100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > daniel48706
|
|
|
I know I am gonna get hit for this one, but it needs to be said. Every single one of you Americans that call President Bush a war criminal needs to be charged with Slander as it has already been stated IN COURT, and proven that President Bush never did anything illegal. By calling him a war criminal you are trying to cause him harm (not necesarrily physical harm, but harm all the same), when you know he is not guilty of what you accuse him.
Even if you do not agree with the facts and decisions made, President Bush has not been found guilty of any crimes, let alone any war crimes, thus it is slanderous to call him a war criminal. Grow up people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
daniel48706
on
Wed 10/21/09 05:18 AM
|
|
dang double posts lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
your picking bits and pieces out to try and make your argument and only making a fool of yourself int eh process. You say Pitts are naturally aggressive, that it is in their nature. But as several people have pointed ut, and this is physical FACT, all dogs are naturally aggressive to begin with, not just pitt bulls in general. You do not ba, attack, kill or whatever a dog, unless that particular dog poses a threat to you or someone else first. And if this happens, then you ban the owner of that dog from ever owning dogs again, if yuo an show that it is through their negligence that the dog attacked.
You cant blame a dog for protecting his family. Its just the jaw strength of "pits" that give them this vicious title. I think the attacks of small dogs is much greater, but they dont do any real damage. The bad thing is... the leaders of the ban, have never owned a pit before. Its almost like racism. Get to know "someone" before you make a blanket ban of anyone or anything. Dogs are like kids.. they are what they learn to be. Teach them violence and they will be violent. Love them and they hopefully will love you back. I see where you are trying to go with your post but, the main difference between your argument of racism is that these dogs (Pitbulls) are agressive by nature. Yes, some owners have a certain element to teaching them to become nasty but, after it is all said and done it's the dogs nature to attack. The dog should be banned they serve no purpose at all except for fighting... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That voting district/town is 2/3 black.. The measure passed with a near 2/3 majority.. Are the Blacks in that town somehow gerrymandering themselves out of political power??? The Voters voted. They passed a measure to affect their own local elections but the Obama Justice Department decided that their control over their own elections threatened the position of Democrat politicians. period.. FAIL  No, the blacks in that town were about to get gerrymandered ,but the Justice department stepped in and put a stop to it. There is a history of these sort of games being played with minority votesThere is no reason to hide party affiliation except to mislead voters and help the politicians to misrepresent themselvesKnowing party affiliation is an additional and important piece of information in knowing what a politician stands for Sorry but in the end the only thing a politician cares for is him/herself. It doesnt matetr what party they are a member of, in the end they always vote fort hemself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That still does not give the school the right to dictate what a senior may wear for their picture. The only way I would agree to the school doing so is if it already had school uniforms (which some public schools do have) and they required you to wear the school uniform for the picture. That's the ONLY way I could agree to it.
Msharmony, I've never heard of the school paying for the photos. I had to personally pay for my senior picture. They were expensive. Everybody I know til this day has had to pay big bucks for those pics - not the school. Everybody goes to a photography studio for their pictures. Now...my child is not in high school. Those pics are taken at school. I pay for them still. HEy WInx My son goes to a public school and the photographers come there for the afternoon and take EVERYONES pic. They are paid upfront for their time and equipment. THen the students have the option to pay to have the pictures or not. But whether the kids pay or not the pictures are still taken and the photographer paid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok, lol I can understand the gimp foot being in a "shoe" but thankfully the other one is bare. My only concern now is why you aren't pregnant and in the kitchen?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<runsl ike hell before Winz throws her "gimp shoe" at his head  I'm wearing a T-shirt and shorts right now. lol But but but, that's so gay!  Sorry, Winx, couldn't resist. So be it.  I also have one bare foot and one fractured foot in a gimp shoe. Ooops, I have no make-up on either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uhhh. no it is not a school payed for event. I did not get "senior pictures" as we had to pay for them ourselves and I did not have an extra 300 dollars in order to sit for a photographer. I simply stood in the English Faculties office and had the yearbook teacher take my picture with the school camera. This girl has the right to dress the way she wants to no matter what. And even if the school did pay for the pictures, it is still the girl who is dressing up, not the staff.
By Chris Joyner, USA TODAY JACKSON, Miss. — Veronica Rodriguez describes her daughter, 17-year-old Ceara Sturgis, as "a perfect child": a straight-A student, a goalie on the soccer team, a trumpet player in the band and active in Students Against Destructive Decisions.  Sturgis also is gay and feels more comfortable in boys' clothes, her mother says. So Rodriguez supported her daughter's decision to wear a tuxedo, rather than the drape customary for girls, when she had her senior portrait made in July. Now she is battling officials at Wesson Attendance Center in the Copiah County (Miss.) School District. Rodriguez said she received a letter from the school in August stating that only boys could wear tuxedos and have since refused to include the photo in the school yearbook. The conflict is one of several this year involving how school districts handle cross-dressing students. "The yearbook is not for the parents or the teachers. It's for the students," Rodriguez said. "She's not a troublemaker. She is gay." Superintendent Ricky Clopton said the school district's attorney has assured him they are within their rights to exclude the photo. Sturgis said she has received support from classmates and people around the nation. "It's really an amazing feeling," she said. The Mississippi chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union warned the district that they are violating Sturgis' constitutionally protected freedom of expression, legal director Kristy Bennett said. Candace Gingrich of the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, said it is not uncommon for LGBT students to clash with school officials on this issue. "It's a matter of self-expression," she said. Other school conflicts this year: • In Waldorf, Md., a Westlake High senior was denied the option of wearing a tuxedo for her yearbook photo. Her mother complained, and the school reversed the decision after discovering other schools had allowed it, schools spokeswoman Katie O'Malley-Simpson said. • In Dunnellon, Fla., a 16-year-old boy was sent home in March for violating Marion County School District dress code by wearing makeup, high-heeled boots and a bra. The policy on the district website states that students must dress "in keeping with their gender." Kathy Richardson, of the school district, said the boy's cross-dressing was an isolated event. • In Lebanon, Ind., school officials in March reversed a ban on cross-dressing when a female senior decided to wear a tux to the prom. The girl sued the district, but the issue was settled when a "gender-neutral" policy was adopted. "We were OK with making that switch," Lebanon High Principal Kevin O'Rourke said. In Sturgis' case, the deadline for yearbook photos was Sept. 30. Rodriguez hopes the school will reconsider. Contributing: Marquita Brown. Joyner and Brown report for The Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss. Article here http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-10-18-yearbook-photo-lesbian_N.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gotta admire her guts, though it seems she is having more trouble with adults than her class mates. IM going to be the odd woman here. The yearbook pictures are a time consuming process that the SCHOOL pays for , they arent a private photo shoot to express yourself. There is a uniform code for the pictures that applies to everyone and is therefor fare. My son would have preferred to wear jeans on his picture day too but the boys were required to wear suits. It was one day for one event and I think those paying to have the pictures taken had the right to try to keep things uniform. The rest of the year they may dress how they wish. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a touchy subject for both sides. Taking devils advocate side, I can see both sides being equally right. The mother should have the choice to deliver how she wants to, and in this case is exercising that right; I find it odd that she has to go three hundred (?) miles away in order to do so, instead of choosing a different option like say having a midwife deliver the baby at home?
However, the hospital also has the legal obligation to protect it's patients as much as possible, and some insurances, yes we are getting into the insurance issue again, will not insure a hospital UNLESS they do exactly what the insurance agency tells them to, even if it means crossing an I and dotting a T. I personally think a fair compromise would be that the hospital require, say a one hour class giving information on the facts of ALL kinds of birthing options (or longer if neccesary), and that if the mother chooses to go what is considered a more dangerous route, such as having a vacs, that the mother be required to waive in writing any legal rights she has, also releasing the hospital from being able to be sued from anyone else, to suing the hospital if a complication does arrive DIRECTLY RELATED TO HER CHOICE OF HAVING THE MORE DANGEROUS PROCEDURE. Now, if the hospital screws up and it is not because of the vacs (in this case) then the hospital is still legally liable; for example say the doctor accidentally tears the mothers vaginal lining to where she hemmorages, then yes the hospital would be at fault. Or if they have to have an emergency c-section and the doctor sews an instrument up insed of the mother, then the hospital is at fault. BUT, so long as the mother is given all the information possible to make an informed decision, then it should still be her choice to have it done any way she chooses, as long as she is willing to waive legal action if something happens due to HER choice and not the hospital staff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Despite the song from the 80's WE are NOT the world. We are the United States of AMERICA, and the laws in our own land should be adhered to and enforced before ANYTHING outside of our country is even looked at.
How the hell do we have the right to step up to say, Afghanistan and tell them "you are wrong for persecuting people of different religion; everyone has the right to believe what they believe..." or "You can not tell Jane she can only marry Dick; Jane has the right to choose for herself" When we don't enforce these values and laws in our own country? I am sorry if this offends you but that makes us the biggest hypocrite in existence! People being slaughterd all over the world---and news like this makes the big time---well, the way it goes-- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how is it B.S. when President Obama calls for allowing states to make their own decisions on whether or not to allow medical marijuana?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091019/ap_on_bi_ge/us_medical_marijuana_19 According to the story, the Feds can no longer pursue medical marijuana users in the 14 States in which use is legal. Yay! Now we just have to work on the rest of the States and nullifying other unconstitutional Federal laws.     Heard this today about the medical marijuana... Reporting from Washington - Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. said today the Obama administration is officially reversing the federal stance on medical marijuana and ordering authorities not to arrest or charge any users and suppliers who conform to state laws. WTF???? Thats some real B.S! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol, no the act applies to all business both private and public as well as government. Yes you are free to hire who you want at what wages you choose (and I only chose you cause of your sweet personality and good lucks, cause I know you would not hire illegal aliens in order to save a buck or two and watch our citizens go hungry because of it
 ); however, you still have to follow federal hiring guidelines insofar as non-discrimination, and hiring legal citizens. And yes, your companies employee roster and their wages are public information. I have gone through the process myself in order to get said information on a couple public retail stores. The one fired three people who could not prove their legal status to work in the United States a week after I got the information, claiming they found out after an internal review, lol. very well said Fran. If more people would have your attitude, and then follow up if they did not get hired for these undesirable jobs, to find out who did get hired (which is public information), and file complaints and legal action when illegal aliens are found to have been hired for less, then we would start seeing some equality int he job market. For those that don't know this, freedom of information laws dictate that a company has to disclose who works for it at any given time, along with all wages paid out to each worker. I am not saying it is easy to get companies to comply with this law, and most times it is far too expensive to fight for that information, but it is available. So let's say I applied for a job as a meatpacker; I have done this job for ten years, and always had excellent reports and letters of reccomendation from my employers. I apply to Fran for a job as she just opened a new meatpacking warehouse. I am applying for a management position due to my experience and recomendations. I get turned down. I find out a week later that Fran has filled the position. I have the legal right to know who she hired and how much she is paying him/her. Let's say I find out she hired an illegal alien, and is paying him far less than she would have paid me had she hired me. I take that information into court, and to the DA's office and watch as Fran scrambles to try and convince everyone that she had no idea the person was illegal, and that she simply chose him because they were cheaper to hire. Now, let's say Fran gets tired of this happening and outsources to another country completely. We crack down on our tarriffs, and refuse her entry back into the United states (on a business level not personally), meaning she can not sell tot he United States because of the fact that she is producing out of country and thus not following the Countries standards for employment, production, possibly safety and health etc tec tec. Eventually we WiLL stop outsourcing and hiring of illegal aliens. The act explicitly applies only to federal government agencies. Least that was my understanding. Who will you be requesting this said information from Daniel? Me and my hypothetical company? Are you telling me I am not free to hire whomever I deem best suited for the position? You are too much but must admit you do make me laugh |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. I remember chewing my cousin-in-law's husband out once because he refused to accept a job at burger king flipping burgers for forty hours a week guarunteed in writing. His reasoning was he would rather he and she go hungry, and live with her parents who were living off of social security, than flip burgers for minimum wage. He actually had the gall to demand they offer him a wage of 10 dollars an hour in order to flip burgers.
Illegals do what nobody else wants to do in my area too. Sorry Winx, but this one is a pet peeve of mine. I agree that illegals often do some of the more undesirable jobs. However if they weren't there to do those jobs, the market would adjust and make those jobs more desirable by paying more. That's what the free market is all about. Basically what we're doing is outsourcing these jobs. Only in thise case we manage to outsource to illegals. Many people think they're above those kinds of jobs. I know some people here who have been out of work, yet refuse to take certain jobs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
very well said Fran. If more people would have your attitude, and then follow up if they did not get hired for these undesirable jobs, to find out who did get hired (which is public information), and file complaints and legal action when illegal aliens are found to have been hired for less, then we would start seeing some equality int he job market.
For those that don't know this, freedom of information laws dictate that a company has to disclose who works for it at any given time, along with all wages paid out to each worker. I am not saying it is easy to get companies to comply with this law, and most times it is far too expensive to fight for that information, but it is available. So let's say I applied for a job as a meatpacker; I have done this job for ten years, and always had excellent reports and letters of reccomendation from my employers. I apply to Fran for a job as she just opened a new meatpacking warehouse. I am applying for a management position due to my experience and recomendations. I get turned down. I find out a week later that Fran has filled the position. I have the legal right to know who she hired and how much she is paying him/her. Let's say I find out she hired an illegal alien, and is paying him far less than she would have paid me had she hired me. I take that information into court, and to the DA's office and watch as Fran scrambles to try and convince everyone that she had no idea the person was illegal, and that she simply chose him because they were cheaper to hire. Now, let's say Fran gets tired of this happening and outsources to another country completely. We crack down on our tarriffs, and refuse her entry back into the United states (on a business level not personally), meaning she can not sell tot he United States because of the fact that she is producing out of country and thus not following the Countries standards for employment, production, possibly safety and health etc tec tec. Eventually we WiLL stop outsourcing and hiring of illegal aliens. Illegals do what nobody else wants to do in my area too. Sorry Winx, but this one is a pet peeve of mine. I agree that illegals often do some of the more undesirable jobs. However if they weren't there to do those jobs, the market would adjust and make those jobs more desirable by paying more. That's what the free market is all about. Basically what we're doing is outsourcing these jobs. Only in thise case we manage to outsource to illegals. This is my pet peeve Tx, if people stopped thinking they are the victims and took the jobs available, this would mean less jobs for the illegal aliens. Funny but I have absolutely no shame, in order to take care of me and mine I would do whatever job I could get my hands on. Take the job, show employers your worth and potential, that may raise your income, not sitting on the side lines griping and blaming others for taking jobs you never wanted in the first place, as some consider those jobs beneath them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Need Understanding
|
|
lol, in the case of showing his bum, I would reccomend showing the kid what happens when the bum leaves the protection of the pants
No offense but sounds like your son has been running his own show for a long time and it doesn't take a lot for him to pull rank on you. If he does this in the military someone will shut him down hard. I doubt that will do you much good though. If you are lucky enough to meet a decent guy and your kid shows his bum you need to pull that kid up by his ears and make him apologize for his rude disrespectful behavior not only to your boyfriend but you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Need Understanding
|
|
Wrong answer hun. And dont misunderstand me, I have such a problem with drama, that I refuse tolive any closer than ten miles to the closest VILLAGE at this point in life, and whenever it gets too bad (most people would say it is nothing but a nuisance when for me it is too bad), I will end up in the hospital because I literally can not even leave the fetal position on the ground, and my entire lower back, hips and pelvis are spasming so bad I almost look like I am having a seizure (last time it happened my friend thought I was having a stroke or heart attack).
My point is, both of my boys know this about me. My nine year old is already entering puberty, and trying to push his limits as far as possible. He tries to do the same thing your son is doing to you; cause so much grief and heartache that we will bow down to what they want, and do what they want (or not want in some cases), in order to avoid the pain and emotional heartaches. I would recommend sitting your son down and talking with him, letting him know you will not tolerate it, maybe get him into counseling. Also you said he is interested in the Marines right? And fifteen years old? Go to your local recruiter station talk to a Marine recruiter, and have them talk to your son. Trust me when I tell you that the recruiter WILL get your son to toe the line (and not by treating him like a soldier or a grunt or anything bad). He will make it quite clear that a Marine is expected to act responsibly and in a mature manner,as well as honorably, and that if your son can not do these things then he will not be accepted into the corps. And trust me when I say that I have SEEN boys get turned away for treating their parents like dirt; the military does not want bullies or manipulators in it's ranks. Good luck and stand firm. Also, if this guy is as great as you made him out to be, he is not going to walkaway just because your son is an ignorant little priss right now; he might walk away cause he thinks it would be better for you though, if you let him, so I would call him up immediately, apologize for the rudeness and unexpected behavior out of your son, and let him know you are willing to do what it takes to make the relationship work out, if that is truly how you feel. Why is my oldest pushing away every guy that comes into my life? How many guys has he been introduced to? Perhaps, in his view it is too many? Only four----This guy was the fourth and maybe the last.I'm to point of just staying single till he{my son} leaves home in two years to go into the Marines.I'm the type I don't like stress and drama and I;m just one that will keep peace.I will give up all for my son just to keep peace even though it's going to hurt for along time.I guess I will get into my work more to keep my mind off things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
EMERGENCY
|
|
I am glad to hear it, though I hope your daughter and her partner have the sense to remove alcohol from further events, as obviously it is something your daughter can not handle.
good news i just talk to my daughter, everything seem to be ok now they were having a family party and my daughter had 2 beers and a streght shot of whiskey. and she doesnt even remember what happen or why she did that.(sounds like she blacked out) and her partner came back the next day and said she didnt want her to leave. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forgive me, but this is where need to step in. Let me start out by saying I am all for humanitarian measures. However, what many people need to realize is that to provide "humanitarian" aid to illegal aliens, thus creates INHUMANE conditions to legal citizens.
First, for those who claim they believe in the same thing as our ancestors who came over here looking for a better place t live, thus believe in allowing others to do so as well; yes our forefathers came from a tyrannical England (nothing personal to the English of today lol), and settled here. Yes they made mistakes, LIKE ALL HUMANS DO. However, do not forget that it was our forefathers who created the constitution of the United States, and it was our forefathers who declared that in order to live in this new country you had to be a legal resident. Guidlelines were drawn up on how to apply for citizenship and thus be able to live here and strive for the American dream, etc. So, our forefathers, made steps to ensuring that everyone who lived here, belongs here, and has the same right and chance to live here as anyone else. Second, by granting amnesty, or abolishing citizenship regulations and laws, yuo are denying the American dream to Americans. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, America is a COUNTRY, and as a country it can only provide for tis own people (which it is failing to do on a very lrge scale which increases daily). We can not help those who are unwilling to follow the guidelines and proper procedures first, when our own people are out of work, starving, and freezing to death on the streets because all our resources are going towards the non-citizen. I prefer neighbors and citizens who care too much for others than those that dont care at all for the sake of laughs and entertainment. Ya know what?? I want my neighbors to care too. I want them to care about the fact that there are MILLIONS of people in this country who have broken the law. I want them to care about the millions of families in this country that live below the poverty line. I want them to care about the millions of families in this country who don't know where their next meal is going to come from. I want them to care about the thousands upon thousands of homeless folks. I want them to care about the millions of people who are out of work and can't find another job because a lot of jobs are being taken up by illegal aliens and the crooked employers who hire them. Noone said we shouldnt care about those things too. Nope. You didn't. But how many threads do we see about those concerns?? As opposed to how many we see that have arguments about how great/terrible Obama is? Sure. Everyone SHOULD care about those things. But as I look around here and some other places....you would have a very hard time convincing me that many actually DO. I understand completely. Perhaps someone could suggest a thread to address humanitarian type issues such as those you have presented? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In general, the high school curriculum should have as many Optional courses as possible: Philosophy, Religion, etc. (and any other BS)... After all, the kids must have a certain number of credits to fulfill, so WHY NOT? even the BUSKET WEEVING will do -- for those who's got NO FRIGGING IDEA what they are doing!!! However, for those kids whose parents participate in their upbringing, such courses are better be left just an Option!!! let's use a current event as an example here. In louisianna, there is a Justice of the Peace who is facing charges (eventually) of discrimination and bigotry because he refuses to marry interracial couples, "I am not a bigot, but I do not believe in mixing the races in that manner". You can be sure this guy raised his children (if he had any), as he saw fit, which assumedly would include raising them as bigots and racists. As a United States citizen, would his children benefit more with sociology classes being elective (which means legally the parent can refuse to allow the 17 year old to take the class), or mandatory? Education is not the only way we are going to get past the dark ages, but it is the number ONE way. Attitude and acceptance are the other two ways. Without all three we will never be any better than this justice of the peace. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
