Regarding what you state that the IQ depends
Posted By: () on 2009-06-21
In Reply to: what brainless stuff are you posting again, I quote... - ()
solely on the DNA, similar to the color of the eyes, height, etc.... ..I disagree. disagree. Therr is this theory that the realtive IQ score is already set at the age of 7 and cannot be improved. In my opinion it can be improved by ongoing education.
You should definitely try it.
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
Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency
Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency
SIGN THE PETITION!
CLICK HERE!
THANK YOU!
You can have our federal money along with a new state motto: "Michigan - The Slave State". n
NM
Laws vary state-to-state
Many people were confined against their will just because someone wanted them "out of the way." These were normal people with no mental illness - that is why it is so difficult - don't blame the liberals. Blame your state.
CONFINING THE MENTALLY ILL
In the legal space between what a society should and should not do, taking action to restrict the liberty of people who are mentally ill sits in the grayest of gray areas.
Our notions about civil and constitutional rights flow from an assumption of "normalcy." Step beyond the boundaries and arrest and prison may legally follow. Short of that, government's ability to hold people against their will is severely and properly limited. Unusual behavior on the part of someone who is mentally ill is not illegal behavior. Freedom can't be snatched away on a whim, or on the thought that a person is hard to look at, hard to hear, hard to smell.
It was only a few decades ago that the promise of new medications and a change in attitude opened the doors of the mental hospitals and sent many patients into society. There, they would somehow "normalize" and join everyone else, supported by networks of out-patient facilities, job training, special living arrangements and regular, appropriate medication. But the transition has been imperfect, long and difficult.
In some parts of urban America there is little professional support for those with mental health problems. A new generation of drug and alcohol-fueled mental illness has come on the scene. People frequently end up on the street, un-medicated and exhibiting a full range of behaviors that are discomforting at the very least and threatening at their worst.
It all depends on how you look at it....
Obama actually has 166,186 vote lead over Clinton in the popular vote -- 17,267,658 to 17,101,472. If Michigan's primary is included, where Clinton received 328,307 votes and Obama none due to the fact he removed his name from the ballot, Clinton takes a 162,123 vote lead.
It depends on who you believe.
nm
Depends on who you ask. It is okay according
nm
All depends on what you think a nut is, eh.
He is a well-respected researcher and author, who has gained a lot of confidence and respect of some of the finest minds on this planet. Sure he may have some books you don't agree with, but there are a lot of authors like that. Some books you enjoy others you don't. And if you don't do the research yourself how can you discount anything anyone who has spent 20 years researching has to say. Probably the same crowd that discounts scientists and climatologists who have been at their jobs for 40 and 50 years as kooks because they come out and tell you Algore doesn't know what the he!! he's talking about. I guess people would consider them "nuts" too. David Icke has a website where you can learn a lot of useful information.
I guess before JFK was assassinated if people were told there would be an assassination and it would come from within, people would have called them nuts too.
Actually, the people I consider nuts are the ones who will only listen to what is fed to them through the boob tube (Olberman, Matthews, Maddow, Limbaugh, Hannity, Colmes, etc) and the ones who will not listen to issues of importance but just follows the leader with their eyes closed, and anything they don't agree with or like they call nuts. I guess in their own minds by making fun and ridiculing others who don't agree with them they must feel elevated above all others - just another elite nut to me.
Sometimes you have to look with both eyes open to get to the truth.
Depends
what the definition of 'lobbyist' is. Same as it depended what the definition of 'is' is.
depends on what poll you are looking at
I've seen recent polls that put both Clinton and Obama about even with McCain when matched up together and others that show both of them come out ahead of McCain 5-10 points. Others then show McCain ahead. Polls are so subjective that you have to take them with a grain of salt. The most telling thing to me is that Democratic vote turnout has been twice that of Republican turnout in some areas, so no matter what people are saying in the polls, getting them to the voting booths in November is a different matter. The Democrats are energized and enthusiastic, flocking to the polls. The Republicans overall are leukwarm on McCain (and the party in general) and it's showing in unenthusiastic turnouts. This will play very well for whomever the Democratic candidate is in November.
It depends on the situation
I voted for Bush the first term. He was running against Gore. The country could not afford another 4 years of Clintons. I voted for Bush and I'm proud I did because it helped keep a known bafoon who didn't know squat diddly out of the white house. After Bush was elected a lot changed. I didn't want to vote for him again, yet the best the dems could do was give us Kerry???????? There were so many qualified people running. How that ninny got in there (must have been all those purple hearts). So I voted for Bush again. However I wasn't voting for Bush, I was voting against Kerry. That doesn't make me and others morons, it makes us well-informed voters. If it meant four more years with Bush in there then so be it, but I'll tell you something. With everything that has happened in the world these past eight years the US is lucky that Gore and Lerch were not in office. That's the way a lot of people feel.
Now we're in a totally different election. Both McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are very different from their usual party people. This year is an unusually difficult election. Times are quite different than they were 4 and 8 years ago.
To tell someone they are a moron because they didn't vote for democrats? The other choice would have been even more moronic to vote for.
With everything that has happened I'll take Bush over Gore or Kerry anyday. And before anyone goes blaming him for everything that's happened - He's just a talking head being told what to do. If you want to blame anyone, blame the bafoons in his party (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc to include the people who tell Bush what he's going to do).
I suppose it depends on who says it...sm
If she said it referring to herself....who cares.
If someone says it about Sarah Palin.....who cares, it will bounce off, as she is neither of those words.
What about when Obama talked about all the small town bitter people holding on to their guns and religion, in his San Francisco speech?
Was that bad? I think it was, and he disenfranchised a whole group of voters, to this day, who would not consider voting for him....
That is perhaps, the phrase that deRothchild was comparing to...not sure, but perhaps...
Sooooo.....to answer your question? which word is worse? Well, both of them are, and there's been plenty of name calling lately. It's getting tiresome, really.
Petty, spiteful, little name calling, which has run entirely too rampant lately in the media, not to mention on this board from time to time.
depends in which poll you look at....
and all within the margin of error.
I think that depends on your definitition (sm)
of a *nice neighborhood.* I don't judge neighborhoods by the cost of the houses, I judge them by the people who live there. At present I live in an average-to-small house on a double lot. Plenty of room for the backyard garden, cookouts, etc. I have neighbors who I would not trade for the world. So, if I had that kind of money I would probably stay right where I am. I may, however, change that tile in the bathroom to marble and put that koi pond out back that I've been wanting for years....LOL.
I guess it depends on how you look
at it. There are so many things that I don't agree with Obama on that I want him to fail. If he is succeeds, I feel that our country will fail because we will go down a path that I don't agree with. I want America to succeed but if Obama does everything he wants.....I don't see how America can succeed. I mean no ill will to him and do not wish him any harm. I just do not like the way he is handling things, spending money, etc. The ideas that he has and the government assisted programs he wants to institute will not only bankrupt us even more but I feel are bad ideas because people shouldn't rely on government to live. They need to rely on themselves. I feel that these programs will not encourage personal responsibility or hard work. It will reward irresponsible and lazy people. It will crush the American dream. So yes....in that sense....I want him to fail. I don't want Americans to have to rely on government for everything. I don't like the idea of our government getting bigger and controlling more and more things.
I look at Obama and I see a typical politician. He did nothing but try and make everyone feel all warm and tingly about change and hope and all he has done since he has been in office is lie one right after another.
I feel that if Obama succeeds in his personal agenda....America will fail.
Depends on location.
If it is Podunk, Nowheresville--probably. If it is NYC or Boston or even someplace like Wichita--not so much.
It all depends upon the culture.
The hand-holding custom among Arab men as they walk does not signify that they are on a 'date' but is a symbol of mutual respect and/or friendship.
As far as greetings go, a handshake with direct eye contact is becoming more acceptable, but some ethnic customs do persist. The European double-air-kiss is a greeting between equals (and pretentious New Yorkers). Among Japanese the relative depth of bows acknowledges who has the superior rank, but both bow. Bowing of one Arab to another or one European to another (not to be confused with a smart click of the heels and bob of the head, a sort of antiquated European salute) is a sign of subjugation. I am acknowledging you as my superior in rank. I am your humble subject.
There was only one guy bowing. It was our president, and his upper body was nearly horizontal to the ground, far lower than shaking hands with a shorter man would seem to require. I don't mind if Obama thinks he needs to appear friendly, I just don't want him acknowledging subservience.
It depends on the legs! Why should and would
a woman with ugly legs expose them? Then it gets indecent and fugly. If the legs are nice it's acceptable.
When life begins depends on
someone's religious beliefs. Not all people believe that life begins at conception.
I don't think the beliefs of any religious group over another religious group should be shown preference when it involves the law.
I guess it depends on your perspective...
if you are as far left as Obama, I guess CNN WOULD look conservative...lol. I guess it is in perspective. The point I was trying to make but obviously failed is that no one is going to learn anything if they only listen to one side...and people who automatically yell yeah you got that from Fox or Rush Limbaugh are exactly the kind of people I am talking about. You give an opinion, and if it differs from theirs it automatically came from Fox or Rush Limbaugh and that makes it wrong. I just wish people would not listen to the party line on either side and would use due diligence and research for themselves. The Obama website is not where to go to learn about Obama. The McCain website is not where to go to learn about McCain. Voting the party line is just too Pied Piperish for me. Although I am not and never was a Democrat, I have to applaud that PUMA bunch for having the gall to buck the system and fight for what they think is right. I am not crazy about their candidate either, but I admire their guts, and that is what America is about, by golly. Hil has every right to put her name in nomination at the convention and people who support her have their say. That being said, I noticed Obama caved on that and came out with that placating and to MY thinking condescending thing of "letting women and Clinton supporters feel vindicated." Yeah right...lol. He wants their votes. Period. Go PUMA!
guess it depends where you live because...
where we live, the entire region, all I see are small businesses starting up, then they are gone within a year, one after another, ghost towns in all the cities of empty businesses being literally destroyed by Wal-Mart et al.
There has to be a middle ground, and there has to be more tolerance or there will always be division more and more, rich or poor, and there will always be revolution and unrest.
and what are you talking about 'sharing' with people. you think paying taxes and contributing to road work, infrastructure, everything paid by taxes should be on the backs of poor people and middle class, which excuse me if I am wrong, but does middle class even exist anymore in reality or just in people's own truths of what they want to see.
we see every day more and more people down scaling their lifestyles, sacrificing whether to buy groceries or gas, more and more people cannot even get jobs because of credit checks and background checks (guess working now is also only for the elite, well-off people, and no one should ever be forigven for their past or allowed to progress). who then is promoting social programs - seems to me right now people are being pushed into eventually making all the same pay, fixed income.
...and excuse me forefathers but do did they think they could enslave people, force them to leave their own countries and families, tie them up and bring them to America, abuse them, torture them, treat them less than animals, and then have no responsibility for them.
this what people are calling 'sharing' with people less fortunate than ourselves was created here and we are left to resolve it.
I would rather have a leader in this country who would at least recognize it, try to fix it, then to just have the same old rhetoric and division, pushing people farther and farther apart so only a few people can make profits..
gotta run -
I am not sure what your family above would have to 'share' but I do respect your point of view...
Depends on what part of California - sm
it's like 2 states sometimes. The central portion of the state: Central Valley in the north, Orange County in the south, chock full of narrow-minded midwest transplants, many of whom are evangelical christians. The coast and mountains have more progressive and free-thinking people. (Also the more highly-educated, as a rule). You couldnt pay me to live anywhere but on the Calif. coast.
Depends on who he campaigned or voted for
If he wanted O in, it will probably be one-sided like all the rest. If he wanted McC in, it will be one-sided, too. If he remained neutral, like newspeople SHOULD be, then it should be interesting. I do like him, though.
I guess it depends on what affiliation you have.
It seems to me that there is just as much, if not more, bashing by Republicans/conservatives as I see directed towards them. In actuality it is probably fairly evenly split.
Red state, blue state?
Written last Thanksgiving: "Some would argue that two different nations actually celebrated: upright, moral, traditional red America and the dissolute, liberal blue states clustered on the periphery of the heartland. The truth, however, is much more complicated and interesting than that.
Take two iconic states: Texas and Massachusetts. In some ways, they were the two states competing in the last election. In the world's imagination, you couldn't have two starker opposites. One is the homeplace of Harvard, gay marriage, high taxes, and social permissiveness. The other is Bush country, solidly Republican, traditional, and gun-toting. Massachusetts voted for Kerry over Bush 62 to 37 percent; Texas voted for Bush over Kerry 61 to 38 percent.
So ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts' gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in actual fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas - which until recently made private gay sex a criminal offence - has a divorce rate of 4.1. A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. And the states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Every single one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every single one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate, in fact, is roughly 50 percent higher than the national average.
Some of this discrepancy can be accounted for by the fact that couples tend to marry younger in the Bible Belt - and many clearly don't have the maturity to know what they're getting into. There's some correlation too between rates of college education and stable marriages, with the Bible Belt lagging a highly educated state like Massachusetts. But the irony still holds. Those parts of America that most fiercely uphold what they believe are traditional values are not those parts where traditional values are healthiest. Hypocrisy? Perhaps. A more insightful explanation is that these socially troubled communities cling onto absolutes in the abstract because they cannot live up to them in practice.
But doesn't being born again help bring down divorce rates? Jesus, after all, was mum on the subject of homosexuality, but was very clear about divorce, declaring it a sin unless adultery was involved. A recent study, however, found no measurable difference in divorce rates between those who are "born again" and those who are not. 29 percent of Baptists have been divorced, compared to 21 percent of Catholics. Moreover, a staggering 23 percent of married born-agains have been divorced twice or more. Teen births? Again, the contrast is striking. In a state like Texas, where the religious right is extremely strong and the rhetoric against teenage sex is gale-force strong, the teen births as a percentage of all births is 16.1 percent. In liberal, secular, gay-friendly Massachusetts, it's 7.4, almost half. Marriage itself is less popular in Texas than in Massachusetts. In Texas, the percent of people unmarried is 32.4 percent; in Massachusetts, it's 26.8 percent. So even with a higher marriage rate, Massachusetts manages a divorce rate almost half of its "conservative" rival.
Or take abortion. America is one of the few Western countries where the legality of abortion is still ferociously disputed. It's a country where the religious right is arguably the strongest single voting bloc, and in which abortion is a constant feature of cultural politics. Compare it to a country like Holland, perhaps the epitome of socially liberal, relativist liberalism. So which country has the highest rate of abortion? It's not even close. America has an abortion rate of 21 abortions per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44. Holland has a rate of 6.8. Americans, in other words, have three times as many abortions as the Dutch. Remind me again: which country is the most socially conservative?
Even a cursory look at the leading members of the forces of social conservatism in America reveals the same pattern. The top conservative talk-radio host, Rush Limbaugh, has had three divorces and an addiction to pain-killers. The most popular conservative television personality, Bill O'Reilly, just settled a sex harassment suit that indicated a highly active adulterous sex life. Bill Bennett, the guru of the social right, was for many years a gambling addict. Karl Rove's chief outreach manager to conservative Catholics for the last four years, Deal Hudson, also turned out to be a man with a history of sexual harassment. Bob Barr, the conservative Georgian congressman who wrote the "Defense of Marriage Act," has had three wives so far. The states which register the highest ratings for the hot new television show, "Desperate Housewives," are all Bush-states.
The complicated truth is that America truly is a divided and conflicted country. But it's a grotesque exaggeration to say that the split is geographical, or correlated with blue and red states. Many of America's biggest "sinners" are those most intent on upholding virtue. In fact, it may be partly because they know sin so close-up that they want to prevent its occurrence among others. And some of those states which have the most liberal legal climate - the Northeast and parts of the upper MidWest - are also, in practice, among the most socially conservative. To ascribe all this to "hypocrisy" seems to me too crude an explanation. America is simply a far more complicated and diverse place than crude red and blue divisions can explain.
I don't know what state you live in but in my state
they are adding police and only in the big cities do they have paid firemen. The rest are volunteers.
I look at it this way: If a state can't stay in the black, then they have to cut spending some place that wouldn't jeopardize the safety of the citizens. Threats of cutting essential services like Barney Fife stated today are unjustified. Cut the non-essential services first.
Our governor talks about cutting back on services, laying off government workers, which I think is a good idea because government is too big anyway, but then he turns around and spends more money on non-essential items. Doesn't make sense.
depends on how you measure success I guess....
He only got a 4-5 point bounce in the polls and lost that the next week. Not all Americans were impressed with his "citizen of the world" speech. There are those of us who wonder where his real allegiance lies. No wonder.
By the way, when I say "hoohah" I don't mean the word you refer to. Apparently it does not mean the same thing in my neck of the woods. If I want to intimate the 4-letter word I would certainly do it more directly...not my style.
There is no way that little speech in Germany was "diplomacy." And gee, call me old-fashioned, but I think if you are running for Pres of the US, you should give your political speeches HERE.
I did not demand, nor have I heard anyone else demand that Obama admit the surge is working. It is obvious that it is. The fact that he chooses to ignore it does not give me any more faith in his ability to run the country or take care of national security issues, and makes me doubt his honesty. As to being true to his beliefs...didn't take him long to throw his lifelong friend and mentor the Reverend Wright under the bus for political expediency. There's that trust thing again.
How anyone can say, faced with all the info out there about him and how he handled the Wright thing (which was in name only, you don't stay in a church for 20 years that is built on black liberation theology if you don't believe it)...and say with a straight face he is being true to his beliefs.
Well, I take that back...he IS being true to his hard left socialist/Marxist beliefs. Already wants to redistribute wealth aka economic parity, a big element of the black liberatin theology...by taxing oil companies and redistributing their profits to people who did nothing to earn it. How much more socialist approaching Marxist could you possibly be? In that, yes, I would agree...he is being true to his socialist/Marxist beliefs. You got me there.
I guess it depends on your view of the beginning of
is life. I'm not advocating third or even second trimester abortions but believe me it's far better for a woman to abort a child than have one that won't care for it. Take Casey Anthony, for example...
We need to vote as if our entire future depends on it,
x
All depends on what news you watch, polls
are all over the place
Depends on what you call racist I suppose
@
I didn't say that depends on what the definition of "IF"
There is a big difference between IF and WHEN. IF I said "...If I go to the store" or "...when I go to the store" IF means I may go to the store, WHEN means I WILL go to the store.
The other poster said that Mccain was saying he was going to be president and I pointed out that so did Obama and I gave PROOF from his OWN site.
It all depends on what news station you listen to
I talked to my best friend the other day (whom I met when I was in the Army). Her husband is in Iraq. Her son is in Afghanastan, and her daughter is in Iraq. None of them like war (who does) but the consensus among them and their fellow soldiers is that it is worth it. Do they want the war to end, heck yeah. Do they want to come home, heck yeah. Do they want to give up everything they've been fighting for. NO WAY! They say if they leave now everything they have done to help the people of Iraq will all have been for nothing. They want to stay until the job is finished and not any sooner. They say if we don't do this it will be left up to our children, our nieces and nephews to take care of when they get older.
It all depends on who you listen to for news. Of course MSNBC, CNN and other liberal news agencies say its a mistake we should not be there, need to come home now. But my freinds said her husband and two kids and all their fellow soldiers say stay until the job is done. For every soldier on video saying we shouldn't be here, etc, etc., there is another soldier like the one in the OPs link that say, don't tell us its not worth it.
Depends on the mistake. Making the case for war in Iraq on a stack of
lies from Curveball, not your everyday ooops.
As if.
Diaper Dave in airport rage "Do You Know Who I Am?" umm...depends
Report Of Vitter In Airport Rage: Do You Know Who I Am?!!
Roll Call reports that Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), the staunch social conservative whose career became bogged down in the 2007 D.C. Madam prostitution scandal, was sighted this past Thursday night having an incident of airport rage at Dulles Airport.
Vitter arrived 20 minutes before the plane was scheduled to depart, and found the gate locked. He then opened the door, setting off the alarm and inviting the attention of an airline worker:
Vitter, our spy said, gave the airline worker an earful, employing the timeworn "do-you-know-who-I-am" tirade that apparently grew quite heated.
That led to some back and forth, and the worker announced to the irritable Vitter that he was going to summon security.
Vitter, according to the witness, remained defiant, yelling that the employee could call the police if he wanted to and their supervisors, who, presumably, might be more impressed with his Senator's pin.
But after talking a huffy big game, Vitter apparently thought better of pushing the confrontation any further. When the gate attendant left to find a security guard, Vitter turned tail and simply fled the scene.
Late Update: Vitter is now responding to the story, after a spokesman declined to comment in the initial reports:
"After being delayed on the Senate floor ensuring a vote on my anti-pay-raise amendment and in a rush to make my flight home for town hall meetings the next day, I accidentally went through a wrong door at the gate," Vitter said in a statement. "I did have a conversation with an airline employee, but it was certainly not like this silly gossip column made it out to be."
You're entitled to your opinion. I guess it depends on what side of the spectrum you're on.nm
x
I'm from that state and...
He paid for his Senate campaign with the earnings from one malpractice suit.
In my state......
the welfare reform has gotten so rigid - it isn't worth it. $115 per person per month and adults have to work a 40-hour week to get it. I WOULDN'T live in the low income housing areas - crime is too high, get knifed getting the mail. The unemployment rate is at an all time high in this state.......so getting a job is really tough and then you are lucky to get minimum wage which would prevent you from any type of subsidy (food stamps) from the government. The help on the heat bill? Well you might get some help at the beginning of winter, but by January the funding has run out, so you're screwed on that one. They can't shut your heat off in the winter, but by spring they can and they won't turn it back on until you pay the whole amount due. So those lucky welfare recipients are just having a ball at the expense of us self-righteous, key-pounding, pull yourself up by your bootstraps gods. Indeed, why work?
And in a state that had.........sm
over 860,000 new registrations or changes of address filed this year alone. The estimated population of people over the age of 18 in 2006 (last year data available) is 8,711,807. I think 860,000 is a significantly large portion of that population.
as far as state goes
I do know there is some truth to some states having sent out IOUs as some people have actually gotten them, but I just didnt know for sure about federal. I guess as far as states go, it would depend on the financial stability of each state? I have read a news article that 46 states are on their way and in serious danger of being bankrupt within the next few months to a year. Go ahead and flame me any of you, but it is the truth.
We are having them in my state also.....
In fact, I am on the organizing committee for the one in the town where I live. It will be on 4/15/09.
I doubt it will do much good, but it is time to take back our country from the "anointed one" and his cronies and become the great country that people once looked up to.
If we do not act now, America will become just another 3rd world country complete with universal health insurance that includes forced coverage for abortions, firing of the health care people who listen to their conscience, and refuse to perform abortions, and (by extrapolation) euthanasia or worse for the people who are older and not in good healthhave who have been deemed not as important as a younger, healthier person, and therefore should not have access to the best health care around.
This is a ramble, but it needs to be said. We have been thrown under the proverbial bus.
Name the city and state this happens in? sm
I'm sorry this is foreign to me.
The US is becoming a police state.sm
It is not full-fledged yet, but 95% there. There is a rush to incarcerate (1 in 136 Americans are in jails and prisons). National ID card by 2010, RFID chips, face scanners installed at high schools, those who disagree with government are called homegrown terrorists (another false flag) or traitors. It is very well known that both Bush presidents support the one world government (NWO). The USA no longer resembles the Constitutional Republic it is supposed to be. Land of the free is an illusion.
Sad state of affairs.
So very very sad.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0704-04.htm
Are you governor of a state? sm
if you are, then run. Bill Clinton had only been a governor when he ran. Obama has only been a senator. At least she has actually run a government. Her #2 opponent has not. The #1 on the Dem ticket has not.
Somehow I don't think the American people are going to lose any sleep because you think they are stupid. :)
it is either state and local's
responsibility and he should stay away until things calm down OR he blew it last time and he doesn't that memory to to influence the election. You can't have it both ways.
and she is from the coolest state too. Get it?
.
you state "probably" and then
go off on your own fantasy with nothing to support it!!! DailyKos is merely a website where people go to express liberal opinions. The AIP is a radical group that is involved with weapons. There leader was MURDERED or he would be on the govt terrorist list. Research, research, research. Or else clearly label your posts "my fantasy about what ...... probably. said or did or thought ......"
Let me categorically state that
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if he is indicted and found guilty. The evidence so far looks pretty convincing. I will be reserving further comment until the story has matured a bit, other than to say that if he did what they say he did, he gives all liberal democrats a bad name (fair or not) and deserves to go down.
For the sake of clarity, I am an AVID Obama supporter and am as left as they come. I think Illinois and Chicago should continue to strive to clean up their plates (as they have been trying to do) until they get it right. Having said that, let's not pretend here that the GOP is squeaky clean in this arena:
1. Ted Stevens, AL senior senator, abuse of power, failure to repot gifts, making false statements, possible misuse of federal funds.
2. Tom DeLay, TX former representative and majority leader, money laundering
3. Bob Ney, OH rep, bribery.
4. Randy Cunningham, CA rep, bribery.
5. Scooter Libby, Cheney Chief of Staff, assistant to president, obstruction of justice, perjury, making false statements.
6. J. Seven Guile, Deputy Sect of the Interior for W, obstruction of justice.
7. Mark Foley, FL rep, sex scandal involving 16-year-old white house page.
8. Bill First, TN senator, conflict of interest in stock holdings
9. Curt Weldon, PA rep, trading political influence for lobbying contracts
10. Dennis Hastert, former speaker of the house and IL rep, Mark Foley coverup, taking illegal contributions.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the general drift.
My state already is using almost the same plan as....sm
Obama's and it seems to be working just fine.
SOCIALIST STATE
I agree with you 100%.
How do you know 'gimmeabreak's' state is
ESP?
|
