You're right about one thing
Posted By: gourdpainter on 2008-10-06
In Reply to: We all better study up on socialism..it's on its way - votinginde
People had better smarten up but I doubt that's likely to happen.
So we don't have socialism now. What exactly do we have? Our government (Democrats AND Republicans) support more illegal immigration and rewarding the criminal illegals with citizenship, never mind what the people want. Didn't they both support the huge bail-out? BOTH parties. How many of the people supported that? What good is it going to do? None. Now aren't they saying that we'll have to wait and see if it works and more bail-outs may be necessary.
So will someone tell me just exactly what kind of government it is we have now? The Republicans had rule for the past few years. Very recently both dubya and McCain...didn't they say the "economy was fundamentally sound?" LIES??? Youbetcha.
How any sheep can follow either of these parties to the slaughter is far beyond me. And sheep is what most Americans are. I'm tempted to say that those who enthusiastically support EITHER candidate deserve what they get. The problem is, I, myself, don't particularly want to go along for the ride.
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
You're right about one thing...(sm)
there will be 2 parties, but the current religious right wingnuts won't be one of them. There were only 3 moderate pubs left in the senate. With Specter moving to the dem side, there are only 2, and they vote more like independents. What does that leave the GOP with? The religious rightwing nutjobs...and yes, they (you) are losing ground on a daily basis.
Well, you're right about one thing....(sm)
He doesn't call himself a republican. He calls himself a "conservative traditionalist." What does that mean?
Definition:
Traditionalist conservatism, also known as "traditionalism," is a political philosophy that developed in the United States. It tends to emphasize cultural renewal and is characterized by an adherence to the principles of prescription (law), custom (law), social order, hierarchy, faith, the natural family, ordered liberty, and tradition. It may be said to have affinities with reactionary thought, and some adherents of this movement perhaps embrace that label, defying the stigma that has attached to it in Western culture since the Enlightenment.
Traditionalist conservatism emerged after World War II in the writings of a group of university professors (labeled the "New Conservatives" by the popular press of the time) who rejected the notions of individualism, liberalism, modernity, and social progress[1] and revived interest in what T. S. Eliot referred to as "the permanent things" (those perennial institutions that ground society: the church, the family, the state, community life, etc.).
_______
In other words, far right republican. And no, he doesn't defend "anybody." He is notorious for promoting the far right's agenda and has been for years. Believe me, he's not laying off of Sotomayor because he doesn't want to discriminate. He's laying off of her because he knows it will hurt his party.
You're right - the whole SP thing is the 'pubicans
tactics for distracting the public so that they won't notice that by voting for Sarah (and oh, yes.... JM goes along with the package as a 'token' presidential figure), they'll be voting themselves another 4 years of economic misery, and world instability. If that happens, then the US deserves whatever nastiness is waiting around the next corner.
For one thing, that you're not informed
of the truth (which I posted below) and are spreading the "mandatory" myth, which inflames and upsets people.
Obama's programs are inclusive and designed for those who choose to participate for the good of the country, to bring us closer together. If you want no part of that, then, that's your choice, and though I personally think it's sad, it's probably for the best. Either way, it's your CHOICE and is NOT MANDATORY.
The thing is you're not giving him
I agree, we were brutally raped by the last adminstration and I am also wary, but for crying out loud, you are making these statements after less than a week in office. You can't justify that by saying you're "keeping an eye" on the government? If that statement is true, then you have to give the man a REASONABLE amount of time to implement his agenda. The engine hasn't even cooled down on the moving trucks yet. Don't be unrealistic, you lose credibility that way.
You're right about one thing, Patty.
Your mental disease is downright UGLY!!
Yes, you're right. It's the kindest thing to do.
x
You're stuck on pub thing aren't you.... not
prefer to think for myself unlike you who obviously needs someone to do it for ya. I don't care for government, let alone more of it.
"we" did the right thing....no, you're wrong there.....a lot of
people, mostly young, were bamboozled.
"We" did not do the righ thing...
Unless you like total government control, and social medicine, and social economics.....
We may never recover from President Obama, at least not in my lifetime.
I did not vote for him. I wish him well, but his choices as he is leading up to his inauguration do not bode well for our country on a whole, especially our children and grandchildren.
Libs refuse to call it socialism.
But that's what we're putting into office.
Bush opened the door a crack.
Obama intends to play on our fears and take full advantage of them.
Maybe when all your rights are gone, when govt has total control over your healthcare, your mortgage, your loans, your 401K....maybe then, you will understand what is happening right under your nose, and finally see what you have lost.
"we" did the right thing....no, you're wrong there.....a lot of
people, mostly young, were bamboozled.
"We" did not do the righ thing...
Unless you like total government control, and social medicine, and social economics.....etc......
We may never recover from President Obama and his "change", at least not in my lifetime.
I did not vote for him. I wish him well, but his choices as he is leading up to his inauguration do not bode well for our country on a whole, especially our children and grandchildren, who will be left to foot the bill, and have less rights than we do now.
Libs refuse to call it socialism.
But that's what we're putting into office.
Bush opened the door a crack.
Obama intends to play on our fears and take full advantage of them.
The barn door is wide open, and the winner take all (Obama). "Never let a good crisis go to waste" as his team has recently stated.
He has, and will, take full advantage of our fears, as even he, Obama, was the fear monger today.
Maybe when all your rights are gone, when govt has total control over your healthcare, your mortgage, your loans, your 401K, (and other things I can't even imagine as of yet unveiled b....maybe then, you will understand what is happening right under your nose, and finally see what you have lost.
ROFL! I guess the same thing you're doing.
 Have you noticed that your neck hurts from shaking your head a lot??? 
They're always putting out this sort of thing, actually.
...just round-file it.
I think you are saying the same thing. No need to argue when you're making the same point...nm
x
You have to check and double check every single thing they say. They're not capable of telling t
truth about anything. It's getting very boring and tedious to read their crap. Why won't they stay on their own board like they tell us to do?
But valuing over the price of a dollar is a right thing wing thing, so you are on the wrong board. n
x
You're entitled to your opinion. I guess it depends on what side of the spectrum you're on.nm
x
We're not defending Bush we're pointing out the obvious
All you see in your view is Bush, Bush, Bush. Nobody else exists. You have yet to answer any of the questions I posed yesterday. We're not the one obsessing about Bush. I'm sure you'll counter that with I don't owe you any answers! It's really telling that for five or six days this board was mute about the Israel/Lebanon situation. You were too busy posting trash news about Bush like nothing was even happening, but I know that the left has wait for its talking points. You all cannot formulate opinions on your own. You have boilerplates ready to go though. *This is Bush's fault because _____________ but you have to wait on Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, etc. etc. to fill in the blanks for you. It's not just a phenomenon here but with all the left. You can count on at least two days of silence when something unforseen breaks out in the world, because they have to retreat to their bunkers to get their talking points straight, but it will always start with *This is Bush's fault because....
Hey, if they're smoking cigs, they're paying for SCHIP.
xx
They're too lazy to show patriotism......they're waiting
xx
So you're not racist but you're most definitely SEXIST and AGEIST!!!
"Someone more in our age group..."
"She should be taking care of her family."
Your true colors are showing, and they're truly ugly.
Just because they're LOSING doesn't mean they're VICTIMS.
What is it with people these days? You think that just because Hamas is getting its fanny handed to it that that magically makes them victims, and we should all weep and throw cash at them?
From the dawn of time, lesser civilizations have fallen to stronger ones.
It's why the human species survived and the neanderthals didn't.
It's why Rome conquered the Celts.
It's why the Barbarians conquered the Western Roman Empire.
It's why the British conquered the American Indians.
It's why the Spanish conquered the Aztecs.
It's why the Muslims conquered Israel the first time. But, since their societal progres seems to have permanently parked in the Stone Age, now Israel is conquering them right back.
Deal with it.
You're right. They're simply not worthy of a reply.
They're not tax breaks....they're tax credits
xx
I'm snotty, you're rude...we're even....
My dearrrr....not everyone in this country pays taxes. So you are wrong there. Obama said "spread the wealth." From his own mouth. The interview in Canada...economic parity and redistribution. Words from HIS mouth. If you believed those words from his mouth as much as you believed other words from his mouth, you would know he is a socialist. Selective memory is a wonderful thing ain't it??
You're right. They're all wack-jobs... nothing
so they try to make themselves feel important by standing around on street corners with their posters and their dollies.
Most of them are just buffoons, good for nothing other than being laughed at by the rest of us. But the ones that totally lose all reason, and go so far as to shoot people (in a church of all places...) is pretty off the deep end.
I never said it's a bad thing, it is a good thing....nm
nm
You're a liar. GT didn't curse. You're a filthy liar, but you are a gift from God.
God sent you here to as a constant reminder of the kind of person I DON'T want to be and if I ever have a bad day when I feel temporarily stupid, all I have to do is read your posts, and I realize there are those out there who are much worse off than I am and for them it's not temporary.
They're doing to this board what they're trying to do
to the whole country. They're trying to take it over. They want to control which God you believe in, who you love and what you do with your body, be it regarding life or regarding death. If you don't voluntarily agree to turn your free will over to their control, they will hunt you down and nag you to death (since they can't do anything more violent on a message board). It's obvious they are sick, sick people and need major help.
But they ARE like watching a car wreck and are sometimes hard to ignore.
I've thought about it, and for me personally, the very best thing to do is ignore them and for 2 reasons:
1. Ignoring them and not reading their posts makes my visit on this board much more pleasant. I already know I'm not missing anything because there isn't one post on this entire board written by them that has contributed anything of value or intelligence.
2. If we all refuse to read and respond to their posts, they might give up and go find another board to terrorize. I doubt that, though, because they've taken over this board and simply don't have the CLASS to leave. They take pride in their bully on the playground mentality and are proud of their ignorant behavior. They will probably just continue to pat themselves on their backs on this board. The only thing that might startle them and cause them to stop is that the NUMBER of posts on the Liberal board are starting to increase heavily as a direct result of their posting. In the past, they've used the Liberal board's lower numbers to trash us for not being as interesting, when, in fact, the CON board must be pretty boring if they are always choosing to be HERE instead.
Like I said, I've decided that I'd like my visits here to be pleasant, so I'm just going to stop subjecting myself to their cesspools of attacks. They've proven their posts aren't worth wasting time reading, so I'm just going to stop and will feel much better as a result of stopping. 
Your not you're. I hope you're not an MT. nm
.
They're children, though. They're not
adults. Mom and Dad need to know these things even if only to possibly prevent problems later.
one other thing though....
Agree with everything you stated, but I am profoundly disgusted also with Rove being able to expose a CIA agent, and nothing is going to be done about it in that I feel he committed treason, as Reagan did with Iran-Contra... Treasonous acts that are let to slide...no big deal huh? Who knows if someone is getting hurt because of his mouth, and yet, nothing... The silence is very annoying...as our country drops into a stinking sea of muck.
One more thing, gt. sm
Of all the people on these boards, YOUR opinion of me is the one I value the least.
Oh, and one more thing, gt. sm
Clnton signed Kyoto in 1997, only because he knew that the Senate would not ratify it. He was right. They voted 95-0 AGAINST Kyoto. Why? Because it would have required signatory nations to significantly cut greenhouse gases resulting from the burning of fosil fuels. Because ratifying the treaty would have required a large reduction in the use of fossil fuels that we use to our our economy. Until there is an alternative fuel source that is better than gold old fashioned coal and oil, restricting our economy's ability to burn these fuels would CRIPPLE US AS A NATION. You are not seeing the total picture here, you simply cannot be seeing it. I know the left's hatred for capitalism has blinded them to the fact that without our economy, we collapse. It really is that simple. We would be reduced to a third world nation in a very short period of time and you and I would not be sitting here writing on our computers because our world as we know it would change. Yes, it really is all about oil. But not the way you think.
and another thing
we aren't controlling anybody. There are several countries in this world where you are controlled, but this ain't one of them.
One more thing:
I apologize for the length of my post, but so far, I still have freedom of speech.
Guess I just feel the need to get it all out before that freedom suddenly disappears, as well. The majority of Americans don't agree with Bush, and we all know how he/his thugs handle people who dare to disagree with him. If you don't believe me, just ask John McCain and/or Valerie Plame.
I'd like to add one more thing.
If these alleged WMDs are so widespread and so easily accessible in Iraq, why aren't any of them being used on our soldiers?
Honestly, that's one of the very first fears I had when I heard we were going to war with Iraq (when I still believed the reasons given by the president and supported the invasion based on those reasons). I had visions of massive troop deaths at the hands of Iraqis and these WMDs.
Did that happen? 
OK. Here's the thing...sm
Because we've been through this before and I feel a repeat coming on. I'm respectful and nice to everyone on these boards 99% of the time. People come over to the liberal board and pretend they are moderates or just want to *debate.* When all the time they are anti-everything liberal and have no intention of seeing the liberal point of view. In the end, they end up *insulted* off of the board and run to the other board and have a sling fest. Yawn. They have revelations over there contrary to the beliefs they portrayed on this board. So really I'm skeptical about debating with the like. You may be 100% different worldfan, but from your posts on the Conservative and News boards it would appear you would be more at home on the conservative board giving them a high five about what's going on over here. Just my observation.
I used to post on the conservative board but I left because they were getting too extreme for my liking. It's that simple. There are some topics over there that I would reply too, but I don't b/c of past comments made over there, which have made me stick to the liberal page. However, on quite a few issues I am far from liberal like abortion and fiscal spending.
I hope you get my points. If not, we don't have anything more to discuss.
Sorry. Here's the whole thing.
I was trying to avoid this but the link is not working for some reason.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Tuesday, July 04, 2006 |
|
|
Headlines |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Britons Tire of Cruel, Vulgar US: Poll |
|
|
People in Britain view the United States as a vulgar, crime-ridden society obsessed with money and led by an incompetent president whose Iraq policy is failing, according to a newspaper poll.
The United States is no longer a symbol of hope to Britain and the British no longer have confidence in their transatlantic cousins to lead global affairs, according to the poll published in The Daily Telegraph.
...a majority of the Britons described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business. ![src=http://www.commondreams.org/images/endquote.gif]()
|
|
The YouGov poll found that 77 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement that the US is a beacon of hope for the world.
As Americans prepared to celebrate the 230th anniversary of their independence on Tuesday, the poll found that only 12 percent of Britons trust them to act wisely on the global stage. This is half the number who had faith in the Vietnam-scarred White House of 1975.
A massive 83 percent of those questioned said that the United States doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks.
With much of the worst criticism aimed at the US adminstration, the poll showed that 70 percent of Britons like Americans a lot or a little.
US President George W. Bush fared significantly worse, with just one percent rating him a great leader against 77 percent who deemed him a pretty poor or terrible leader.
More than two-thirds who offered an opinion said America is essentially an imperial power seeking world domination. And 81 per cent of those who took a view said President George W Bush hypocritically championed democracy as a cover for the pursuit of American self-interests.
US policy in Iraq was similarly derided, with only 24 percent saying they felt that the US military action there was helping to bring democracy to the country.
A spokesman for the American embassy said that the poll's findings were contradicted by its own surveys.
We question the judgment of anyone who asserts the world would be a better place with Saddam still terrorizing his own nation and threatening people well beyond Iraq's borders, the paper quoted the unnamed spokesman as saying.
With respect to the poll's assertions about American society, we bear some of the blame for not successfully communicating America's extraordinary dynamism.
But frankly, so do you (the British press).
In answer to other questions, a majority of the Britons questions described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse
### |
 Printer Friendly Version  E-Mail This Article |
|
|
|
FAIR USE NOTICE |
|
|
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to know the same thing.nm
12
The thing that got me was this...sm
This totally counts out everyday Joes. And those with a couple million to run. A half a billion dollars is a lot of money.
One last thing.....
Your argument might hold more water if I thought for one minute liberals understood that it was Michael Moore's OPINION and not the truth (but why should they, because he frames as the truth). I think, if you truly understand that, you are in the minority.
One more thing...
I asked the last poster to bring me one example of a Democrat who, when caught in wrongdoing, has resigned. Just one. She has not come back with one, even though I named several who should have. As I stated, the only Democrat I know of who resigned from anything resigned because he was coming out of the closet, and I find that ludicrous. The man should not have resigned because he was gay. For felony perjury, yes. For obstruction of justice, yes. Remember please the congressman who actually had a homosexual affair with an underage page (male). No Democratic outrage. He stood right up and said he was an adult and it was consensual and that had nothing to do with his job as a Congressman. No Democratic outrage. In fact, he was re-elected. Yes, that was several years ago, but all that proves is that the Democratic moral compass went wonky several years ago. It is not a recent thing, it is just getting worse and worse and worse. Stop please dancing around the subject, and please to bring forth one or two Democrats who have actually resigned and admitted wrongdoing? And while you are at it, Republicans who were caught and still hold office? I would be very willing to read and re-assess. Try for one minute to take off the liberal hat and look at it objectively. It is case after case after case...Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Alcee Hastings, William Jefferson, and on and on the list goes....in fact, Alcee Hastings was removed as a Federal Judge for bribery and perjury..see below.
In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Voters to impeach included Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming only the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton on his last day in office.
Ain't that special?? And just proves the point.
How did I get into this thing..
I have not said anything about regime change for months, years. I said Iraq was on the table before 9/11 solely to illuminate the fact that 9/11 set the stage for what some had been wanting to do for a long time. My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war.
How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate.
I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again.
How did I get in this thing....
I have not said anything about regime change for months, years. I said Iraq was on the table before 9/11 solely to illuminate the fact that 9/11 set the stage for what some had been wanting to do for a long time.
My point was that it is not only *this* administration. Clinton felt strongly enough about Iraq and regime change, as did the Congress at that time, to enact a LAW calling for regime change. So Iraq was on the table then. The articles posted would lead you to believe that liberals/Democrats never called for regime change. They are the instigating part of the *some* you speak of. And if you will read Clinton's speech at the time, if you did not know he gave it, you would think Bush might have, because the content is eerily similar. It is just odd to me that liberals were on board for WMD, on board for regime change, on board for force, on board for ALL of it when Clinton was calling for it. How do liberals manage that massive flip flop? I remember Clinton's speech well. It was one of the few times that I agreed with what he was doing and saying.
My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war. Okay. I get it. 3000 people dying here was not enough to make liberals willing to go to war. What, in the name of the Almighty, is, I am wondering.
How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. I was being facetious...he seems to be the posterboy for liberals. I apologize. I will not refer to him as YOUR favorite President anymore. Glad though that you validated what I have said on numerous occasions, that liberals are about what is good for them individually...I am glad you personally were doing better when he was President.
In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate. Maybe it has gone downhill for you since watergate. Personally I think it started downhill then, and made a huge massive slide with Monicagate and a sitting President committing felony perjury. However, I do not hold the country responsible for that as you seem to. I hold the individuals...Nixon and Clinton...responsible. At least Nixon had a modicum of grace to say he was wrong and resign when caught. Clinton has done neither and his party has not expected him to and has in fact defended him. You will never hear me defend either of them.
I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again. I believe it was one on the liberal board who started the *spew* and *ooze* and the only time I have used those words was again, being facetious, in reply to the ones who used them. I personally did not start the use of those. In fact, I think her words were *spew venom* (ick). As to cease and desist, go ahead with the regime change rhetoric if you like. We know it did not originate with Bush, not opinion, matter of law. No spin, hard fact.
Have a good day.
The right thing to do is...
allow everyone to vote. No one needs to step down. And I do not support either of them. I supported Ron Paul when he was in the race.
One more thing
He keeps flashing a pic of himself when he was a young guy in the military. Almost every commercial of him shows him when he was younger, and in fact one of his ads on this website shows him a young guy in the military. He's now old and he should have a current picture. What's next, Barack putting up adds with his high school senior pic? How about Hillary running with a picture of her in grade school. The guy is old and if he's so confident in himself he should have a current pic of him. He's no longer younger and he doesn't have the mind of someone younger.
You did no such thing since he never said that.
I did do my research and so did the author of "comparative drug use." above. FYI: Crack/free-base cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride are not the same. One is pure, the other a compound. The addition of hydrochloride gives the intranasal compound a completely different chemical make-up that does not have the same effect. It is slower on the uptake and clears the system much faster than the cocaine base (giving it less of an addictive potential) . The pure free base/crack cocaine DOES NOT WORK when it is snorted, since the absorption is obstructed when it is attacked by enzymes via the nasal route. Method of delivery does matter, in terms of drug effect, absorption, drug life and addiction potential. If you are an MT, you know where to go to verify this information.
I am aware of what he said and did not say in his book. I have nothing to add to the "comparative drug use" post in that regard. Furthermore, there is nothing inaccurate in my original post. There is a pervert on a right-wing fringe blog who made these unsubstantiated claims about his witnessed account of "sharing" cocaine with Obama and having homosexual sex with him. He has also been discredited and has a wrap sheet a mile long. Does not seem like a credible observation from a credible source. That's all I said. I did not deny, nor did I acknowledge whether or not Obama used cocaine. My comments referred to how information is extracted from legitimate sources (in this case, straight from the horse's mouth), twisted and manipulated by perverts and right-wing blogsters in desperate efforts to smear somebody's character when they are unable to engage themselves directly in legitimate policy issues. The "character" card, whether played by one party or the other, is really a lame strategy that prevents productive, progressive approaches to issues and solutions to problems of dire importance to us AS A NATION, not as party affiliates.
That is the best thing you
can come up with? Let us forget Obama's association with Ayers or his 20-year membership to a church that preached hate messages......let's just focus on McCain calling his wife a C unt shall we. Sheesh......If he thought so little of women, he would never have chose one to run as his VP.
In all seriousness though, why is c unt such an offensive word? Who dictates words and which ones are bad? Who decided that the F bomb was bad? Who determined what words were considered swear words? If I called someone a poop head and then called someone a c unt, they are both supposed to insult...are they not.....so why is one worse than the other and who determined that?
At least she is doing the right thing
She is going to have the baby and not kill it
well, the one thing that the VP has is...
the deciding vote if there is a tie in Congress, and with a majority dem congress that is not a bad thing.. :)
Yep, I agree with the "gimme" attitude. I call it being all about me, me, me. Don't get me wrong, I believe some social programs are necessary because there are people who, through no fault of their own whether mental disability or physical disability, cannot work. And I think we should take care of our fellow man to that extent. However, those who are fully capable of working and choose not to, and we have to subsidize their housing, their groceries, and give them a check every month...that needs to stop.
Have a wonderful day!
yes, SP did the right thing!!
x
|
