u/Drunk_Lemon

It was a boring speeding ticket but since im a hardened criminal now, I gotta step up my game.

OOC: my brother was driving at the time as I was asleep at home.

My director of special education is requiring that all students who have a pullout service in the C grid of their IEP to be pulled to the back table of the general education classroom despite it saying on their IEP that the location is supposed to be a "specialist room". According to my brother, the director thinks we can do this because of some kind of loophole. I do not yet know what this supposed loophole is but I was wondering what I could send to my boss to try to prove that this is illegal and then ask what the loophole is that supposedly allows us to pull students into the wrong location. Ideally, I'd want something very cut and dry to make this plainly obvious to her as she seems to have an incorrect view on various aspects of SPED law.

I am not asking for medical advice. A few decades ago, before I was born, my mother got into a head on collision with a drunk driver. This led to her temporarily losing the ability to speak and walk. Thus she needed physical therapy and had to be retaught how to communicate. At the time of the following incident, she was able to somewhat walk and could speak in basic sentences. During physical therapy, the physical therapist massaged her breasts despite that obviously not being appropriate or medically helpful. She was unable to say no at the time but later when she was at home, she said something like "therapist I no like", my grandmother asked why and she pointed to her breasts and said "massaged". She reported it which led to a hearing where my mother was present and when asked what happened, she said "massage" and grabbed her own breasts and said "I no like". The guy was not punished as he claimed that she misunderstood what happened.

Do not read the following until after you answer please.

>!He later lost his license as he was caught doing it to two other women!<

OOC: Safety care training is about how to safely restrain a kid but if you are unsure how to respond, feel free to pretend it's some other type of Safety thing.

I was thinking that in situations in which there is an intense divide between sides, it can be beneficial to find things that both sides may agree to so that we can make easier change before doing the harder stuff so we can make progress more quickly. For example, improving access to mental health services would be an alternative to gun control that my fellow gun control advocates should agree to.

Btw I support gun control but I am very unsure of those views as of late so I'm wondering about alternatives to gun control to prevent shootings while I self-reflect on the issues I've found in my own views. If you are unsure how to answer my question, feel free to explain your interpretation of the "well regulated" part of the 2A as that is core to a lot of my uncertainty.

I was thinking that in situations in which there is an intense divide between sides, it can be beneficial to find things that both sides may agree to so that we can make easier change before doing the harder stuff so we can make progress more quickly. For example, improving access to mental health services would be an alternative to gun control that my fellow gun control advocates should agree to.

While I am pro-choice, what are some changes that could be made in society that may be both easier to enact due to being more popular among prochoicers but could also strengthen your own position by weakening prochoice arguments?

For example, a bill to improve the foster care system may be easier to pass than prolife bills but it would combat prochoice arguments that they think its better to be aborted than end up in an abusive foster care system thus it both improves society and supports your current efforts to enact prolife legislation. This way, both sides can be used to make change to society while still supporting your efforts so you aren't changing your efforts for change to something else.

No OOC needed as it is a boring law to break and I am already pursuing various avenues to deal with the situation such as quitting if needed.

One of my mods, I think GBO makes the Xenon tougher and apparently tough enough that they have taken the Void, Argon Prime, Hatikvah's Choice, Getsu Fune, Heretic's End, Morning Star 3, All of Litany Fury, All of Wretched Skies, Family Zhin, Family Nhuut, Second Contact 2, Frontier Edge and made a few sectors neutral.

Would the Argon Federation rebuild their Shipyard, Wharf and whatever station had their representative on it in a different sector of theirs? And any tips for beating back the Xenon? I recently got a Syn for completing a questline but apparently a Syn is not strong enough to take out stations unless I get really lucky and am not swarmed by Xenon. I have ship manufacturing coming online soon but I need to steal more ship blueprints from the Terrans.

Btw the Argon and Hatikvah are the only two fucked factions I care about.

In real life, the founding fathers could not imagine that guns would eventually be able to fire thousands of rounds a minute (i.e. miniguns) and thus could not create a amendment to address what guns would be like in their future. So how would you attempt to future proof it if you wrote the 2A today?

I was thinking "No will to live" or "2nd Luigi Mangione". Any other ideas?

I think snap elections should be able to be done for any political office if certain conditions are met.

• The person in the political position wishes to retire, is incapable of running the position, is impeached or dies. The incapability requires that it is something that is expected to last one year or longer.

OR

• The politician is expected to be unable to carry out their duties at a certain date. In which case, the snap election would find a replacement to take office once the politician is no longer able to carry out their duties. (requires the politician to be unable to carry out their duties for 1 year or longer). The replacement can be in office temporarily if the politician is able to return to office prior to the end of their term.

OR

• A sufficient number of people petition for the snap election. I am unsure on the amount of people but the goal is to make this difficult to do but possible if the politician is incompetent. Maybe 40% of the politician's jurisdiction? The petition would be run by local governments and would require in person signing with certain exceptions. The signing could be done in whatever town they live in.

OR

• The politician is convicted of a felony. (This would likely require the recent supreme court decision to be overturned that prevents Presidents from being charged with crimes committed as "part of Presidential duties" at least for presidential elections that is.)

In cases where a politician is expected to temporarily be unable to do their duties for less than 1 year, they can select a temporary replacement either the person who would normally take their position automatically or someone else. But in cases where they are suddenly unable to do their duties and cannot select a replacement themself, then the temporary replacement would be whoever is in the line of succession right after them. Note, I came up with all of this 5 minutes ago so it is a very rough draft of sorts.

Edit: I have found some issues. I'll leave it as is because my brain is crashing and I do not like making changes to posts. And, it'll give me ideas on how to fix those issues.

Please always think to yourself when posting or commenting "will people who haven't seen this part of the show, see this post/comment?". If yes, put it in spoilers.

Should I take out a bunch of loans so I have more credit accounts? I'm thinking about buying a yacht despite making 59k a year.

No OOC, this is based on my mother wanting to drink beer or consume an edible while she is on oxy which I told her no so she is not doing that. All of the beer and edibles belong to me.