Sneaking a lesbian onto the Supreme Court

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Questions for today: When did all you folks make the decision that you would be straight? Second, have you ever wondered if Justice Thomas will ever ask a question, at the Supreme Court? (In19 years, he hasn't.)

Straight? You mean heterosexual? As in, how the species works? Never seen a "straight" person. Seen straight roads, straight lines and straight shooters. Every person I have ever seen have curves and bumps of some kind or another!! :p What question has Thomas not asked?
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Questions for today: When did all you folks make the decision that you would be straight?
Somewhat of a flawed premise - because it assumes that one has to make a decision to be what one already is, as opposed to having to make the decision required to be what one is clearly not ......

Second, have you ever wondered if Justice Thomas will ever ask a question, at the Supreme Court? (In 19 years, he hasn't.)
Factually inaccurate:

Thomas: No Questions in 2 Years
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Questions for today: When did all you folks make the decision that you would be straight?

Answer: We didn't.

From the APA website (emphasis mine):

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Answer: We didn't.

From the APA website (emphasis mine):

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

That people have an orientation is a fallacy. As I pointed out before, having "these" inclinations versus "those" inclinations is irrelevant to the issue of homosexuality. Your desires can be confused and abnormal; it doesn't make you anything other than human. Homosexuality is a matter of what one DOES. If you have sex with someone of your own sex, THEN you're a homosexual. So the whole questions of "When did you decide to be straight?" or "When did you realize you were gay?" are ludicrous; it's "When did you decide to (insert sex act here) with someone of your own sex?"

So yes, it's very much a choice.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Without delving into meaningless hypotheticals
Yeah right...the Master Thrasher of Minutia doesn't want to delve into meaningless hypotheticals...pull the other one.
Sidestep the issues and go right to the personal attack? Really? Really?

OK, fine. Which as-yet, non-existing hypothetical case would you like me to delve into?

Again, I say so what? There are nine justices, all with different backgrounds and beliefs. Do any of the current justices have gay sons or daughters? brothers or sisters?
Could their views be clouded? Perhaps they already are.
Every time you say, "So what?" you are in effect saying, "I'm ignorant and I don't understand," or, that you are just ambivalent and don't care one way or the other.


Need I say it again? People who live in trucks have been marginalized and derided by those that don't since the advent of the sleeper
Yes, and the marginalization and derision always comes from ignorance. The fix for that is an easy one. But the analogy of making fun of truck drivers to that of homosexuals trying to make people feel bad about not wanting to embrace anormal behavior as normal behavior goes far beyond ignorance, and right to something that can't be fixed.

...opinions differ for all kinds of reasons. Variety makes the world go around...peel back that foil once in awhile. You might miss it...
These are not mere opinions we're talking about. The Supreme Court interprets the Law of the Land, and their decisions have a direct and profound effect on the lives of every citizen in this country. Their decision are not open to debate, they have the final say. Their opinions offer up nor accept variety.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
You are wrong. This is well researched and documented. Below is one example out of many on this subject.

Oops - I guess I should have used the term "most" instead of "only", but I was making the statement in the context of NAMBLA's purpose for existance. I must remember to also avoid "never" and "always".

Your assumption on this can be dangerous thinking because parents could easily let down their guard when letting heterosexual males have exclusive close contact with young boys.

"Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons.
Groth AN, Birnbaum HJ.
Abstract
A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."

You're right - the subject is well researched and documented. In a survey conducted by the L.A. Times, 2,628 adults across the U.S. were interviewed. Out of those responding, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been molested. 7% of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985).

Also, from a study done in 2007 by Drs. Ryan and Richard Hall, A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues.

"Heterosexual pedophiles, in self-report studies, have on average abused 5.2 children and committed an average of 34 sexual acts vs homosexual pedophiles who have on average abused 10.7 children and committed an average of 52 acts. Bisexual offenders have on average abused 27.3 children and committed more than 120 acts. A study by Abel et al of 377 nonincarcerated, non–incest-related pedophiles, whose legal situations had been resolved and who were surveyed using an anonymous self-report questionnaire, found that heterosexual pedophiles on average reported abusing 19.8 children and committing 23.2 acts, whereas homosexual pedophiles had abused 150.2 children and committed 281.7 acts."

You still believe it to be a mental illness; eventhough, the APA removed it from that classification back in the 70s?

You betcha; even the slightest investigation of that voting process reveals that the APA was under heavy pressure from gay rights organizations to take this action, furthering their agenda to normalize homosexuality. Furthermore, suppose they decide to take a vote and declare that AIDS is no longer a disease? You think that will stop people from spreading it and dying from it? Or maybe next they'll decide there's nothing abnormal about bestiality or necrophilia.

Yes, that is very light reading, considering you provided a link to NARTH.
NARTH is a group of therapists who's very existence is depedent on the conclusion that homosexuality is a mental disorder that needs treatment...
We can agree on the genetic aspect but the mental disorder angle is just soo 70s.:D

It's light reading according to your opinion because it doesn't support your point of view. "Soo 70s"?? Maybe so...as is traditional married heterosexual parenting, Christmas and the Pledge of Allegiance. It's such a privilege to be a part of this Age of Enlightenment.;)
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
That people have an orientation is a fallacy. As I pointed out before, having "these" inclinations versus "those" inclinations is irrelevant to the issue of homosexuality. Your desires can be confused and abnormal; it doesn't make you anything other than human. Homosexuality is a matter of what one DOES. If you have sex with someone of your own sex, THEN you're a homosexual. So the whole questions of "When did you decide to be straight?" or "When did you realize you were gay?" are ludicrous; it's "When did you decide to (insert sex act here) with someone of your own sex?"

So yes, it's very much a choice.

Like I noted before, the only people who think sexual orientation is a choice are heterosexuals, because, duh, they choose not to choose homosexuality, which is certainly an easy choice for a heterosexual to make. The reality is, however, as people enter puberty they spend very little time in trying to decide who they will be aroused by and attracted to. Any male who recalls having to walk down the hallway in 8th grade while holding their books in front of them rather than at their side can relate to this notion of spending many weeks or months trying to figure out sexual orientation. <snort>

The questions of "When did you decide [or choose] to be straight?" or "When did you decide [or choose] to be gay?" are both equally ludicrous, as both assume that a decision was made to be one or the other. Perfectly valid questions are, "When did you realize you were straight?", or "When did you realize you were gay?" since both questions deal with reality, not fallacy.

Because the sexual drive is so strong in people, most gays and straights alike will eventually have sex, but the sex act in and of itself is not the determining factor of one's sexual orientation. I didn't have sex in 8th grade, but I knew, absolutely, without question, that I was straight. It's not a case of me suddenly becoming straight the first time I had sex with a girl, and before that I was something else.

What about the case of the 40-year old virgin, someone who is absolutely aroused by and attracted to a particular gender, but for whatever reason has never had sex? Are they gay, straight, or neither? A couple walks down the street holding hands, very attracted to each other, but neither has ever had sex with anyone. Are they gay, straight, neither? What if they're both 22 years old? What if they're both 13?
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Like I noted before, the only people who think sexual orientation is a choice are heterosexuals, because, duh, they choose not to choose homosexuality,

Yes, precisely! They haven't chosen to become homosexual, so they're not. If, because of temptation, they decide do engage in homosexual sex, then they're homosexual, much like a bank robber becomes a bank robber when he robs then bank, but he's not when he's only planning it or being tempted to do it.

which is certainly an easy choice for a heterosexual to make.

The ease or difficulty of the decision is irrelevant. I have my temptations and you have yours, whatever they may be. If Jennifer Aniston were present, I might desire to force myself on her. But since I don't desire to be a rapist, I guess I'd have to withstand the temptation, wouldn't I?

People have all sorts of temptations, and always will. Maybe you don't want to be a compulsive gambler; so you avoid gambling. An alcoholic tries to avoid drinking. Name your temptation. If you don't want to be what people who do it are, you do what you have to do to resist. If you don't care or can't resist, I guess you do it, but then you have to deal with whatever social approbation exists for your problem.

We imprison rapists, child molesters, bank robbers, etc. Alcoholics, drug addicts, and people with huge tattoos on their face have trouble finding a job. We look down on compulsive gamblers and we don't hire them to work on an armored car or in a bank vault.

Several of us feel that the individual in question, being that she's a lesbian, should not be trusted to be one of the few with a hand on the rudder of the ship of state, given the decisions we can see she's made in her life. She chooses to do things with her sex organs and the sex organs of others that are unnatural. Making decisions is apparently not something she's good at.

I'll pity her over the state and future of her soul, but that doesn't mean I want her to help guide the nation, just as I don't want Captain Hazelwood or Gilligan to steer a ship I'm on.


The questions of "When did you decide [or choose] to be straight?" or "When did you decide [or choose] to be gay?" are both equally ludicrous, as both assume that a decision was made to be one or the other.

Perhaps it's a question that shouldn't be addressed in polite company, but that doesn't mean a choice wasn't made. For all of us, there's a time when we choose to do something with our sex organs. We either make the choice that's acceptable to society (and, dare I mention the G-word?) or one that's unacceptable to society (and there's the G-word again.)

Because the sexual drive is so strong in people, most gays and straights alike will eventually have sex,

True.

but the sex act in and of itself is not the determining factor of one's sexual orientation.

I'm sorry; you're incorrect.


I didn't have sex in 8th grade, but I knew, absolutely, without question, that I was straight. It's not a case of me suddenly becoming straight the first time I had sex with a girl, and before that I was something else.

No, you didn't become a heterosexual when you had sex with someone of the opposite sex. You were created with that function in mind, procreation and all that stuff. That's the default setting. You choose whether or not you deviate from it.

What about the case of the 40-year old virgin, someone who is absolutely aroused by and attracted to a particular gender, but for whatever reason has never had sex? Are they gay, straight, or neither? A couple walks down the street holding hands, very attracted to each other, but neither has ever had sex with anyone. Are they gay, straight, neither? What if they're both 22 years old? What if they're both 13?

All of the people in these examples are heterosexuals because they don't have sex with others of their own sex. I'd take any of them for SCOTUS before the apparent nominee-to-be.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Yes, precisely! They haven't chosen to become homosexual, so they're not. If, because of temptation, they decide do engage in homosexual sex, then they're homosexual, much like a bank robber becomes a bank robber when he robs then bank, but he's not when he's only planning it or being tempted to do it.
Well, according the Patriot Act, you are a terrorist for merely planning or being tempted to perform a terrorist act. Regardless, using your "temptation" logic, which is founded in religion, people give in to temptation because they were enticed or allured to do something, and they are bad for giving in to temptation that you're not supposed to give in to. That's a religious moral argument. That's OK, and I don't have a problem with it, other than it's the argument that is really the only way to not have God culpable in the defective creation of his creations - it must be a result of free will, purely a choice of the individual. Anything else would bring God into the mix, we'd have God actually creating homosexuals, and we just can't have that, now can we? No, it must be free will, a choice. Nothing else is acceptable.

The ease or difficulty of the decision is irrelevant.
Actually, it's crucial to your own argument in favor of temptation and that it being an actual choice.

I have my temptations and you have yours, whatever they may be. If Jennifer Aniston were present, I might desire to force myself on her. But since I don't desire to be a rapist, I guess I'd have to withstand the temptation, wouldn't I?
That's a little creepy, especially since you're talking about the woman I love. I would prefer, as a choice, to not be in love with her, but it happened. I didn't make a conscious decision to fall in love with her, but I did, that's how it is, no temptation or thinking about the temptation involved. I would much prefer to be in love with someone who loves me back, or at least knows I exist (beyond the restraining order, of course), but alas that is not to be the case. :D

Who you fall in love with, who you are attracted to, is not a choice.

People have all sorts of temptations, and always will. Maybe you don't want to be a compulsive gambler; so you avoid gambling. An alcoholic tries to avoid drinking. Name your temptation. If you don't want to be what people who do it are, you do what you have to do to resist. If you don't care or can't resist, I guess you do it, but then you have to deal with whatever social approbation exists for your problem.
Interesting use of the word "compulsion", don't you think? It's a word that removes all choice from the act, an irresistible impulse to perform an act that is irrational, unnatural, or contrary to one's own will. And if you succumb to the temptation, then somehow you are weak. Interesting, indeed.

Several of us feel that the individual in question, being that she's a lesbian, should not be trusted to be one of the few with a hand on the rudder of the ship of state, given the decisions we can see she's made in her life. She chooses to do things with her sex organs and the sex organs of others that are unnatural. Making decisions is apparently not something she's good at.
Again, you're stuck on the moral argument. Temptation, gambling, drinking, sex and sex acts (and the use of pitying her soul), these are the cornerstones of religious fundamentalist morality.

You don't want her on the Supreme Court because you think she had a choice in her sexual orientation, and that it's a morally bad decision, and that she's likely to further make equally bad decisions that disagree with your morality. I don't want her on the Supreme Court because she's a homosexual, an anomalous being within the species, and I don't want someone who thinks being an anomality and that anormal behavior is perfectly normal, making decisions that affect every person in the country.

Perhaps it's a question that shouldn't be addressed in polite company, but that doesn't mean a choice wasn't made. For all of us, there's a time when we choose to do something with our sex organs.
Ever woke up with a :censoredsign:?

We either make the choice that's acceptable to society (and, dare I mention the G-word?) or one that's unacceptable to society (and there's the G-word again.)
Oh, that's OK, you don't have to mention it, as it permeates everything you write. But please don't tell me that you think that what society deems acceptable is also what God deems acceptable, and unless God deems it acceptable, that society should reject it.

but the sex act in and of itself is not the determining factor of one's sexual orientation.
I'm sorry; you're incorrect.
Truth does not change because it is or is not believed by a majority of the people. Sorry, but yes I am. Orientation is a state of being, a pointed direction, or a relative position.

No, you didn't become a heterosexual when you had sex with someone of the opposite sex. You were created with that function in mind, procreation and all that stuff. That's the default setting. You choose whether or not you deviate from it.
That's the moral argument, the same one which cannot allow for evolution. It's an argument that demands that you believe that all people are created, by God, to be heterosexual, that God cannot make mistakes (even if those mistakes are not mistakes at all, and he did them absolutely on purpose, but you just don't understand them), and that homosexuality can only be the result of someone breaking away from God's will and defying God in giving in to temptation of the Devil and OMG self pleasure.

All of the people in these examples are heterosexuals because they don't have sex with others of their own sex. I'd take any of them for SCOTUS before the apparent nominee-to-be.
Wow, that's quite a piece of litmus paper ya got there. Even people who are absolutely attracted to and sexually tempted by others of the same sex and have no desire, yay no temptation of having sex with someone of the opposite sex, and who think it's perfectly normal to be that way, are find and dandy in your book, solely because they haven't had actual homosexual sex, yet. Never mind the fact that they want to, really, really badly, and very likely will, everything's still A-OK until they actually pull the trigger, as it were. Wow.

Maybe they're saving themselves for a Vermont marriage.
 

tallcal101

Veteran Expediter
Hey Aristotle,how's it hangin' big boy?

I have a really dumb left wing job, socialistic perverted homo question for you. If your grand daughter reached the age of consent and proclaimed herself a lesbian (it happened to Dick Chaney) after she finished law school and practiced law and became eligible for a Supreme Court nomination, would you put her in the same box as child molesters and rant about it? Because if the answer is yes, you may be a redneck.

At the risk of being rude,I think you may want to look at your life and see what makes you tick and tock. I'm not saying you are wrong. But if the thing in your life that is really getting you down about Obama is the right of each individual to express their healthy, legal sexual orientation freely and openly, including Supreme Court Justices, then buddy come out here to San Fran and spend a little time. We have a commingled, co sexual , co loving populace out here, and people don't spend a second of their lives concerned about this very subject. After next November , you can even buy a few joints at the 7-11 and then reconsider the idea with a walk through Golden Gate park with all the "people" that hang there. They look just the same as you and me and your beautiful grand children, even the ones with two Moms and two Dads.
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Seems to me that I remember something in history where heterosexuals were persecuted by not only the governor of MO, and the Federal Government of the United States. Seems there was something of suppression of religious practice as well. Seems to me there was even an extermination order issued in MO in 1838. I don't seem to recall any kind of persecution of homosexuals in this country that ever rose to those levels. Not that it matters, only "gay" people have had problems.

A ReBumLiCan president went after them, a Dumb-O-Crat president was responsible for the "trail of tears" Both parties suck. Both ignore the Constitution going back into the late 1800's. This president and congress is no different.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I have a really dumb left wing job, socialistic perverted homo question for you. If your grand daughter reached the age of consent and proclaimed herself a lesbian (it happened to Dick Chaney) after she finished law school and practiced law and became eligible for a Supreme Court nomination, would you put her in the same box as child molesters and rant about it?
I can't answer for aristotle, but if I were in that position, here's what I would do:

I'd put her in a bigger box than the child molesters, and then I would take that smaller box that the child molesters are in, and stick it inside the larger box. :D

The things are different, but nonetheless, they are somewhat similar. To deny, or fail to understand, the similarity (or the difference), if even only to ones self, is to be less than honest.

then buddy come out here to San Fran and spend a little time. We have a commingled, co sexual , co loving populace out here, and people don't spend a second of their lives concerned about this very subject. After next November , you can even buy a few joints at the 7-11 and then reconsider the idea with a walk through Golden Gate park with all the "people" that hang there. They look just the same as you and me and your beautiful grand children, even the ones with two Moms and two Dads.
Quick story - my brother-in-law and his wife just sold their home up in Petaluma and moved down to Palm Springs. They've lived out there many years (20+) - he worked in 'Frisco for quite a while, and then later in Santa Rosa I think.

Apparently, they didn't do quite the amount of research on the community in Palm Springs where they relocated as the wife would have preferred - turns out it has a very high percentage of homosexuals ....

The brother-in-law (the ex-Marine) has no issue with it ..... the wife though, that's another story .... big issue .....

Apparently she managed to live a fairly sheltered life for the last 20 or so years up there in Petaluma .......... pretty funny :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
I'm doing firne
Hey Aristotle,how's it hangin' big boy?

I have a really dumb left wing job, socialistic perverted homo question for you. If your grand daughter reached the age of consent and proclaimed herself a lesbian (it happened to Dick Chaney) after she finished law school and practiced law and became eligible for a Supreme Court nomination, would you put her in the same box as child molesters and rant about it? Because if the answer is yes, you may be a redneck.

At the risk of being rude,I think you may want to look at your life and see what makes you tick and tock. I'm not saying you are wrong. But if the thing in your life that is really getting you down about Obama is the right of each individual to express their healthy, legal sexual orientation freely and openly, including Supreme Court Justices, then buddy come out here to San Fran and spend a little time. We have a commingled, co sexual , co loving populace out here, and people don't spend a second of their lives concerned about this very subject. After next November , you can even buy a few joints at the 7-11 and then reconsider the idea with a walk through Golden Gate park with all the "people" that hang there. They look just the same as you and me and your beautiful grand children, even the ones with two Moms and two Dads.
I'm doing just fine, Andrew. Hopefully, we'll get a Supreme Court nominee who shares mainstream values. I don't mind Obama picking a liberal. Just not a radical whose life experience is outside the norm. Homosexuality is not and will never be normal behavior. One could argue it is death-affirming, rather than life-affirming, since its universal application and practice would lead to extinction of the species. Oh, why mince words... homosexuality is akin to a death cult.
 
Last edited:

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
There's a simple explanation behind the normality of heterosexual behavior - continuation of the species. Why do we find sexual activity to be so pleasurable? Because males and females must mate in order for the species to survive, and that's why boys and girls are attracted to each other. Normal Homo sapiens are genetically hard-wired this way at birth. This process is fundamental to almost all life forms above the levels of earthworms and jellyfish. The lower life forms are driven by instinct, usually triggered when the female begins the fertile phase of her reproductive cycle. Humans are motivated by pleasure derived from the activity rather than instinctive reaction to pheromones. So much for the birds and bees.

On the other hand two homosexuals can engage in sexual activity but cannot reproduce, and there's a reason for that - they're abnormal. Granted, a homosexual female can become impregnated by a male of either sexual orientation, but this activity goes against her instincts. The idea that people make their sexual choice at some point in their development is absolute nonsense. There might be environmental factors in play that would drive them toward homosexual activity (prison for instance), but here again that's an abnormal influence.

The homosexual rights organizations and their accomplices in Hollywood and the mainstream media have gone to great lengths in recent years in their campaign to normalize homosexuality, and unfortunately they're succeeding - especially among the nation's youth. At the same time they're normalizing a lot of other socially deviant behavior through television programming and the indoctrination of the public school system. One wonders how long they can continue to rip apart the seams of our social fabric until it no longer holds together. At some point the majority will have to rise against the influence of this highly vocal minority and declare that they've had enough of their perversions. Otherwise they'll find out what happens when good men do nothing.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
One could argue it is death-affirming, rather than life-affirming, since its universal application and practice would lead to extinction of the species.
Unfortunately my friend, science and technology are not humanity's friend in this matter ......

A thing developed to solve a problem, leads to another .... law of unintended consequences .....

Oh, why mince words... homosexuality is akin to a death cult.
Death is quite in fashion at the moment ..... in too many ways to count ...... and actually has been for quite some time ..... we live largely in a culture of death .... :(
 

tallcal101

Veteran Expediter
Gotta love Petaluma, God's country. I used to take my kids up that way. We could see cows in the hills off of 101 heading north'. When the kids were real little, they would say " Petaluma cows Dad"!! (that's what I told them they were the first time we saw them). It's a standing joke to this day , they are now 34 and 36. Since I'm on the subject, they are both working on then new high speed rail as environmental consultants ,independent of their brother and sister status.One as an endangered spices biologist and the other as a green belt planner for the track layout across the Tahajapies (sp) ,better know as the Grapevine.
I guess the road does not fall to far from the tree,transportation is in their blood and they know it. I could not be prouder.
Sucked back into this Forum,kind of a home away from home if you get my gist. Why am I telling you this stuff?
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Gotta love Petaluma, God's country.
Yeah, it's beautiful - the wife and I were out on the west coast about 6 years ago for my oldest's wedding .... she and I met when we both lived in Sacramento ... we were married outside, on a fine summer day, at the State Capital grounds (which, for those that don't know is basically a large park, with an arboretum, that surrounds the Capital building) ... some 30 years ago ....

After the kid's wedding, the wife and I went up and spent a little better than a week with her bro' and his wife .... good times ...... went out and hit some of the wineries ... discovered I really, really liked port ... went up and hiked around in the Redwoods ... good times :D

I used to take my kids up that way. We could see cows in the hills off of 101 heading north'. When the kids were real little, they would say "Petaluma cows Dad"!! (that's what I told them they were the first time we saw them). It's a standing joke to this day, they are now 34 and 36.
Heheheh .... Happy Cows, right ? ;)

Since I'm on the subject, they are both working on then new high speed rail as environmental consultants, independent of their brother and sister status. One as an endangered spices biologist and the other as a green belt planner for the track layout across the Tahajapies (sp), better know as the Grapevine.
Kewl ..... sounds like fun - are they both having a good time with it ?

I guess the road does not fall to far from the tree, transportation is in their blood and they know it. I could not be prouder.
Well then ...... Well Done .... ;)

Sucked back into this Forum, kind of a home away from home if you get my gist.
Yup ...... I do indeed ;)
 
Top