100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > Delsoldamien
|
|
|
But if they pass laws allowing two men or two women to join in a union, why can't 3 people or more join in a union or contract also?? Or as disgusting as it is to think, why not between humans and animals? In california they want animals to be treated as humans, with the same rights as people..Now I wouldn't support that for obvious reasons, and it disgusts me to even think about it, but my feelings about it shouldn't make it wrong right?? But what grounds do you have to object to multiple people getting married and animals being people getting married? Now that is exactly the kind of disgusting ignorance I would have expected .. Thanks for reaffirming that for me... 
So you oppose multiple people getting married?? Why?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Skewed Views of Science
|
|
but on the topic of the video, there wasn't much there to disagree with. everyone has their biases, even the strictest and most rigid of scientists. I know geologists with PhD's that will swear up and down that global warming is hands-down, man-made, no doubt about it, in the face of contradictory evidence because it fits their political view. Ivory tower intellectuals, the lot of them. Hardly ever spent a day outside the golden cloak of academia, so... It appears there is more than enough ego and arrogance and bullheadedness on both sides of the issue of global warming. So do you believe that global warming is man made?? Let's put it this way, I don't have to look very far from my own area to see how man affects his environment. I also think that both sides of this issue have their own agenda, and are not going to be completely honest about their views. Which sucks because it leaves the average person wondering who is telling the truth. Both sides have their points but I tend to think why take the chance. If it is real, and we wait until the last minute, they we have only our selves to blame. Either way, doing the things that would avoid disaster are actually things we should be considering for the future anyway. I see no harm in being cautious rather than simply pretending it's not going to happen. I agree that politics has screwed any hope of making this issue go away. I would use more effient methods of transportation if they had it available, I am building a new house and am working with LED lights to provide lighting to reduce my consumption...I have to admit that it is because I like to save money, not my over concern about the environment though. Correct science shows that this is a natural earth cycle and that a very small portion is from man, but agree that we all should do things to reduce the impacts whether motivated by financial concerns or environmental concerns. The problem will be with other countries, and I do not belive that our government should be dictating what should happen. I believe that if you come up with a good idea how to help out, good marketing and a good product sells itself, so there is no need to do so...but I hate being forced to do it by people that push their political opinions and use it as a tool to control and promote an entitlment society. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also stated that I did not support the homosexual agenda, but belive that in this country, a person can believe or do whatever they want.If law makers passed laws making homosexual contracts legal, then that is up to them, I do not pass laws and only have my one vote. But if they pass laws allowing two men or two women to join in a union, why can't 3 people or more join in a union or contract also?? Or as disgusting as it is to think, why not between humans and animals? In california they want animals to be treated as humans, with the same rights as people..Now I wouldn't support that for obvious reasons, and it disgusts me to even think about it, but my feelings about it shouldn't make it wrong right?? But what grounds do you have to object to multiple people getting married and animals being people getting married? Oh boy, here we go. So, it's ok for a man and woman to be joined in a union. But not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. If either of those were to happen, why does that have anything to do with more than to people? Or people and animals? I never, ever understood that argument. It just doesn't make sense at all. But you didn't answer the question, on what grounds would you oppose it?? I am not allowed to oppose homosexual unions, I am called bigoted and homophobic, so I was wondering on what grounds you would oppose other unions..since my moral standards don't believe in homosexual unions, I oppose them, but belive that they have the right to have laws passed giving them the right to do so. If my moral standards are not to be considered and many others standards are not to be considered,by what standard prevents you from excepting or allowing those other unions?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
rush limbaugh
|
|
You have to remember Gio..you are only smart and intelligent if you are liberal...and the more liberal you are the smarter you are!! Just ask the likes of Obama, Biden, Hillary and the others..they will tell you so!! hahaaha I thought the conservatives thought only they were smart and intelligent?  
No we are just mean spirited, bigotted, self absorbed, narrow minded, religious right winged wackos...hahahaha Ah finally he admits it. 
Your right, I wouldn't have expected you to understand.. You're the one who said what conservatives were. She didn't.
I was only repeating things that the previous posts have stated that liberals believe conservatives are..I thought that you could catch that, but I was wrong..my apoligies :) I didn't think I'd have to point it out, but I was being sarcastic. Notice the laughing icon? It was not to be taken seriously .
gotcha..I only come on these blogs every once and a while, not used to kindness and fun loving people on here..hahahaa |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And Singme, I would call it un-natural for a man an a woman to not bare children..since it is natural for men and women together to mate and reproduce..but that does not make them weird, wrong or bad in my book. Unfortunate would most likely come to mind. Since it would be unfortunate that they couldn't have children. People that do not support homosexuallity because of their faith beliefs are people too, and have feelings, and want inclusion too, feel discriminated against, and repressed and oppressed just as other groups have too. Because most liberal people treat them that way...inequality runs both directions, so all I ask is that we treat each other they way we want to be treated... is that so hard for liberals to grasp?? There are many straight people out there who choose not to have children. By what you've said they're not wrong, but homosexuals are wrong, because it's unnatural. So, two women being in love and wanting to get married would be wrong because they cannot have children? A man and women being in love and wanting to get married, but choose to have no children would be fine to you? If you read my previous statements, I said that marriage is a church function, not to be mistaken for the state requirements of a legal document they sign to signify their union. If two people want to go before a judge and join in a legal union or contract with each other, that has nothing to do with a church wedding. After all, you can be married in a church, but not recognized by the state as being married, or united by a judge, and not be married as far as the church is concerned.. people want to blurr the lines between the church and the government santioned ceremonies. If the state wants to pass laws for people to join in a legal binding agreement, just as they do now, then so be it, I did not comment on that activity. About being natural, procreation is only possible in humans between a man and a woman, not being able to do that is un-natural, is it not? I didn't say one way or the other whether it was right or wrong, just that it was un-natural. Two people that chose not to have children is not natural, because unless barren, they have to take un-natural steps to prevent it. I have noticed that since people have changed the meaning of words to no longer mean what they were designed to say, there is alot of confusion, and I believe that this is the case here. I also stated that I did not support the homosexual agenda, but belive that in this country, a person can believe or do whatever they want.If law makers passed laws making homosexual contracts legal, then that is up to them, I do not pass laws and only have my one vote. But if they pass laws allowing two men or two women to join in a union, why can't 3 people or more join in a union or contract also?? Or as disgusting as it is to think, why not between humans and animals? In california they want animals to be treated as humans, with the same rights as people..Now I wouldn't support that for obvious reasons, and it disgusts me to even think about it, but my feelings about it shouldn't make it wrong right?? But what grounds do you have to object to multiple people getting married and animals being people getting married? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
GITMO Detainees
|
|
oo lets hold them a fair constitutional trial..bring the soldiers and marines that captured them over here...pull out all the stops. do our BEST to convict them in front of a jury of lawabidding american citizens. idc...I would hope the result would be the same. would that make y'all happy? let obama represent them If they were captured by soldiers then they are POW's. If they are POW's then they should be in a POW camp and afforded every rite accorded by the Geneva Convention. Just as we would expect for our soldiers. I am not an expert, but doesn't only pertain to uniformed enemies of a particular nation? Terrorists are not established uniformed armies for any country...except Palistine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
rush limbaugh
|
|
You have to remember Gio..you are only smart and intelligent if you are liberal...and the more liberal you are the smarter you are!! Just ask the likes of Obama, Biden, Hillary and the others..they will tell you so!! hahaaha I thought the conservatives thought only they were smart and intelligent?
No we are just mean spirited, bigotted, self absorbed, narrow minded, religious right winged wackos...hahahaha Ah finally he admits it.
Your right, I wouldn't have expected you to understand.. You're the one who said what conservatives were. She didn't.
I was only repeating things that the previous posts have stated that liberals believe conservatives are..I thought that you could catch that, but I was wrong..my apoligies :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Skewed Views of Science
|
|
but on the topic of the video, there wasn't much there to disagree with. everyone has their biases, even the strictest and most rigid of scientists. I know geologists with PhD's that will swear up and down that global warming is hands-down, man-made, no doubt about it, in the face of contradictory evidence because it fits their political view. Ivory tower intellectuals, the lot of them. Hardly ever spent a day outside the golden cloak of academia, so... It appears there is more than enough ego and arrogance and bullheadedness on both sides of the issue of global warming. So do you believe that global warming is man made?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. So what are you saying your daughter was gay, yet you are still against it? Explain.. You appear to have missed a few classes on the animal kingdom but I won't push it....... I have pretty good idea where you stand having read many of your posts. If you didn't get what I meant about YOU GUYS then I expect you missed the meaning of what I said altogether... It had nothing to do with racism... ''''''''''' Because most liberal people treat them that way...inequality runs both directions, so all I ask is that we treat each other they way we want to be treated... is that so hard for liberals to grasp?? '''''''''''''' There you go again with the liberal this and liberal that, and you wonder why I respond in kind... LOL My daughter was killed in a car accident 7 years..8 years ago now, she wasn't old enough to determine what her preference was..she was only 2..but I would not have loved her any less, I still wouldn't support it either. I have a BSN and although I did not continue in the sciences, I have taken enough classes to know that although there are abborations in all species, it is not a very common attribute in any of them. Only a small percentage of humans are homosexual, less then 4%, not the 13% some like to claim, but it is not important to me either way. I was just kidding about the racism..just showing how hypocritical those that claim how openminded and diverse they are..since they can't seem to show those that don't agree with them the same amount of respect they demand. Liberal is not a bad word...or at least I thought so. I do not consider conservative a bad name either, I point out the inconsistancies of some that sterotype me, but connect others with the statements that each person makes only to point out the hypocracy of their own words. So if you think I am bad because I am conservative, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I do not think you are bad because you are liberal. I am conservative socially and fiscally, I have never claimed to be above or below anyone. I desire to talk about issues and ask questions to try to determine the thinking behind each persons statements and can defend people of faith against the bigotry and hatred that is spewed against them. Christians were considered for many generations to be overall good people, but times have changed and moral values have declined, and now you get people that hate them because they stand for the same things they have believed for many centuries. I do not think that name calling is the best way to discuss issues, but might do so if that becomes the only way to discuss a subject with someone.. I look at you and others as my liberal friends..no harm...no foul..:) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Union Way Up
|
|
yeah but the technician only sees a small amount of that (my rate is on the higher end because of my certifications and I make $20). We are paid off the work we do. if we do 60 hours (as listed in the labor book) in a 40 hour week, we get paid 60 hours. on the other hand, I've only booked 14 hours in a 48 hour week before and only got paid for 14 hours. while getting charged 6 hours labor for a job that I do in 3 (injector pump on a dodge/cummins diesel, for example) may not seem fair, turn it around once. would you like to pay 6 hours for a job that should only take 3 because the tech is slow? I've seen techs take almost two days to do a pump like that. not to mention the costs of running an automotive shop now is astronomical. our workman's comp insurance is now over $6,000 a person a year. On top of that, we have accident insurance too. Environmental concerns with disposing used oil and coolant and tires are expensive too. We have to have the driver of the disposal truck on our insurance in case there's a spill. Then my employer it kind enough to pay for a PPO plan for us as well (with no union or collective bargaining involved). it's not a cheap industry to be in. The UAW workers get paid an astounding salary to do what they do (very little). As a former dealer technician, I would have to do repairs on probably 10% of all new vehicles that I did pre-inspections on for stupid mistakes. careless mistakes like interior panels installed wrong, body panels misaligned, bolts not tightened so the suspension rattles, etc. I fully agree that parts are higher quality when made here (Napa USA made/rebuilt is a million times better than the lesser parts houses from personal experience). as for labor, there is no reason to pay a man $27 an hour plus medical for their family, plus retirement to install panels or torque a bolt. cut that and keep the medical. Having everything (all benefits added in) means the average cost per hour is over $78 for each and every UAW worker. That is asinine.
Would I want a underpaid RN giving care to my child...NO!!! I want the best trained and most skilled one working on her..I'm sure you are and well deserve the pay you make. Would I want an under paid less skilled person building the car she will be driving on highways that are posted at 70mph? No way man!!!! Would I want some backyard mechanic servicing the auto? NO!!! If I need heart surgery would I want the least trained less paid surgeon? NO! YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!!! Unions do no guarentee that you are getting a quality employee and does not guarentee that they do quality work..I have had both union and non-union people work for me and the most important aspect to me is who I pick and hire. I included health care when I hired someone to work for me, but it would be alot easier if small and medium business could join together to get better rates for health benifits, then more people could be hired and provided with health care. Right now the shop I run is union, they start out at 17.50 an hour with full benifits and work up to 32.20 per hour. The average wage is about $59,000 a year and with benifits and compinsation cost me about another$40 to 50,000 more on top of that. Cut down my benifit costs and I could hire more people.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
rush limbaugh
|
|
You have to remember Gio..you are only smart and intelligent if you are liberal...and the more liberal you are the smarter you are!! Just ask the likes of Obama, Biden, Hillary and the others..they will tell you so!! hahaaha I thought the conservatives thought only they were smart and intelligent?
No we are just mean spirited, bigotted, self absorbed, narrow minded, religious right winged wackos...hahahaha Ah finally he admits it.
Your right, I wouldn't have expected you to understand.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's definitely sending the wrong message to children and teaching them to be close minded. Is that what we really need? More people growing up to be close minded and homophobic? That is exactly the point to turn out close minded religiously brain washed phobics of one kind or another, and the legal right to do it. I am sure there is a more pc way of putting it. Phobias indicate fear..I don't think most christian people fear Homosexuals, I know I don't...I find it un-natural, since nature is driven by the need to reproduce itself...and they cannot do that...But you are more interested in calling people names and demeaning them for their beleifs while patting yourself on the back for your unbrainwashed mind and openmindedness. At least be fair and consistant in your belief, hipocracy is ugly. Get a grip! Fear homosexuals?, I would say it's more about fearing homosexuality in themselves or in their children, fear that it' some how catching. You have no clue what nature is driven by Delsold, there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom as well. And as for calling names, if you Christians will stop maybe I will too. Never thought to pat myself on the back for being open minded or un-brainwashed, but come to think of it, Thanks for the tip.. It took getting rid of the Christian brainwashing I took in as a kid to come to open mindedness myself. Hypocrisy is ugly, maybe you want to tell your conservative friends the same. By the way i am fair and consistent in my belief, you guys haven't changed have you? I do not fear homosexuals in any way, and if my daughter was alive today, I wouldn't fear for her either. Animals are driven to reproduce by scent and the innate desire they were born with..I don't know of any species that has survived by being homosexual. And I don't personally know any animals that are mated in a homosexual relationship..must have missed that in my science and biology classes.. It is part of the nature versus nurture debate in the science world. You don't know what I believe or if I am a christian or not, because you treat anyone that differs from your opinion, you assume things..and you know what they say about assuming don't you?? I do not support hipocracy in any form, coming from a conservative or liberal, it is all the same to me, a living condradiction I guess. And by "you guys" I am not sure who you are talking about, if I were a black man, I would call that statement racist by your standards, if I were a woman, I would call that gender biased by your standards, If I were a homosexual I would call that homophobic by your standards...but you don't know me so I would call that hypocracy..since you claim to be openminded... And Singme, I would call it un-natural for a man an a woman to not bare children..since it is natural for men and women together to mate and reproduce..but that does not make them weird, wrong or bad in my book. Unfortunate would most likely come to mind. Since it would be unfortunate that they couldn't have children. People that do not support homosexuallity because of their faith beliefs are people too, and have feelings, and want inclusion too, feel discriminated against, and repressed and oppressed just as other groups have too. Because most liberal people treat them that way...inequality runs both directions, so all I ask is that we treat each other they way we want to be treated... is that so hard for liberals to grasp?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why? Dont you read the news? Obama warns Pakistan on al-Qaeda Wednesday, 1 August 2007, 19:47 GMT 20:47 UK Mr Obama made the comments in a speech outlining his foreign policy positions. Pakistan's foreign ministry said any threat to act against al-Qaeda from within its territory should not be used for political point-scoring. Earlier this month, Mr Obama's chief rival, Hillary Clinton, described him as "naive" on foreign policy. The attack from Mrs Clinton came after a televised debate between Democrat presidential hopefuls. During the debate Mr Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of states such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions. In his speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, Mr Obama criticised the Bush administration's focus on al-Qaeda in Iraq, saying US President George W Bush was "confusing" the mission. He said Americans were more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than before the 9/11 attacks because of a war in Iraq "that should never have been authorised and should never have been waged". "The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan," he said. Aid conditions Mr Obama said General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, must do more to end terrorist operations in his country. He said he would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in US military aid to Pakistan conditional on the following actions by the Pakistani government: substantial progress in closing down terrorist training camps evict foreign fighters prevent the Taleban from using Pakistan as staging area for attacks in Afghanistan "It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005," he said, referring to reports that the US had decided not to launch a strike for fear of harming ties with Pakistan. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Mr Obama said. The BBC's Jonathan Beale, in Washington, says such comments are clearly designed to bolster his credentials among a domestic audience. But a spokeswoman for Pakistan's foreign ministry, Tasnim Aslam, told the AFP news agency that talk of military action was a serious matter and political candidates and commentators should "show responsibility". White House spokesman Tony Snow defended Pakistan's leadership, saying it was working hard to fight al-Qaeda and Taleban fighters within its borders. Gen Musharraf has been a key US ally in its so-called "war on terror" since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. But US officials have publicly said recently that they believe Pakistan has let al-Qaeda and Taleban militants reorganise themselves in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm Funny how he continues to do exactly what he said he would. Finally a President who says what he means and does what he says. You go Mr.. President. Take the war to those who attacked us! But to attack a soverign nation pre-emptively is against the UN and international laws... besides, these men don't pose any threat to us..they are sitting in little huts in the mountains..not on the shores of the USA.. Looks like your guy is following in the footsteps of that guy you hated so much before him... Yeah and he really followed through on his campaing promises and does what he says...no lobbiests, he has two...most ethical administration..he has two tax evaders for his choices for leadership positions..tax breaks for the poor...they don't even pay income taxes.. and he is just getting started... Take a few minutes away from that Move on group to pay attention..Iraq was issued UN Security resolutions, I think 17 of them to provide it with information about their nuclear and chemical weapons capabilities, they refused.. These resolutions called out for negotiations and if those failed, military action to punish Iraq. After repeatedly ignoring these resolutions, and along with information recieved ( in which dems and repubs alike agreed with) We along with the coalition invaded Iraq. What good does it do to tell someone to provide you with the info along with the threat of military action, if you don't follow through with action if they are ignored?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since when don't the poor pay taxes? They pay taxes on their income. They pay sales tax, personal property tax, and they pay real estate taxes if they own a home. They still pay real estate taxes if they rent too. The owner includes it in the rent cost. I didn't say all taxes, I said Income tax.. the federal income tax that they don't pay.. Obamas plan is to give them a "federal tax break"...he cannot dictate( as much as most people believe that he is the Messiah)state and local tax policy.. Everything low income people have taken out of their paychecks for federal income tax...tehy get back and sometimes with the Earned Income Tax benifit, tehy get more back then was held from their paychecks..So how can you give them a tax break on something that they don't pay? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's definitely sending the wrong message to children and teaching them to be close minded. Is that what we really need? More people growing up to be close minded and homophobic? That is exactly the point to turn out close minded religiously brain washed phobics of one kind or another, and the legal right to do it. I am sure there is a more pc way of putting it. Phobias indicate fear..I don't think most christian people fear Homosexuals, I know I don't...I find it un-natural, since nature is driven by the need to reproduce itself...and they cannot do that...But you are more interested in calling people names and demeaning them for their beleifs while patting yourself on the back for your unbrainwashed mind and openmindedness. At least be fair and consistant in your belief, hipocracy is ugly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
rush limbaugh
|
|
So are you making the assumption that he is not a credible source based on what...your opinion or fact?? Most people think news papers are filled with biased opinions of liberal thinkers, shows on CNN MSNBC and FOX are included in that. How true are your sources, and do they over inflate their point of view as well?? I am just curious...I am not a Rush listener or Howard Stern watcher or listener, but I believe that either of them or any newspapers and tv stations do sometimes get some facts correctly..but your sources are no more credible then them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Skewed Views of Science
|
|
A very good instructional video but contains a few biases of it's own, like relating theory to fact in such a tight way that some scientists do. Having a degree in Physics, I know and frequently converse with a great number of "scientists" and not all of them would share the opinions about the big bang, evolution, or even quantum mechanics that seem to be the mainstream. I like science, but scientists have their own biased opinions about the nature of reality that are reflected even in the way that they design their experiments. Have someone dig up a copy of the Einstein-Rosen paper and give it a nice thorough quality check (you will need a LOT of mathematical and if possible physics experience to see the problem) and you will begin to see how sometimes even recognised scientific theory reduces to gibberish and dreamlike perceptions of reality that are NOT based on observed data. Like I said, I like science. It's kind of my life, and I'm not even going to start with my opinions/theories on these matters as that would go beyond the scope of the post (and the analysis that I have written so far constitutes several volumes), but take everything with a grain of salt, even scientific theory and especially medical and psychological theory. Just my two coppers, the Geckgo If their theory's were fact they would be laws of Science wouldn't they be?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why? Dont you read the news? Obama warns Pakistan on al-Qaeda Wednesday, 1 August 2007, 19:47 GMT 20:47 UK Mr Obama made the comments in a speech outlining his foreign policy positions. Pakistan's foreign ministry said any threat to act against al-Qaeda from within its territory should not be used for political point-scoring. Earlier this month, Mr Obama's chief rival, Hillary Clinton, described him as "naive" on foreign policy. The attack from Mrs Clinton came after a televised debate between Democrat presidential hopefuls. During the debate Mr Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of states such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions. In his speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, Mr Obama criticised the Bush administration's focus on al-Qaeda in Iraq, saying US President George W Bush was "confusing" the mission. He said Americans were more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than before the 9/11 attacks because of a war in Iraq "that should never have been authorised and should never have been waged". "The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan," he said. Aid conditions Mr Obama said General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, must do more to end terrorist operations in his country. He said he would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in US military aid to Pakistan conditional on the following actions by the Pakistani government: substantial progress in closing down terrorist training camps evict foreign fighters prevent the Taleban from using Pakistan as staging area for attacks in Afghanistan "It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005," he said, referring to reports that the US had decided not to launch a strike for fear of harming ties with Pakistan. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Mr Obama said. The BBC's Jonathan Beale, in Washington, says such comments are clearly designed to bolster his credentials among a domestic audience. But a spokeswoman for Pakistan's foreign ministry, Tasnim Aslam, told the AFP news agency that talk of military action was a serious matter and political candidates and commentators should "show responsibility". White House spokesman Tony Snow defended Pakistan's leadership, saying it was working hard to fight al-Qaeda and Taleban fighters within its borders. Gen Musharraf has been a key US ally in its so-called "war on terror" since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. But US officials have publicly said recently that they believe Pakistan has let al-Qaeda and Taleban militants reorganise themselves in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm Funny how he continues to do exactly what he said he would. Finally a President who says what he means and does what he says. You go Mr.. President. Take the war to those who attacked us! But to attack a soverign nation pre-emptively is against the UN and international laws... besides, these men don't pose any threat to us..they are sitting in little huts in the mountains..not on the shores of the USA.. Looks like your guy is following in the footsteps of that guy you hated so much before him... Yeah and he really followed through on his campaing promises and does what he says...no lobbiests, he has two...most ethical administration..he has two tax evaders for his choices for leadership positions..tax breaks for the poor...they don't even pay income taxes.. and he is just getting started... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What ever happened to FREEDOM OF CHOICE? Wow all this going on in the Obama administration... you think it would have stopped after Bush left... They still have free choice..they can either choose to go there or choose not to... I believe that religious schools are extentions of Chruches and share their right to establish their own rules and bylaws..just like All black schools and all girls schools..all muslim schools So if they want to establish an all gay school, go to a church that will help you establish one..pretty simple huh?? That DOES sound like the most reasonable solution. But, they weren't exactly reasonable on the marriage issue, so I don't expect it on this one. I do believe in separation of Church from the State, our constitution prohibits the government from intruding on the church, and it should remain that way. And although I do not support the gay issues, I believe that this is America and people can do or think as they please..just don't force me to believe or except other ideas.. Marriages can be performed by the church, and is not legally binding by the government. They require a legal document to be signed to bind two people legally. If the government decides to allow the legal binding of two people together then that is up to them, but the government cannot and should not try to force churches to perform marriages. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Republicans say NO !!
|
|
So can one of you brilliant lefty's explain to me how you give the lower income people a tax cut when they don't pay income tax now??
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
