[sdduuuude]

[quote=jeff303]This entire concern is predicated on a false assumption, namely that sexual orientation is something consciously “chosen” or subconsciously “adopted” based on society. All current scientific evidence points to it being biological and set from birth.[/quote]

You, in particular, are missing the point. The entire concern has nothing do do with this predication.

The entire concern is that some parents don’t want to start explaining sex to their kids until they reach a certain age.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=njtosd]The adoption story does raise a question that some parents may justifiably wish to leave until a child gets older. [/quote]

Ya – that’s all I’m sayin’.

Of course, you have no control over the fact that in our school, we actually have a kid w/ 2 moms. So, life may force the discussion before the curricula anyway.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=sdduuuude]

The point is not against homosexuals.

[/quote]

Title of the post:

OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools[/quote]

What he actually said:

[quote=paramount]
I have been shocked and angered that the public schools in California are introducing my impressionable daughter to homosexuality. Or any sexuality for that matter.
[/quote]

Just because he thinks they are radical doesn’t mean he is anti-homosexuals.

[sdduuuude]

I think you are all missing his point.

The point is not against homosexuals.

The point is that the school is forcing discussions of sexuality earlier than he is comfortable with.

It’s a good point.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CA renter]Funny, because when I study history, it’s more likely that more and more people will chose violence and revolution[/quote]

So, we should just pay them off so they don’t resort to violence? Sounds like buying off terrorists to me.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CA renter]I think you need to take a closer look at what’s really happened throughout history rather than basing your beliefs on a fiction writer’s nonsensical theories (Ayn Rand).[/quote]

Again, assuming alot about what I think. I have never read Ayn Rand.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdduuuude][quote=zk]Why do the kids from Watts generally end up taking government support while the kids from Carmel Valley pay for it? [/quote]

Because the money is there. Because the CV folks have no choice in the matter. If there is no government support then the kids from Watts wouldn’t end up taking the government support, now would they ?

Perhaps you meant to ask – ‘Why are the kids from Watts unable to support themselves?’

Which is a different question, alogether, but perhaps the same answer.[/quote]

And if they couldn’t get govt support, do you think they’ll just “get off their lazy asses and go to work”? This, IMHO, is where the difference lies between the left and the right. You have to look at history to see how it ends…almost every single time.[/quote]

Nice strawman argument. No, I don’t think they would. One of three things would happen:
1) They would perish, failing to reproduce.
2) They would find private charity, based on volunary donations.
3) They (later generations) would anticipate the fact that no life support will be available to them and choose to better prepare themselves.

Perhaps you can tell I’m on neither the left nor the right.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=zk]Why do the kids from Watts generally end up taking government support while the kids from Carmel Valley pay for it? [/quote]

Because the money is there. Because the CV folks have no choice in the matter. If there is no government support then the kids from Watts wouldn’t end up taking the government support, now would they ?

Perhaps you meant to ask – ‘Why are the kids from Watts unable to support themselves?’

Which is a different question, alogether, but perhaps the same answer.

[sdduuuude]

Conspiracy theory: The cop and students worked together. He sprayed them with colored water, earning them each $30K and himself 38K plus retirement.

Stupid people make money while taxpayers get screwed.

[sdduuuude]

Seems like the smarter thing to do would have been to put up “Sorrento Valley” signs throughout Mira Mesa.

[sdduuuude]

Try Bob Silverman.

He’s a jeweler who gave up a bunch of retail stores in the 90’s and now does everything out of an office in UC.

[sdduuuude]

85 SFR for sale in Redfin CVMS area.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=XBoxBoy]sdduuuude,

What has been your experience dealing with inspectors without a GC? Is that much of an issue? Inquiring minds want to know….

thanks,

XboxBoy[/quote]

It varies, but playing dumb and being friendly goes a long way. I would always be there for the inspection so I could hear exactly what was needed to pass.

Every once in a while I would call for an inspection even though I knew I wasn’t ready just so I could get some guidance.

I could see the GCs having an advantage here just because they know what to expect, although every sub complains about inconsistency between inspectors.

Most inspectors have the personality of the old lady monster in Monsters Inc. so it is hard to be friendly. But, in the end, I could get them all to take pity on me and be helpful if I was there asking questions while they inspected.

I always counted on two visits per sign-off, too and never scheduled the next sub contractor until the inspection was signed off.

[sdduuuude]

For the kind of work you are talking about, I would definitely hire subs. For bigger project, like additions, a GC isn’t such a bad idea. I do my own GC for bigger projects but I don’t think I’m really saving any money. I do it because I don’t have to manage an architect and a GC to get things done exactly the way I want. I lose time doing it and I probably incur delays and I probably pay the subs more than a GC, too.

GC Downsides:
– GC’s charge a margin.
– GC has to translate my needs to the subs.
– Unscrupulous GCs know how to work you over.

GC Upside:
– GCs pay less to the subs than I do.
– Saves me time.
– Scheduling can be difficult on your own.
– GCs deal with inspectors.

[sdduuuude]

No matter what you do, it’s gonna peel eventually.

[Author]

Posts