I have a friend who is an election judge in the next county over...... sm
Posted By: m on 2008-11-04
In Reply to: From what I heard - sbMT
And he actually had to ask people to either go home and change shirts or turn their shirts inside out so that the political statements (for one side or the other) could not be read. Isn't there something about no political statements or voter influence within 100 feet of the polling place, or is that on a state by state basis?
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
In my county, we have been paying
what I call the "right to breathe" tax. Just because we are living, we are taxed for it. It's only $252 a year but only 2 years ago, it was only $10 a year.
The stimulus also isn't helping our area. The little bit of money that came to this county is going for the same things (landscaping, etc.) that Hannity listed. Yet, our school district needs a new roof and more classrooms, so they are raising our taxes another 3.1 mils. We already are the highest taxed district in the county. A $100,000 home pays $1500 in property taxes...at least that was last year. The property taxes go up every year.
Brazoria county now mandatory.
nm
That was all they said. Brazoria county evacuation routes?
nm
Why didn't you appeal the assessment to the county?
If the bank said it was only worth $8k but the County says it is worth $100K, it seems like there should have been an appeal filed with that large of a discrepancy.
No, the big-money bunch in Orange County had
because they PAY him to.
County trying to STOP home Bible study in
http://www.10news.com/news/19562217/detail.html
That really isn't for you to judge. sm
This is a chat board. You people perceive lies in the slightly statement. You must have a really really low tolerance to differing viewpoints. I would say, having kept an eye on it, Suzie is probably the only one who has escaped being called a liar, but I remember a post that named her with some others as a liar, so I guess I am even wrong on that one. Wait...maybe I am a liar!
judge not lest
ye also twitch, snort, flinch and giggle.
Who are they to judge?
I won't accept criticism from countries that refuse rights for women, have lax child labor laws, and routinely torture and kill their own people for either religious or political reasons.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone associated with a terroist group has no human rights because they aren't human, IMHO.
Let's not take it on ourselves to judge
Non-Christians are not qualified to judge whether a Christian's faith is genuine, and Christians are strictly prohibited from doing so.
Judge Roberts
Have you even bothered to take the time to notice that EVERY SINGLE POST ON THIS BOARD about Judge Roberts is a POSITIVE POST???
What planet are you from, anyway? Is your life so pathetic that the only pleasure you get is from stalking people on this board in the bizarre way you do and constantly put them down personally? Dang. You need a Happy Meal, dude. 
judge roberts
To the conservatives who just have to frequent our liberal board..I have been told, conservatives, that you attribute posts questioning your beliefs or attacking you as coming from gt..THEY DO NOT COME FROM ME. I do not go onto your board as it is too disheartening to read the way you would like America to be and your continual attack on liberal sites and liberal news articles..So, get over me, I AM NOT THE ONE POSTING ON YOUR CONSERVATIVE BOARD..
Secondly, to my democratic friends, have any of you watched the John Roberts' confirmation hearings? I have been watching for two days now..In fact, right now they are in recess, so I thought..let me check out the MTStars political board..MSN news video site on the computer has live hearings and they are fascinating..I have to tell you, so far I kind of like Judge Roberts..My only hesitation is Bush recommended him..
If you judge O by his followers....
'nuff said.
I don't know....but I don't think it is our place to judge....
I knew girls in high school who did not want to ask their parents about birth control, intended to stay celibate, had the same boyfriend through school let hormones override their better judgment and got pregnant. Not their parents' fault. And as you said, the boy could have used a condom, and we don't know that he didn't, because we know the success rate for condoms is not that great. That we are even having this discussion to me is ludicrous...if Chelsea had become pregnant while Bill was in the White House I don't think Democrats would be attacking Bill and Hillary's parenting skills. I certainly would not have.
Way too quick to judge!
I was simply passing on a story, like the OP. I'm not Republican because my dad is. I'm a conservative and if those beliefs happen to go along with the Dem candidate, then that's who I'll vote for. The story was meant to show how people's idea of "spreading the wealth" can sound like a really good idea - everyone haveing an equal share - but when you get down to it, it goes against everything our country was founded on. The American Dream - come sign up to get your welfare check! No thanks!!!
Judge not does not mean go with the crowd
nm
Just assume and judge all you want. I AM
nm
Well, that judge is right legally
I mean, really, do we all here check the little box on our tax forms that gives extra money to whatever it is they're asking for? I try to keep up with all changes in the tax law looking for things that I can deduct.
Part of the shenanigans of the big companies, however, is that they can hire alchemist accountants who can turn lead into gold, finding ways to create deductions that is far different from the original intent when the deduction was entered into the tax code.
Are 4 months enough to judge O, especially in these
so difficult times?
It is said that the economy is already in a slight upswing and the unemployment rate went down bit.
I guess we have to give O at least 1 year to be able to judge his decisions and actions.
I'm sorry but for this judge to throw
out the tests for those firerighters who studied hard and earned those promotions and didn't get them merely because they were all white with one hispanic man. To me...that is racism right there. They didn't get the promotions because of their skin color. Had they been a more motley crew of races, they would have gotten those promotions. It is truly a sad day when hard work and studying doesn't benefit you because your skin color isn't that of a minority.
I'm all for equal rights between the races and all of these firefighters were given the same studying materials and the same amount of time to study. How can you take away those promotions from the people who studied hard and scored the highest merely because most of them are white?
This doesn't present a very good opinion of this judge so far to me. She also made a comment about how with her experience and her being a latino women, she could make better decisions than a white male. Racism? Hello? If a white man had said that he could make better decisions than a black man, woman, or latino.....OMG.....the race card would have been thrown out and that would have been the end of his career. Why is it that minorities are allowed to say racist things and be racist and that is okay, but the moment a white person says something remotely racist.......that is the end of that person's career. More double standards.
Prejudice: To pre-judge
without knowledge, based upon appearances.
Can't see how this has anything to do with how I feel about Obama. He has done and said quite enough for me to base an opinion on my knowledge of his actions. Find another word to sling around. Prejudice won't work. Neither will racism.
Judge Roberts and Roe vs Wade
I, too, am pro choice and I can remember when I was still in high school, there was no right of termination of pregnancy..It was left up to each state to decide and NY state did not allow a woman to choose. I remember Congresswoman, Bella Abzug, was one of the strongest voices for women back then..That, I guess, is what got me into politics to the max, cause none of my sisters are political, nor my mother..They vote democrat and sure agree with me on issues but I am the one who marches and protests, etc, LOL. I think back in about 1973, I was astonished that a woman had no right over her body, no decisions about her body..That seared my brain, I guess. Then, thankfully the Supreme Court understood a woman has a right to decide about her body..I think if Roe vs Wade was ever overturned, we would have women in the streets, and also some men who have a higher consciousness and understand the implications of overturning Roe vs Wade. The majority of Americans want to leave the decision alone, so hopefully the Supreme Court will leave it alone..I do not believe in abortion at late stages, only in case of a woman's health, however, in the first four months, I believe a woman should decide and, if it is wrong, the woman will explain it to her maker..far be it for me to judge, ya know?
I never ever judge people by their families. sm
I hope no one ever judges me by mine! No, I don't think he meant what he said. I believe they mean he was a deputy for 17 years. It said 17-year, not year-old. :)
your opportunity to judge Clinton's
behavior by voting for/against him is officially over. Break on through to the new millenium.
Gee wilikers....but the judge won't dismiss
--
It's called prejudice, as in pre-judge.
except to say it is a real drag.
I don't know the whole situation, so won't judge his decision nm
nm
Didn't He also say judge not lest ye be judged? nm
.
How can you already judge that he is messing things up? nm
x
Wow, why don't you post your picture so we can judge you, too?
xx
Since when are you the judge of what is more stimulating on a LIBERAL board?
I don't find anything you write to be stimulating, intelligent, educational or worthy of debate. And as far as patting people on the back, that's what you do on the Conservative board. You bash liberals, ALL liberals, EVERY LIBERAL IN THE WORLD, and then the people with the crudest, rudest insults against liberals are patted on the back and high-fived by the rest of you.
Liberals don't discuss things like Repuglicants do. We would rather be civil with people and find you incredibly distasteful human beings. They obviously call you neoCONS for a reason. Your posts are nothing but litter...trash...garbage, and I for one, can't relate to and don't want to communicate with people who do nothing but prove how ignorant, childish, hateful, nasty, untruthful and uncouth they are. Is this really the image you want to portray of your party? Because that's what you're doing.
Why can't you just be happy on your own board and stay away from people who have asked you repeatedly to stay away because we're not interested in your rhetoric and your attacks? Or, like your president, aren't you happy unless you're destroying things?
Who's to judge credibility? Certainly not you or I on a chat board.
Just seems like a lot of negativism about nothing really. But whatever. Not worth worrying about. In 100 years, who will care. You waste way too much energy on here. Get a real hobby. It will improve your outlook!
Judge spares Lewis' life.sm
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060620124809990015&ncid=NWS00010000000001
Judge Nixes warrantless surveillance
A brief respite to people who respect the law and want to see warrants utilized. Of course, All the President's Men in the Supreme Court will probably strike this down, so enjoy lawfulness while it lasts, no matter how brief it may be.
To everyone who claims liberals are on the side of the terrorists: Note the word warrantless. Liberals aren't against the use of wiretaps. They're just against any President ignoring the law and having no oversight regarding his actions. It doesn't take much time to fill out a boilerplate warrant. If Bush doesn't want to employ an American to do this, maybe he can outsource this job to another country at a cheaper rate (please note sarcasm here), as is done with the confidential medical reports of Americans.
Judge nixes warrantless surveillance
By SARAH KARUSH, Associated Press Writer 9 minutes ago
A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.
The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.
I don't judge people based on religion.
"Muslim is wrong?" "I don't judge anybody or their beliefs?"
explaining away the conflict in this statement TO YOURSELF before you take it upon yourself to explain it to others.
Quick to judge, aren't you? At least you apologized....
//
What's pathetic and "UnAmerican" is being judge and jury
THAT is what is truly pathetic.
So, you judge how much one cares by how many care packages they send??? sm
Well, I'm at a loss responding because you don't know what we do to support our troops, but if it makes you feel better to think you do more than everyone else, then do go on.
My uncle is over there and he has told me not send him anything else, he wants to come home.
Oh yeah, judge an entire party by a few bad apples.
nm
So because Snopes says so it is truth. Why not have a judge look at it and make the ruling?
xx
Judge overturns Florida ban on adoption by gays
(CNN) -- A Florida circuit judge Tuesday struck down a 31-year-old state law that prevents gays and lesbians from adopting children, allowing a North Miami man to adopt two half-brothers he and his partner have raised as foster children since 2004.
"There is no question, the blanket exclusion of gay applicants defeats Florida's goal of providing dependent children a permanent family through adoption," Judge Cindy S. Lederman wrote in her 53-page ruling.
"The best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption."
The state attorney general's office has appealed the decision.
Lederman said there is no moral or scientific reason for banning gays and lesbians from adopting, despite the state's arguments otherwise. The state argued that gays and lesbians have higher odds of suffering from depression, affective and anxiety disorders and substance abuse, and that their households are more unstable.
Lederman said the ban violated children's right to permanency provided under the Florida statute and under the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Whether the ban violated the state's equal protection clause by singling out gays and lesbians should be considered, she said.
Lederman's ruling paves the way for Martin Gill to legally adopt the two half-brothers, ages 4 and 8, whom he has cared for since December 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union said.
The two boys, who are referred to as John and James Doe in court documents, were removed from their homes on allegations of abandonment and neglect.
On that December evening, John and James left a world of chronic neglect, emotional impoverishment and deprivation to enter a new world, foreign to them, that was nurturing, safe, structured and stimulating," Lederman wrote.
In 2006, the children's respective fathers' rights were terminated, court documents said, and they remained in the care of Gill and his partner.
"Our family just got a lot more to be thankful for this Thanksgiving," Gill said Tuesday, according to the ACLU, which represented him.
Florida is the only state that specifically bans all "homosexual" people from adopting children, although it does allow them to be foster parents.
This month, Arkansas voters approved a ballot measure to prohibit unmarried partners -- same-sex or opposite-sex couples -- from adopting children or from serving as foster parents. The measure is similar to one in Utah, which excludes same-sex couples indirectly through a statute barring all unmarried couples from adopting or taking in foster children.
Mississippi allows single gays and lesbians to adopt, but prohibits same-sex couples from adopting.
Neal Skene, spokesman for the Florida Department of Children and Families, said the appeal was filed so a statewide resolution on the law could be determined by an appellate court. He noted that another Florida circuit judge declared the law unconstitutional this year but that ruling had not been appealed.
"We need a statewide determination by the appellate courts," he said.
Gill's adoption petition cannot be approved until the appeal process is finished, Skene said, but the children will remain in Gill's home.
"These are wonderful foster parents," Skene said. "It's just that we have a statute, [and] the statute is very clear on the issue of adoption."
Several organizations -- including the National Adoption Center, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics -- have said that having gay and lesbian parents does not negatively affect children.
The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a nonprofit organization that studies adoption and foster care, hailed the decision.
"This ban, which was the only one of its kind in the country, has done nothing but undermine the prospects of boys and girls in the foster care system to get permanent, loving homes," said Adam Pertman, the Adoption Institute's executive director, in a written statement.
"So this decision by Judge Lederman is a very important, hopeful ruling for children who need families."
It's a shame you feel you have to negatively judge me rather than debate intelligently.
But I agree. We have definitely reached an impasse. Have a nice day.
Yeah, and didn't Michelle just tell us to judge Obama on his actions? sm
They finally let her out of her box onto the Larry King show, and that's one of the things she said.
I don't like his actions, one little bit.
He's bamboozled millions of people.
Same to you, my friend!!
Knowing this is late, I hope you had the best day ever! 
OK. You are right. I am not. My friend
is not. Don't know why she would bring that up as we drove by gas stations in St. Pete, but obviously she was having a senior moment, was in an altered mental state or just flat-out lying...that is what it probably was, flat-out lying. I know it is important for the right to be right so I acquiesce. You are right and I am not.
MY FRIEND
x
Your friend must have been
hot.........
Your friend must have been
hot.........
You my friend
scare me and millions of others with your so-called tolerance of death and disease for our children and youth. We should be hating it. AIDS and mental disease is not pretty.
Saddam US friend
Six months after the gassing of Kurds in 1988, the White House lent Saddam a billion dollars. In 1991, at the end of the Gulf War, US troops stood idly by while Saddam's presidential guards ruthlessly suppressed the uprising by the Kurds that Poppy Bush encouraged and had called for. In 1980, Saddam was made an honorary citizen of Detroit, Michigan. He was our friend back then, even though we knew his blood thirsty ways. We even supplied him with WMD, which we then destroyed with fly over bombing through the 1990's with sanctions placed on the country to weaken it even more. We also were friends with Osama in the 1970's when we had him and Afghan freedom fighters fight against Russia as we did not want Russia to have control of Afghanistan. In essence, Osama was trained by our CIA for war.
|
