lol

A d d is not funny. That runs in my family. Guess that is where I get my brains from! ;) haven't you ever heard of addmirable women! ;)

I work in law enforcement. I like cuffs!lol

Msn is always having trouble. just hand in there.

www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=5721http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNo0_klKzis >About | FAQ | Terms | Privacy | Safety Tips | Contact MySpace | Promote! | Advertise | MySpace International >©2003-2007 MySpace.com. All Rights

and I believe DANIALSON you stated it was MY cry!! If you would have read to the bottom it might have helped. 2nd. The chess pieces are in play. Pay attention. AND mr gardenforge with all due respect. DON'T VOTE! We have more to do then pay taxes. Electing a president has more to do then paying taxes. Your comment had absolutely nothing to do with of which was first written. We are going to be going to war again. We all better hope and pray with all the chess pieces in place now that bush doesn't start it or he will remain the president. He won over Gore didn't he? How? hmmmmmmm! Evil that is how!!!! Don't think that the unthinkable isn't going to happen. It's all biblical anyway. What we try to do doesn't really matter because it's all foreseen anyway. If he was going to be impeached it would have already happened. Chess anyone?

http://www.gcstation.net/liefreezone/


thought i'd share this site with you all too.

National Security & Homeland Security Presidential Directive <br />Body: okay, so the Government releases a report - <br /><br />Al Qaeda strongest since September 11, 2001.<br /><br />(http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/al.qaeda.report/index.html)<br /><br />in this report, which is only 5 pages long (you would think it would be longer since it's been over 5 years!), <br /><br />"The five-page intelligence analysis remains classified and was prepared for senior U.S. policymakers. It was not issued in response to a specific threat."<br /><br />*it says not issued in response to a specific threat*<br /><br />we also have this recently - <br /><br />Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, who recently told the Toronto Star that "The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago." <br /><br />and Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security chief - <br /><br />"I have a gut feeling that another big bang is coming this summer..."<br /><br />(http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/110707deadamericans.htm)<br /><br />so again, there is no evidence of anything.<br /><br /><br />now we have this - <br /><br />Report: Al Qaeda renewing efforts to sneak terror plotters into U.S.<br /><br />http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/12/terror.threat.ap/index.html<br /><br /><br />HERE IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION TO. IF WE HAVE ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK BUSH CAN STAY PRESIDENT.<br /><br />The Bush administration has released a directive called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron Paul and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this directive, Bush declares that in the event of a "Catastrophic Emergency" the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency. <br /><br />The directive defines a "Catastrophic Emergency" as the following. <br /><br />"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions; <br /><br />So what does this mean? This is entirely subjective and doesn't provide any real concrete definition of what such an emergency would entail. Assuming that it means a disaster on the scale of the 9/11 attacks or Katrina, there is no question that the United States at some point in time will experience an emergency on par with either of those events. When one of those events takes place, the President will be a dictator in charge of ensuring a working constitutional government. <br /><br />The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn't say that the President will work with the other branches of government equally to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches that will be coordinated by the President. If the President is coordinating these efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every branch. The language in the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature making it seem that it is a cooperative effort between all three branches but than it says that the President is in charge of the cooperative effort. <br /><br />The directive defines Enduring Constitutional Government as the following. <br /><br />"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency; <br /><br />Further on in the document it states the following. <br /><br />The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. <br /><br />This directive on its face is unconstitutional because each branch of government the executive, legislative and judicial are supposed to be equal in power. By putting the President in charge of coordinating such an effort to ensure constitutional government over all three branches is effectively making the President a dictator allowing him to tell all branches of government what to do. <br /><br />Even worse is the fact that the directive states that the Secretary of Homeland Security will serve as the lead for coordinating overall continuity operations. We already know that the Homeland Security department is not really working to secure the homeland. Instead the Homeland Security department is really working to enslave the homeland just like the Home Office over in the United Kingdom has made that country an Orwellian hell of closed-circuit TV spy cameras. If such an emergency is declared, we can only guess what sort of surprises the Homeland Enslavement department will have for us. <br /><br />The directive itself recognizes that each branch is already responsible for directing their own continuity of government procedures. If that's the case than why does the President need to coordinate these procedures for all of the branches? This is nothing more than a power grab that centralizes power and will make the President a dictator in the case of a so called "Catastrophic Emergency". <br /><br />It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very language in the document destroys what a working constitutional government is supposed to be. A working constitutional government contains a separation of powers between three equally powerful branches and this directive states that the executive branch has the power to coordinate the activities of the other branches. This directive is a clear violation of constitutional separation of powers and there should be angry protests from our legislators about this anti-American garbage that came from the President. <br /><br />www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=5721<br /><br /><br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNo0_klKzis <br /><br /><br /><br />About | FAQ | Terms | Privacy | Safety Tips | Contact MySpace | Promote! | Advertise | MySpace International <br /><br />©2003-2007 MySpace.com. All Rights

happens to all of us so i decided to start asking them. men hate rejection and if you look like you will reject them then they won't ask. GO ASK. married ones are more probable to saying no.

i've seen others that should have been nominated and are not. I wouldn't let it get to me, some take advantage of things and do it just because.

I know that infatuation, or the "in love" feelings; are temporary..1 to 2 years or so. There are powerful brain chemicals associated with those feelings, and also with "chemistry", that are very addictive.
They hit the same receptors as opiates, and give a way better high. That is why so many people are into "serial monogamy," where they are monogamous, but to a long string of different people.
When the high goes away; they go looking for it again...thinking they had made another mistake, or they didn't really know the last one, etc...The couples who make it are the ones who, when faced with the extinguished infatuation; they remain committed to their vows and work to know each other better. They learn to apologize, forgive,
and accept each other. Out of that grows true love, Godly love.

lol I love it!!!!

I do some work in the music business and my page has brought that work
to me!! Feel free to stop by and say hello

lol! Always expect the unexpected!!! Nawwwwwwww!

Everybodys input is important!

hello ryan. Nice to meet you

I hope it works for him as well. Sounds like a story to finish when he
gets back!!!

Thank you for your comments. And, though I don't particularly like my
own theory, I do believe it's true, and the only way to break out of it,
especially the longer we dabble in the world of Internet dating sites,
is to acknowledge its existence, and do our best to conscientiously keep
from falling into that rut.

I really do hope to find my "True Love" one of these days and yank my
profile off these sites once and for all, lol... however, in the mean
time, I do find some enjoyment in meeting new friends online (as well as
many in person) and the social world it offers. But I certainly don't
want to become "content" with just this! (That sounds like another
syndrome altogether! Yikes!!)

lol ;-)

Sometimes I find this Online Dating scene to be less successful than
just meeting someone thru a friend. I don't know... maybe I'm just too
picky. I've met a few dozen men over the past 4 yrs, and very few have
interested me beyond one or two dates.... and, of course, there have
been a couple who weren't that interested in me either... lol...

My theory here, however, is that we may meet someone interesting, but
because we're so exposed on the Internet with lots of opportunities
knocking at our door each week, that we may not give that person we've
just met enough of a chance... expecting them to either knock our sox
off the first time we meet, or we simply toss them aside and look for
the next opportunity. Hmmmm... I wonder if this is keeping many of us
from getting into committed relationships... What do you think?

elevator is working and I'm selling tickets!!! Welcome!

I've spoken to a few really great men here. Each with their own personal
personna. You know who you are and you have my utmost admiration.