I'm assuming that was supposed to be a picture sm
Posted By: In defense of JTBB on 2009-06-24
In Reply to: Now you've done it.....LOL..(sm) - Just the big bad
of an angry mob, but I was unable to view it, but I get it!! That's hilarious. But I will say the comment about "first they laughed and then they died" will haunt my nightmares -- not so funny.
JTBB, I have to admire your tenacity dealing with these people. Tell me, what is it like being a pariah? I know this won't jive with your atheist beliefs, but you know that Jesus was the most famous pariah, so your're in good company!! LOL
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
So Christians aren't supposed to political? Or we aren't supposed to let our morality, faith
our conscience guide us politically?
I'm sorry, that is a separation I cannot make. My faith and religious convictions are part of the whole person that I am. I vote my conscience. I want political leaders who reflect my morality. I also happen to believe there are many Christians out there like me. There is no "separation" of church and state for me, which by the way was a concept (nowhere specifically mentioned in the constitution) meant to protect the church from the government more so than the government from the church.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that commercial. There are condom commercials, "personal" lubricant commercials, and penis and sexual performance enhancing commercials -- why would anyone be offended by a pro-life commercial? The fact that anyone would be offended is a testament to just how twisted society has become!
And you also I am assuming? What would...
your reaction have been if Obama had announced he was suspending his campaign to return to Washington (his job actually, campaign not withstanding...he IS still a senator and we are still paying him)to deal with this crisis? Be honest. What would your reaction have been?
now who is assuming
talk about ass-u-me ...
Because I am a Jew I am pushing sex, violence, other "worldly" things on you? Are you saying a Jewish life is corrupt because we aren't christian? Never said you should put up with it. You should voice your feelings to the stores, television stations, magazines, etc.
I didn't say you shouldn't have your "christian things" out in public, I said, don't assume Ben Stein speaks for the Jewish community. Got your feathers a little ruffled there, didn't ya? LOL!
I'm assuming you mean....
that it would be a bad thing to be a Muslim? It's been proven for 2 years that he is not a Muslim but a Christian, but that's not the point. What exactly makes it bad to be a Muslim?
You know what they say about assuming don't you?
I'm originally from Florida, which is the melting pot of the US for race dear. I have black, white, asian, indian, hispanic, etc etc friends. My problem is with the fact that people still want to whine about "oh unequal treatment" when really all that has happened is a reversing of treatment. Now white people can't get any help or decent positions if there is a minority going for the same help or position.
But hey, you must know everything, so I digress.
There you go again. Assuming.
I spent many days writing and calling my reps.
McCain and what happened with his first wife has noting to do with voting.
You also do not know who I voted for.
O is rushing too fast in his decision making from my point of view. He's putting the cart before the horse. He's not thinking of consequences of closing Gitmo, the stimulus package, ending the war in Iraq too early, letting Geithner become head of IRS, and choosing Emanuel.
We shall see what happens, and I hope its for the best, but he should slow down and take his time before making decisions that will affect all of us in the coming years.
Assuming that you are serious in your inquiry,
my response follows:
I have, thus far, seen no credible evidence to corroborate the notion that Bush willingly lied about the situation in Iraq. The information available at the time regarding WMD may or may not have been incorrect, but it was information that was accepted at that time by the world community, and I can no more condemn Bush for believing it than I can condemn Clinton or the UN for believing it. Given the state of the country in the aftermath of 9/11, it seems to me that allowing any country to disregard a 14th or 15th UN resolution with regard to accounting for WMDs would have been seen as insanity.
Another poster said something to the effect that the truth has not been presented, and I think this is true. We hear about the activities of the insurgency in Iraq, but we do not hear about the day-to-day successes there because bombings are more sensational and a better news story. A troop of soldiers building a road or delivering medical equipment or school supplies isn't a story. Iraqis working alongside American soldiers is not a news story. Suicide bombings and allegations of prisoner abuse are more sensational, and so that is what the public sees, and the Bush administration has done a really poor job of keeping the public updated on what the military is actually doing in Iraq and what advances are being made in the war on terror, thus allowing the media to be the only voice heard.
As far as prisoner abuses go, I don't think conservatives have their heads in the sand, but I think they (I) have a somewhat more cynical attitude toward such abuses. While such abuses should never be tolerated, they will always happen. There are bad eggs in any basket, whether it be a prison or any other community of people. When those people break rules and do bad things, they deserve to be investigated and appropriately punished, but allowing and encouraging the entire community/effort to be indicted by the actions of those few is counterproductive. In the instance of prison abuses, I consider it irresponsible and counterproductive for the mainstream media to engage in what seems to me to amount to broad-scale bashing of the administration on the basis of these incidents.
I also think conservatives are more inclined to weigh these incidents against the larger picture, whereas liberals seem more inclined to see the actions as unacceptable (and rightly so) and thus to condemn the entire system (not justified, IMO). In other words, the possibility that some Iraqi detainees are being mistreated is concerning, and the situation should be corrected, but it is not an indictment against the entire military or the entire administration. Such abuses must be minimized proactivly, and when they do occur, they must be dealt with, but it is unrealistic to expect that they will not happen at all or that they are any indication of acceptable behavior standards of the military or the administration.
As far as embryonic stem cell research, I personally believe that this is an area in which agreement is never going to be possible because the basic difference is more theological than anything else. I tried to explain my position on this on the conservative board, but I did it poorly. Most social conservatives/pro-life people approach the abortion and embryonic stem-cell research issues with the innate presumption that life - the presence of a new soul - begins at conception.
Regarding your above example of weighing the cells in the Petri dish versus helping the patient with Alzheimer's, the statement of the pastor you cited seems kind and loving IF one assumes that the Petri dish contains nothing more valuable than a few cells - in other words, if you assume that it does not contain a human soul. On the other hand, in the pro-life viewpoint, if I assume that the Petri dish contains a new human soul that is to be deliberately destroyed in order to help the woman with Alzheimers, I cannot be anything but horrified that one life, through no fault of its own and through no action on its part, is considered disposable for the benefit of the other.
Many conservatives find a puzzling dichotomy between the liberal abortion/stem-cell research position and the position regarding Iraq. The liberal position seems willing to accept the possibility of killing a human soul if we don't have firm proof that it exists, but the continuing US presence in Iraq in a situation in which premature withdrawal would almost certainly lead to chaos and, quite likely, the development of a Taliban or Iran-like theocracy is anathema.
Why do these divisions exist? I think that is probably a matter of who one listens to and believes, and what mindset one takes into their research. If you approach research with the mindset that America is at fault for most of her problems, that can be supported. If you take the position that America is basically just, that position can be supported. If your morality tends to focus most on social justice, that can be supported. If your morality focuses more on individual liberty, that can be supported. With the mainstream media being considered less reliable by both sides (considered a liberal mouthpiece by conservatives and a Bush puppet by liberals), I think more people are turning to online sources for their information. The danger of that, though, is that is very easy online to find sources that cater to one's preexisting position, thus widening the divide.
If I have said anything inflammatory or disrespectful above, my apologies.
You are stereotyping and assuming......
I believe you have never taken the time to reach out to gay people and see that the lifestyle is not any different from yours. Unfortunately, your bible thumping gets in the way.
You have a lot of nerve assuming these women
xoxoxo
I'm not assuming you are white. I simply
meant put yourself in the role that she was in, a minority in college. You are right though, I assumed that you weren't a minority for that scenario and I apologize. And, I didn't mention anywhere in my post about Wright, I was simply referring to her as a college student and the fact that I did not think her thesis was racist.
You people on the left are always assuming you
nm
That’s all you got??? I was completely honest – you’re the one who did the assuming
My words were “DH works in stocks/trading”. Which he does. Not everyone who works in stocks/trading goes into an office in Wall Street or a stockbrokers office. There are many people behind the scenes that research companies, and other jobs dealing with the markets, trading, buying, selling, foreign currencies, etc. Many of them write articles for the companies who have clientele with big $$$ to be trading and selling. Many of them attend meetings, sit in on conference calls, etc. Also, many people when dealing with portfolios whether they are your own or various clients know what is going on in the world of the markets/finance. I never said he buys or sells “just for ourselves” and I never once said he went into an office or even eluded to the fact that he went into an office, so there you go again “assuming”. I didn’t divulge any information about his clients or anything, and I never said what he did except that he works in stocks/trading, which he does. By the way… there are many people out there who buy/sell stocks and currencies for themselves and makes or loses $$$ a day. Tell them they “don’t work” in trading. Your too busy wanting to defend yourself and make excuses and you’re doing a poor job at it. Next time maybe you should read a post slowly before assuming anything.
One thing I do know is there is a lot more going on behind the scenes and if the markets go up or down it is not just because of who is the president. But you only like to point that out when the market goes up. You praise the enlightened one when the markets go up and claim he has now walked on water and the stock market has gone up just because of him and he along, and yet you remain as silent as the wind when the markets go down. Can’t have it both ways.
I'm assuming you've never watched....(sm)
the full versions of his sermons, just the sensationalistic clips on Fox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw
It's all about context.
I'm assuming you are quite young, am I correct in
that assumption?
Assuming I am the nameless one....and also for the umpteenth time...
not a Republican...I call Barack Obama a socialist because he is one, not because he supports social programs (the accused Republicans do also, to a point, otherwise there would be none), but because he wants to practice redistribution of wealth...taaxing one group of people and redistributing that money to people who did nothing to earn it...including people who already do not pay taxes.
I never said Obama was a communist. He has had communist influences in his life, that is proven, he mentions the man in his book Dreams of My Father. But I have never said Barack Obama was a communist. I don't know if he is or not. I do know he is a socialist.
There you go again assuming everyone who marries is are christian heterosexuals
The middle east people don't marry according to our bible. The jews have their version, and so do all other religions. Even the bush people from Africa and Australia marry, and they don't marry based on the bible of christianity.
Talk about being screwed up! Trying to make a point with nonsense.
I sure can't want for all the states to follow suit and make marriage legal for homosexuals.
If you believe in christianity and the bible that's fine and good, but don't push your beliefs on everyone else, because we believe you are wrong.
Correction - I meant wait before assuming, not "want"
x
sorry, picture did not take...
here is the link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/politics/politico/main501563.shtml
It shows that the picture missing is the politico logo.
:-)
picture not there
but I have seen it elsewhere. speaks volumes, doesn't it? Everyone else on that podium had their hands on their hearts, his were at his side.
Get this picture
You are absolutely correct, I don't want anything shoved down my throat and nothing will be. My question is when you see anything on the politics board that even remotely mentions religion, why not just click off of it and don't go about reading it much less posting a reply? When our religious beliefs affect our political views, why on earth would we not be allowed to express those opinions? You certainly don't have to agree. I certainly have no problem with atheists, agnostics or whatever posting their lack of religious views that affect their political views. It seems to me that non-believers protest way too much about something they don't believe in.
OMG - thanks a lot, now that's all I have a picture of LOL
HA HA HA HA HA
Piper Laurie sure was good in that roll though.
The picture is even bigger than you think.
More smoke and mirrors from Bush. 
Doctored picture? nm
nm
This is cute & I can picture him saying something like that...sm
Just reading thru some posts on here now. I guess I missed quite a bit. I have started on a new account and it is taking me 12 hours instead of 8 to get my lines.
what IS wrong with the picture?
I'm not watching TV and I don't know exactly what you are referring too, but is SP supposed to land in the midst of the hurricane, instead of Fairbanks, in order to be a good person??
you could ask for a picture ballot
so you don't get confused and vote for a horse or something.
You really need to look at the bigger picture
Of course you care about your interest rate on your home, but neither candidate is going to 'solve' this horrific crisis, because there is no ONE reason for it! It is very complicated but as Americans, its our responsibility to TRY to understand it better so that we can demand the right course of actioN from ALL parties involved.
ONE FACT: When wages are stagnant an economy cannot grow - and that DEFINITELY is playing into what is happening in the financial crisis. Ask yourself which candidate is for INCREASING wages and fighting for equal pay for women and men...
Don't depend on SAM or anyone else to help you decide, use the power of the internet to educate yourself.
IF you like war and bleeding the treasury to ensure we have more of it, and more enemies to boot, then McCain is your man.
Im not enamoured of Obama either, so I'm not selling him to you either. That said, he ALWAYS opposed Bush's fake war - which has cost us HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS. Gee, where could we have put that $ to better use? Remember IRAQ did not attack us in 2001; the majority of attackers came from SAUDI ARABIA.
Why? Because they demanded we remove our military bases from their lands and we did not comply. After they attacked us, we attacked Iraq and guess what? WE MOVED THE MILITARY BASES TO IRAQ to appease Saudi Arabia.
Think this has nothing to do with you getting a good rate on your new home?
THINK AGAIN. As long as Americans choose their leaders based on cute lines in debates, we are destined to be robbed again and again and again.
You must look at WHAT THEY WILL DELIVER based on their past record. MCCain will give you more of the last 8 years.
But again, that's my opinion. Please care enough to do your own research, which you will believe more than anything a stranger tells you anyway.
need to view the big picture
Gut reaction is to say let the fail. I was not in favor of the bailout as proposed; however, common sense tells me that there has to be some plan. It isn't a question of stocks falling; it is a question of the economic structure of the US failing completely. I do want to save their "greedy banker butts" (to use your words) but you need to think of the bigger picture. You talk about a drop in stock, retirement, possible lower value of your home and no loan for college. How about drop in stock and savings and checking and everything to zero. How about losing your home, not having a job, not being able to afford food or clothing? Do you understand the consequence of no fix to this problem goes way beyond "bailing out their greedy banker butts." It is just not wall street here, it is the entire American economy.
boy, this really paints the picture of
x
Did you see the picture of O at his ceremony?
Creeped me out. I recall no president having a big picture of himself. Reminded me of Hitler and Sadam Hussein times.
Lets look at the big picture
Seems like each time a president leaves office everyone "hems and haws" at the list of people they pardon (especially those who dislike whatever president is leaving office). Every exiting president has had their list of people who should never have received pardons. Some yes, like first time offenders, people arrested for mairjuana, or caught turning back odometers, etc).
Maybe you should have also posted the list of people Clinton pardoned. All you said was "he pardoned some nice ones too". You make it sound like GW is pardoning hardened criminal while BC only pardoned some people who did petty crimes. Even though you didn't say that, by saying "he pardoned some nice ones too" it takes away from the seriousness of the people he did pardon. But since you didn't post Clinton's pardons I will. Now before anyone throws a fit because I know a lot of you think Clinton is the best thing since sliced bread, I'm just posting to show that he pardoned as many creeps as Bush is. (BTW - I didn't, have never, and do not support Bush - can't stand the guy, but at let's try to keep it honest here). Oh and my favorites are the money launderers, income tax evaders, bank fraud, conspiracy to defraud the government, issuing worthless checks, bank fraud, etc - all those things that helped to start bringing our economy down). Those and Roger Clinton, Marc Rich, and Susan McDougal, I did notice how he pardoned a lot of people who lied, but then again that was Clinton's whole 8 years in office - one lie after another, so doesn't surprise me he pardoned people who lied under oath.
You said something in regards to food stamps...look at #22 on Clintons list - Unauthorized use and transfer of food stamps. I found an interesting article called "10 Heated Presidential Pardons" that goes back to George Washington. I'll post the link. All I'm saying here is that each president throughout our history has pardoned some pretty bad people that should not be pardoned. GW is no different and no more worse than any of the previous. Here's the article - an interesting read.
http://www.kitv.com/presidential-race/17578058/detail.html
Here's the list of Clinton's pardons
[edit] Pardons
- Verla Jean Allen (1990 false statements to an agency of the United States).[4]
- Nicholas M. Altiere (1983 importation of cocaine)
- Bernice Ruth Altschul (1992 money laundering conspiracy)
- Joe Anderson Jr. (1988 income tax evasion)
- William Sterling Anderson (1987 defraudment of a financial institution, false statements to a financial institution, wire fraud)
- Mansour Azizkhani (1984 false statements in bank loan applications)
- Cleveland Victor Babin Jr. (1987 using the U.S. mail service to defraud)
- Chris Harmon Bagley (1989 conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine)
- Scott Lynn Bane (Unlawful distribution of marijuana)
- Thomas Cleveland Barber (Issuing worthless checks)
- Peggy Ann Bargon (Violation of the Lacey Act, violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act)
- David Roscoe Blampied (possess with intent to distribute cocaine)
- William Arthur Borders Jr. (Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge (Alcee L. Hastings), and to defraud the United States in connection with the performance of lawful government functions; corruptly influencing, obstructing, impeding and endeavoring to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, and aiding and abetting therein; traveling interstate with intent to commit bribery)
- Arthur David Borel (Odometer Rollback)
- Douglas Charles Borel (Odometer Rollback)
- George Thomas Brabham (Making a false statement or report to a federally insured bank)
- Almon Glenn Braswell (1983 mail fraud and perjury)
- Leonard Browder (Illegal dispensing of controlled substance and Medicaid fraud)
- David Steven Brown (Securities fraud and mail fraud)
- Delores Caroylene Burleson, aka Delores Cox Burleson (Possession of Marijuana)
- John H. Bustamante (wire fraud)
- Mary Louise Campbell (Unauthorized use and transfer of food stamps)
- Eloida Candelaria (False information in registering to vote)
- Dennis Sobrevinas Capili (Filing false statements in alien registration)
- Donna Denise Chambers (Intent to distribute cocaine)
- Douglas Eugene Chapman (Bank fraud)
- Ronald Keith Chapman (Bank fraud)
- Francisco Larois Chavez (Aiding and abetting illegal entry of aliens)
- Henry Cisneros (former HUD Secretary)
- Roger Clinton, Jr. Cocaine charges(half-brother of President Bill Clinton)[3]
- Stuart Harris Cohn (Illegal sale of commodity options)
- David Marc Cooper (Conspiracy to defraud the government)
- Ernest Harley Cox Jr. (Defraud of federally insured savings and loan)
- John F. Cross Jr. (Embezzlement)
- Rickey Lee Cunningham (Intent to distribute marijuana)
- Richard Anthony DE Labio (Mail fraud)
- John Deutch (former Director of Central Intelligence Agency)
- Richard Douglas (False statements to a government agent)
- Edward Reynolds Downe (Wire fraud, false income tax returns and securities fraud)
- Marvin Dean Dudley (False statements)
- Larry Lee Duncan
- Galen R. Elmore (Convicted of cattle theft)
- Robert Clinton Fain
- Marcos Arcenio Fernandez
- Alvarez Ferrouillet
- Henry O. Flipper - guilty of "conduct unbecoming an officer" (1882)
- William Dennis Fugazy
- Lloyd Reid George
- Louis Goldstein
- Rubye Lee Gordon
- Pincus Green
- Robert Ivey Hamner
- Samuel Price Handley
- Woodie Randolph Handley
- Jay Houston Harmon
- Rick Hendrick
- John Hummingson
- David S. Herdlinger
- Debi Rae Huckleberry
- Warren C. Hultgren Jr.
- Donald Ray James
- Stanley Pruet Jobe
- Ruben H. Johnson
- Linda Jones
- James Howard Lake
- June Louise Lewis
- Salim Bonnor Lewis
- John Leighton Lodwick
- Hildebrando Lopez
- Jose Julio Luaces
- James Timothy Maness
- James Lowell Manning, (1982, aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false corporate income tax return)
- John Robert Martin
- Frank Ayala Martinez
- Silvia Leticia Beltran Martinez
- John Francis McCormick
- Susan H. McDougal
- Howard Mechanic
- Brook K. Mitchell Sr.
- Samuel Loring Morison
- Charles Wilfred Morgan III
- Richard Anthony Nazzaro
- Charlene Ann Nosenko
- Vernon Raymond Obermeier
- Miguelina Ogalde
- David C. Owen
- Robert W. Palmer
- Kelli Anne Perhosky
- Richard H. Pezzopane
- Orville Rex Phillips
- Vinson Stewart Poling Jr.
- James G. Powell
- Norman Lyle Prouse
- Willie H.H. Pruitt Jr.[5]
- Danny Martin Pursley Sr.
- Charles D. Ravenel
- William Clyde Ray
- Alfredo Luna Regalado
- Ildefonso Reynes Ricafort
- Marc Rich
- Howard Winfield Riddle
- Richard Wilson Riley Jr., Cocaine and marijuana charges, His father was Clinton's Education Secretary.[4]
- Samuel Lee Robbins
- Joel Gonzales Rodriguez
- Michael James Rogers
- Anna Louise Ross
- Dan Rostenkowski - Former Democratic Congressman convicted in the Congressional Post Office Scandal
- Gerald Glen Rust
- Jerri Ann Rust
- Bettye June Rutherford
- Gregory Lee Sands
- Adolph Schwimmer
- Albert A. Seretti Jr.
- Patricia Campbell Hearst Shaw
- Dennis Joseph Smith
- Gerald Owen Smith
- Stephen A. Smith
- Jimmie Lee Speake
- Charles Bernard Stewart
- Marlena Francisca Stewart-Rollins
- Fife Symington III - former Arizona governor
- Richard Lee Tannehill
- Nicholas C. Tenaglia
- Gary Allen Thomas
- Larry Weldon Todd
- Olga C. Trevino
- Ignatious Vamvouklis
- Patricia A. Van De Weerd
- Christopher V. Wade
- Bill Wayne Warmath
- Jack Kenneth Watson
- Donna Lynn Webb
- Donald William Wells
- Robert H. Wendt
- Jack L. Williams
- Kavin Arthur Williams
- Robert Michael Williams
- Jimmie Lee Wilson
- Thelma Louise Wingate
- Mitchell Couey Wood
- Warren Stannard Wood
- Dewey Worthey
- Rick Allen Yale
- Joseph A. Yasak
- William Stanley Yingling
- Phillip David Young
- Keith Sanders
- Darren Muci
- John Scott (not a full pardon)
[edit] Commutations
- Ronald Henderson Blackley
- Bert Wayne Bolan
- Gloria Libia Camargo
- Charles F. Campbell
- David Ronald Chandler - federal death row inmate[1].
- Lau Ching Chin
- Donald R. Clark
- Loreta De-Ann Coffman
- Derrick Curry
- Velinda Desalus
- Jacob Elbaum
- Linda Sue Evans
- Loretta Sharon Fish
- Antoinette M. Frink
- David Goldstein
- Gerard A. Greenfield
- Bob F. Griffin, former Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives, who was serving two years on bribery charges[3]
- Jodie E. Israel
- Kimberly Johnson
- Billy Thornton Langston Jr.
- Belinda Lynn Lumpkin
- Peter MacDonald - Navajo Chairman (sentence for 14 years in 1993 for fraud and racketeering convictions.)
- Kellie Ann Mann
- Peter Ninemire
- Hugh Ricardo Padmore
- Arnold Paul Prosperi Florida attorney, tax fraud. managed Clinton's 1967 campaign for student-council president.[2]
- Melvin J. Reynolds - Democratic Congressman from Illinois - bank fraud and obstruction of justice
- Pedro Miguel Riveiro
- Dorothy Rivers - lead official in Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, plead guilty to theft of 1.2 million dollars in federal grant money
- Susan Rosenberg
- Kalmen Stern
- Cory Stringfellow
- Carlos Anibal Vignali - convicted of cocaine trafficking
- Thomas Wilson Waddell III
- Harvey Weinig
- Kim Allen Willis
- Kemba Smith
- Antonio Camacho Negron - FALN militant
I don't think he asked for that picture -
In fact, I read that he was already wishing he had a little bit more privacy during that vacation trip and thought it was a bit ridiculous that people wanted to see pictures like that of him...
I don't think there was a thing wrong with him going shirtless on a beach in Hawaii and I don't understand how could that equate to not having dignity?
I don't think he asked for that picture -
In fact, I read that he was already wishing he had a little bit more privacy during that vacation trip and thought it was a bit ridiculous that people wanted to see pictures like that of him...
I don't think there was a thing wrong with him going shirtless on a beach in Hawaii and I don't understand how could that equate to not having dignity?
What is wrong with this picture?????
*It's a very complicated bill. People in congress obviously don't even understand it.*???? People in congress WROTE this bill, how can they not understand it? How in the world can they vote for it? How can you ask someone to accept it when you are saying the very people who wrote it do not know what is in it, let alone understand it???
WE do get the big picture, which is why we care about
x
Looking at a smaller picture...
While the government money is going to bail out AIG and for pork programs, here in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia is closing libraries and pools, cutting firefighters and police. And they are still looking a huge deficit and intend to raise property taxes 18% this year. Low and lower middle class people who are already struggling, who are looking at the grim possibility of losing their jobs, are now being hit with that. And whether they own or rent makes no difference; if the taxes go up, their rent will go up.
But, oh boy, it's much more important to keep AIG going and to invest in "green programs" for clean energy. What good is any of that going to do for the soon-to-be-homeless people of Philadelphia?
link to picture I posted
Sorry it didnt come through, guys..it was information about Laura's manslaughter and had a few good pictures..I wanted to share but they didnt come through..anyway, here is the link..check it out..
http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=434
The picture is obviously symbolic & it's apparent to me why they did it. sm
This was an event so emotional that it seems to have welded shut the minds of many Americans. People have shut off their natural curiosity to know what really happened on that fateful day. Have you seen The Matrix? It's a red pill - blue pill choice. Take the blue pill and wake up in the morning and everything is the same as its always been- comfortable. Take the red pill and you see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Many Americans have chosen the blue pill- they don't want to know the truth, just feed them info that confirms what they've already been told and that's good enough.
So, I think the picture is a little more than someone with a little too much time on their hands.
I saw the picture, Kaydie...the B is backwards!
The police have serious doubts about her story, as well. You are very gullible!
What I will never understand is why the Clintons are even still in the picture
Fox news refreshed my memory this weekend about Bill Clinton. I cannot understand why this man is still welcomed with open arms. He disgraced his office and his family. He should have just faded into the sunset. Kind of tells you something about the morals in this country.
He has got to paint as dark a picture as
pretty good job of it, so when just a glimmer of light shines through, he can tell you, Yes, I Did!
But, I sure hate to bust your bubble, we are noncombustible, we are not going extinct, we ain't going anywhere! We just here praying for our country.
Wow, why don't you post your picture so we can judge you, too?
xx
I don't think he sent the picture to the magazine to be placed on the cover -
My goodness, ya'll would blame him no matter what. He does not decide what picture goes on the cover of a magazine - the Editor of the magazine decides.
And, I do not think that being President of the United States means you cannot go to the beach anymore or have a vacation with your family without covering yourself and if someone wants to take a picture of him in that way, then what can he do?
You want freedom of the press, freedom of speech, no censorship, etc., but then you are wanting to censor this magazine!
The picture that you make up whatever scenario you want?
And try to pass it off as truth.
Seems to me that you and most of the Republicans on here are the whiners. Get over it. We have another 7-1/2 years with this president. There are a HUGE MAJORITY of us who LIKE him. So sorry your party is in tatters and doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hades of ever getting elected in my lifetime.
This is excellent and paints a very accurate picture!
This is so true. All these people are so ready and eager to kill other people's children.
I didn't notice the name of a very decorated, true war hero on that list, though: Colin Powell, the only honest, honorable member of Bush's "team." He's a Republican, very intelligent, reasonable, has seen the ravages of war firsthand, and didn't seem to fit in with all the other boys on Bush's team who were obviously deprived of "GI Joe" playtime hours when they were 5 years old and are trying to make up for lost time.
The picture was taken in California at an ANSWER convention. SM
You may remember the incident when the war first started and a soldier threw a grenade into a tent killing several other soldiers, including, I believe an officer. This lovely show of support for the soldiers was on display at that convention.
HA HA HA - had to laught at the picture that brought to mind
ya know people there sure is a lot more to a relationship than just sex. Companionship, trust, admiration, being happy every single day of your life, going out and doing things together that you both enjoy doing, the list goes on and on and on. My belief is that the creator put a man and woman togther to have a child (but luckily now a days childless couples whether it be man/woman, woman/woman or man/man can have a child). I'll take someone I can relate to, laugh with, cry with, work with, etc no matter what gender they are. So if you want to have kids by all means the number #1 way to go is sex, but if you want to spend the rest of your life together no matter what gender you are I believe in marriage.
A picture is worth a thousand words! (nm)
:)
There is a picture of her in a bathing suit holding
a gun...does that count?
It's a fake photoshopped hit job picture (no pun intended)...nm
Blatent lie is the only thing wrong with this picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children's_Health_Insurance_Program
Question. What does the first S in SCHIPS stand for? STATE. OK. So here we have federal funding provided TO STATES for administration under very broad federal guidelines. Age is defined as birth to 18. Income guidelines define chideren in families living between poverty level and up to 200% of poverty level. Beyond that, it is up to the STATES to determine their own guidelines and eligibility criteria.
Care to post a source for your information that disputes this info?
|
