - Project proposed 2003-2008 - several failed attempts to jump-start the project early 2008 - City 'earmarks' some grant funds for the project Feb 2009 - shootings occur April 2009 - City council approves funding Later in 2009 - proceeds from sale of convention center are earmarked for the project

Given that S Eric Weddle got 4 years, $40 million (with $18 mill guaranteed), I shudder to think what the market willl be for Nnamdi. The Browns need 'talent' at WR, or at least it appears so, but they moreso need 'bodies' at other positions. We may not have a #1 WR (or at least not one who has proven himself so), but we do have a lot of WRs. Same with about every other position on offense. We have enough to field a team. The defensive side of the ball, however, is sorely lacking in every-down players. We MUST get at least one safety, one cornerback, two linebackers, and probably 3-4 defensive lineman through a combination of signing our own FAs and FAs off the open market. Bottom line, I don't think we can blow all of our money on one big signing.

Tell me about it. I get no small measure of joy telling the black clergy members what hypocrites they are..... many of them who were alive when Loving v. Virginia was decided. According to Cimperman, the DP registry in Cleveland may well have failed due to pressure from black church leaders if council had waited another day to put it up for a vote. Further, many pro-LGBT rights advocates in California say that Prop 8 would have went their way if not for the massive swell of black voters to the polls in 2008 (and Latinos too I suppose, but at least they're catholic and have little choice lest they burn for all eternity).

Would be nicer if the ceilings were higher.

^So should I still go a Ron Paul forum to find out the answer? ^^We agree. And I in no way intended to offend the 'principles' of Libertarianism.... just like I don't oppose the notion of states rights in anyway. I just find that both are incredibly susceptible to be used as masks for hate. As for the politicians listed above.... yes, they all claim to be libertarians.

^Never said they weren't But doesn't Ron Paul himself support a state's "right" to ban same-sex marriage?

But he does claim to believe in libertarian principles..... when it is convenient for him.

Not at all. Once again, I know what 'pure' libertarianism is and I know who those who are true believers SHOULD come out on this issue. But yet, I just don't see it in action (see above) Soooo.... was that a 'yes' or a 'no'. Forget about a federal amendment. I'm simply talking about a state constitutional ban.

Here's a few. Rep. Justin Amash (R, Michigan) - 'strongly supports DOMA' - http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/Justin_Amash.htm Rep. Jeff Flake (R, Arizona) - 'voted yes on constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage' - http://www.ontheissues.org/house/jeff_flake.htm Rep. Tom McClintock (R, California) - 'no legal rights for same-sex couples' - http://www.ontheissues.org/Tom_McClintock.htm Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas) - voted yes on banning gay adoptions - http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm - and co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act - supporte the We the People Act which was intended to override Texas v. Johnson. Paul opposes federal government involvement but typically supports states having their run of the mill on any issue relating to anti-gay laws.

Just who the heck are you asking? You can't seem to differentiate between social cons from libertarians. I don't know of any libertarians that want the government to legislate moral issues. The beauty of it is that it doesn't matter that they personally agree or disagree with gay marriage; this is an issue of individual choice that needs no government intervention. Political "cover" on the other hand, is favoring civil unions. Usually people who claim to be libertarians but know very little about the philosophy. Sooooo..... what would the response be? You seem to have a firm grasp of libertarianism. Would a 'true' libertarian vote 'yes' or 'no' on a constitutional amendment to ban state licensure of same sex marriages? And, keep in mind, ballots don't have a write-in third option. It is a 'yes' or 'no' question. To be clear, I have no problem with libertarianism. None. In fact, it is consistent with a lot of my personal principles.

Plenty of states do. But I think that MayDay's point (to which natininja was responding) was that there are indeed churches are allowed to choose who they want to marry regardless of whether the state recognizes it. I think Rand Paul's stances on gay marriage are fairly typical of politicians who claim to be libertarian.

I know what the 'gist' of their 'argument' is and have never been confused on that point. It just ain't going to happen. It is political cover, nothing more. I like to ask people who hold those conviction how they would vote TODAY - while marriage is still licensed by the state - on a ban of same sex marriages because you can never get a straight (no pun intended) answer in response. But, hey, at least they are not in the moronic crowd (Bachmann, Perry, etc.) who argue that the 10th Amendment restricts marriage licensing to state discretion and, out of the other side of their mouth, argue in favor of a federal constitutional amendment banning same sex-marriage.

And in most cities, those two suburbs would be within city limits. For CH, the high walk score is a direct result of the city's ability to resist the urge to surbanize its streetcar neighborhoods

Perhaps, but in reality it is used as a far too convenient tool for self proclaimed libertarians to not touch the issue. Marriage will always be regulated by the state because their are too many legal implications of being married. For libertarian leaning politicians, this is an easy scapegoat to not sound like a hypocrite yet still maintian that social conservative vote. This 'libertarian' approach to the debate is akin to me saying I wish there was no military because, in an ideal world, we would all live in peace. But we have to deal with issues in the context of modern day realities.

What a church elects to do and recognize and what the state chooses to recognize are two separate matters. No police are going to storm a church to halt a gay wedding, no matter whether the state 'recognizes' that marriage or not.

#44 is the garage entrance/exit coming out of the Justice Center on W. 3rd Correct. The lot has been there since at least 2001 (when I went to st. Ignatius). Which reminds me of a joke I once heard - How do you know if the guy you are talking to went to St. Ignatius?..... He will tell you :)

Not shocking at all. As a whole, both CH and Lakewood are much more walkable than Cleveland. Why was Cincy not listed in the ranking? It should have been right above Cleveland, no?

Cash too.

We could also let the straight people keep their marriages. Such an assurances might go a long way towards quelling the fears

Ice cream is not seasonal. But 'going out' for ice cream is a seasonal thing. I would bet that container sales go up a bit in the winter, but the sale of cones goes way, way down. TCBY ruled the late 80's / early 90's !

^Is your Yahoo local set to a Cleveland zip code?

The headline might have been regional. Just something to consider. Anyways, seems like we are in decent company!

The structure being framed right now.... that is the 'connector' between the hotel and office, correct? If so, glad to see that the office building is really going to be wedged against that retainer wall.... although I suppose that will detract some from its perceived (not actual) height. But I further suppose that may allow for a bit more height as well because the retainer wall might bear some of the stress/weight?

He is nowhere near the athlete that Shaun Rogers is. Hopefully, he is nowhere near the knucklehead Shaun Rogers is either.