Nitro

Just for the record, "Santa Claus" was an invention of a man named Thomas Nest and was created as an elf in the mid-1800's to support the "Union." In the 1930's another artist, named Fred Mizen, took Nest's creation and adapted it with the wardrobe that we now associate to Santa Claus (red suit, tassel hat, black boots, etc), and painted it for an advertisement, holding a Coca-Cola, which was used to promote the worlds largest soda fountain, which was located inside a department store. Coca-Cola's advertising and marketing company took a hold of the "Santa Claus" and adapted him a little

That sentence alone doesn't tell the whole story though. You also have to find what the state (where the offense happened) defines as "nudity." Mothers would breast feed in public have fought this battle plenty of times and in most states, the law has previsions that exempt them from the statute. Same applies with shirts. In most states, the legal definition of nudity does not include the upper half of the body or what society as a whole would find to not be offensive. Nudity has to be defined or else it's simply up to the judge to determine what constitutes nudity.

Rodney's does... and I'm pretty sure IHOP has a draw curtain to section off one of their areas for parties/meetings/etc.

Well, I don't know for sure, but I would think a person would be able to see their own juvenile record, once of age. However, again, I don't know for sure, but I think that after so many years, the records are actually destroyed.

Wonder if he got a permit to manufacture alcohol?

You're right... BUT, there's no such thing as separation of church and state. It was a concept written about. It's not in the Constitution. What IS in the Constitution is that the government will not create a law respecting a specific religon or prohibit someone from exercising their right to free worship. I'd be willing to bet they were very careful in the way the law was worded to not tread on the first amendment. It would probably never be official admitted that the reason was for religious beliefs, even though it was... It's the same old government story of them trying to protect

I think it's the one where Jesus sat down to supper with his 12 apostles and had WINE and bread... Oh wait... :unsure:

Really? You actually have to ask that question? It most certainly does cause these things! It works on the same principle that my gun will just get up out of my closet, load itself, and walk out on the street and murder someone! Ya know, us law abiding citizens need to have EVERYTHING restricted and monitored for us. It's the criminals that obtain things illegally that you don't have to worry about. :rolleyes: :blink: :pardon:

Call the "Crimes Against Children" division of the Sheriff's Office. I'm sure they would be able to provide you with much more accurate information than anyone at Paulding.com. You could also call the Sheriff's Dept. and ask to speak with (if he doesn't answer here first) Corporal Gurley. If he doesn't know the answer directly, he could most likely get you in contact a person who would know. If the "offender" is a child, you can pretty much forget it though... You can find out about a person who commits an offense against a child, but you won't find out what child it was co

If you are being questioned by a law enforcement officer, detained, and not allowed to leave, you are technically and legally under non-custodial arrest. You don't have to be taken to jail and charged to be under arrest. When you are stopped for a traffic offense, you are under arrest the minute the officer turns on his blue lights. After the stop, you are released to your own custody, which is why you sign the citation (summons)to appear in court. Same thing applies here. If you are detained and questioned, you have been placed under non-custodial arrest, while an investigation is con

You're exactly right. Much more respect for other people and other people's belongings.

:clapping: :drinks: :clapping: Shhhhh! Please don't throw out facts! You're confusing the people who love welfare and socialized programs and want the government to take care of them. These people don't believe in personal responsibility and facts like you're presenting.

Yep, the basics are good. But, like automobiles, unless there is a governing body, like ASE, to which I'm not aware of... a certification program is going to come from a manufacturer. And, a manufacturer isn't going to certify someone who doesn't own/work in a shop where their product isn't sold... it doesn't benefit them. I'm sure there are some good online courses, but the problem with that is "hands on" experience. You can be book knowledgeable in all the processes, terminology, and workings... but if you've never actually performed the service 'hands on' then there is a res

Sorry, but no, that is NOT what I said. I see you get flustered easily when you can't dispute what I'm saying. You got in over your head, didn't you? No, what I said was "If I, and many others, got to keep the majority of the money we make and spend it as we see fit, the economy tends to flourish, jobs are created, and the welfare state decreases." That's the exact quote from your link to my post. At no time did I said there would be "NO problems" if taxes were lower. So, again, please READ thoroughly before you try to take on an argument. I know you get flustered when people prese

Gun smithing is kind of an apprenticeship type of job. I doubt you're going to find any kind of local classes that teach this. This is likely something you'd have to go to a manufacturers school, while working for a gun shop. It's kind of like automobile work. A gun is a gun and anyone that was worked on one knows the basics. But, a dealer tech is going to get manufacturer specific class and specialized training specific to that manufacturer. Best thing to do is get a side or part time job working at a gun shop and get to know the smith that they have (if they have one on

You want to talk ignorance, huh? Better get the Windex out, because you're gonna be looking in the mirror on this one. You want history? Are you aware the this country was FOUNDED BECAUSE of EXCESSIVE TAX by the British government against it's people? Yeah, really, it was. The biggest reason the United States of America was founded is because of excessive tax. Do you have ANY idea why the Boston Tea Party occurred? It's because the British government said "you will buy this tea and you will pay this tax on any tea coming in to the colonies. Do you know what happened because of in

Sorry, but you're wrong. Let's have a little history lesson. Government "handout" started when FDR put social security in to place. It's role was to help American's out, short term, and get through an era of hard time. But, the politician's said, "Hey, let's keep this going..." because it brought in votes. Since the inception of Social Security, government has increasing been becoming more of a social welfare state and not a governing body that protects it's citizen's under the Constitution. You say that charities couldn't handle it? You're wrong. If I, and many others, got to k

Not only for ballistics... but what about those of us who reload? Do I then have to take my brass to a certified serial numbering agency and have them matched to the bullets I will be putting in them? What happens if I mess up a bullet while pressing or trim a brass case to short and have to discard either? Do I have to fill out an affidavit and swear under oath that I legally discarded them (with proper lead disposal procedures) or have completely destroyed them somehow? It amazes me at some of the crap politician's come up with...

I had no problem comprehending anything. Maybe you didn't READ again. I said that I WOULD be in favor of paying for the jails. The issues are not complicated. Idiots (politician's) MAKE them complicated. I don't care what the welfare is put for... It's not the role of the government to take money away from the people who earned it for reason of compassion. If you think it is, you need to go back, read your history of this country, and read the Constitution of the United States. People are supposed to be self reliant and our government is not intended to support us. There is

Yeah, maybe if all the damned politician's would stop spending mine and everyone elses money on welfare and all the other government programs that take my money away and give it to other people, then MAYBE we could afford MORE prisons. I'd MUCH rather see my tax dollars going to fund a jail house than see it pissed away on some liberal's bleeding heart bullcrap social income redistribution fund. ...and I have EVERY right to say what I want to about the judges. This is the United States of America and if you need a little lesson, google "United States Constitution" and "First Amendme

Pubby, if you're in jail and have been sentenced a given amount of time, you need to serve that amount of time. As I stated to eye-sirius, the cost of keeping someone imprisoned would be drastically reduced if the tax payers didn't have to fund the cable bill and the education of people in jail. Take it back to older times when jail was just that... jail. It was not a pleasure tour. You work all day, you get three reasonable square meals (nothing fancy... just basic food) and a place to sleep. If you're a violent criminal, you get a solitary cell. Prison is a cushioned place for the

Really? So, you've never heard a judge call out "life in prison without parole" as part of the sentence process? A judge absolutely has say so in what a convicted person's punishment is. Yes, it has to be within confines of the laws and punishments, however, for violent crimes, "without parole" is most definitely an option is a large majority of the cases. Well, you're right... and you're wrong. You're absolutely right about the law makers not doing anything about certain things unless there's money or re-election in it. However, you're incorrect about that applying to violent

**tongue in cheek** Sometimes I think the owners should be shot for letting their animals wander aimlessly in to harm. I hit a dog a month or so ago... beautiful dog. Broke my heart to see it lying in the street. Messed up my truck... why should the owner not be responsible for fixing my vehicle? Why should the owner not be held accountable for the death of the dog (cruelty to animals)?? As a motorcyclist, this worries me sometimes. ...and while there may not have been anything he could have done, hitting the brakes for a dog running at you, while riding a motorcycle is

Do you not understand plan English? Nothing is a lie. History has shown exactly what I said. Prejudice? HA! I haven't mis-catagorized anything. I didn't say "All," I said "Most," which IS the case. Look at the votes in Congress and you'll find that to be true. "MOST" of "the left" vote in favor of more strict gun laws and more gun laws. There's nothing false about that. So, what if I think his position is flawed. Since I agree with it, doesn't it make it MY position too? Doesn't that mean MY position is flawed when ONLY looking at that one particular item? That's not preju

Well, since I'm the only one who mentioned "the left," I can assume this statement is directed at me. So... Nobody said it was about "the left" removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens. And yes, I did read the article before commenting. And as I stated, I have no problems enforcing the existing gun laws. However, that still doesn't negate the fact that "the left" is most definitely trying to remove firearms and/or severely restrict access from the law abiding citizens. Look at the congresswoman who was shot. What happened afterwards? "The Left" started saying we need