Please do. :wink:

From a bush speech on social security:

I also threw out another interesting idea -- it's certainly not my idea, because others have talked about it, and that is to allow younger workers, on a voluntary basis, to take some of their own money and set it aside in the form of a personal savings account -- a personal savings account which is their own; a personal savings account which would earn a better rate of return than the money -- their money currently held within the Social Security trust; a personal savings account which will compound over time and grow over time; a personal savings account which can't be used to bet on the lottery, or a dice game, or the track. In other words, there will be guidelines. There will be certain -- you won't be allowed just to take that money and dump it somewhere. In other words, there will be a safe way to invest, to be able to realize the compounding rate of interest.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/..._p44237-083-250h.jpg

Seems like there is a loophole in this law - can't they just point out that the three kids are related to them both by blood?

I was about to post that very same thought. I always assumed that your chlidren where related to you.

Until the 1960s/early 1970s, when more people started catching on. Even in present day transactions, some older title deeds still carry the old covenant restrictions that pertain to race, though they are clearly unenforceable.

I was about to post that very same thought. I always assumed that your chlidren where related to you.

The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption."

Why do little stupid s--- podunk ignorant red neck towns like this insist on incurring the cost of ACLU suits?

Dumbasses!

DMT

Was that quote meant in defamation? Because if it was I don't understand what is wrong with it. The part you placed in bold was meant to be arbitrary, hope you can grasp the english language sometime soon, peace.

I guess you don't mind the pretzldent being a racist then because this was said to an african-american group.

He was equating race with lifestyle, becase we all know the brothers like to hang out and bet and roll dice all day.

If you don't see anything wrong with the defamation of a racial group then you are a good republican. Good job.

I guess you don't mind the pretzldent being a racist then because this was said to an african-american group.

He was equating race with lifestyle, becase we all know the brothers like to hang out and bet and roll dice all day.

So what you were really saying was - "Then again, in my town (decades before I was born), you couldn't own or live on property within its confines unless you were a white married couple(which is similar to segregationist policies common throughout the country prior to the civil rights changes of the 50s and 60s), right?

However, in a California history class I took in 2003, the lecturer produced part of a title deed from a 1966 transaction with the language that pertained to racial restrictions fully intact.

Marry or get out, US town tells unwed parents
May 23 9:20 PM US/Eastern

A small American town is facing accusations of seeking to drive unmarried couples with children out of town on grounds they do not fit the local definition of a family.

The brewing controversy in Black Jack, a town of 6,800 in the central state of Missouri, began unfolding earlier this year when Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a four-bedroom house they had purchased.

Local officials told the couple that the fact they were not married and had three children, one from Shelltrack's previous relationship, did not fit the town's definition of "family".

A Black Jack ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together in a single family home unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption".

The couple were then left with the option of getting married, packing their bags and leaving town, or putting up a fight, which is what they decided to do.

"I think the city wants to send a clear message that they don't want children born out of wedlock," Shelltrack told AFP in a phone interview. "It has become a moral issue for them.

"They see family in a certain way and that's the only acceptable way."

Shelltrack, 31, said she and Loving, her partner of 13 years, never imagined when they moved to Black Jack from Minnesota in January that a legal nightmare awaited them.

"We though the occupancy permit was a housing code issue, that an inspector would come by and check the house," Shelltrack said. "But we figured something was wrong when they asked for the children's birth certificates and a marriage certificate."

She said the family has received a lot of support from neighbors and local residents, many of whom are baffled by what they consider an archaic law.

Sheldon Stock, the town's attorney, told AFP there were no plans to evict the couple after the City Council earlier this month rejected a measure that would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.

Nonetheless, he said, Shelltrack and Loving would have to abide by the law or face fines and a court battle.

"The city intends to enforce its ordinances and we think under the current state of the law that we have every right to do so," he said.

Stock noted that numerous other cities in Missouri have similar occupancy codes, but he acknowledged that the majority don't enforce them.

"Everybody in their occupancy codes has a definition of family," he said. "Somewhere you draw a line and unfortunately in this case they (Shelltrack and Loving) don't fall on the right side of the line."

The couple have taken their case to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is considering filing a lawsuit against the city on their behalf.

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development is also conducting an investigation.

Anthony Rothert, the legal director for the ACLU in eastern Missouri, told AFP that some 10 unmarried couples with children had been denied occupancy permits in recent years in Black Jack and were essentially driven out of town.

One unmarried couple that owns a house in the mainly Catholic town and that recently had a second child is facing the same fate, Rothert said.

"I find this ordinance very bizarre," he said, adding that the city's argument that the law, adopted in 1985, was aimed at preventing overcrowding did not hold up.

"If Olivia and Fondray were married and had 20 kids they could live in the house," he said. "I think this is all about the city trying to impose its moral values on its citizens."

Well, freedom is a funny double edged thing. They are free to not get married. The town is free to follow the majority decision of it's populace to not allow them to live there. It's ultra-conservative, narrow minded, stupid and perhaps distatseful to you personally but it's within the town's right.