posted December 31, 2013 at 9:59pm (EST)and the same to you
posted December 30, 2013 at 3:09pm (EST)Happy happy, joy joy
posted November 23, 2011 at 3:21pm (EST)What makes them special?
posted November 23, 2011 at 3:19pm (EST)It is acceptable to join a dependent and independent clause with just a comma; however, you can't change tenses in the same sentence. Get rid of the will. If you forgot to bring your money, you would have to borrow some.
edited November 23, 2011 at 4:04pm (EST)
posted August 19, 2009 at 3:54pm (EST)How very kind of you, good show.
posted August 18, 2009 at 4:11pm (EST)FB: I agree that the tactics are desperate, even despicable, but they are not uncommon. Rather, they are par for the course in American politics. Having said that, I must also say that I do share the concern over our national debt.
Plus, the White House backtracked yesterday, stating co-ops would be an acceptable alternative to a public option...something my party has been advocating for over a year.
CK: working 7-Eleven is a day's honest work for a day's honest pay, and there's nothing with that; this was a deliberate and stupid insult. Plus, my understanding is that FB is trying to better himself through education. This type of banter is the stuff for which FB receives so much criticism, yet here you are doing it. Now nobody here would ever call me a butt-buddy with FB, but right is right, and wrong is wrong. You were wrong, period.
posted August 18, 2009 at 3:59pm (EST)it looks like you had a really great time; good for you!
posted August 18, 2009 at 11:25am (EST)southernyankee wrote:
> Matty wrote:
>> Trade = no more free trade. We want reciprocal trade with countries
>> that have comparable labor costs. Example, If England charges
>> on our imports, we charge England 5% on their imports.
> Isn't that how things are already.
No, currently, other countries charge us, and we don't charge them.
>> That's what
>> we consider "free." With countrties that have bought our technology,
>> but don't pay their people anything, we would have ewqualizing
>> Or, on other words, we would adjust our tarriffs to factor the
>> wage of a worker in that country.
> Wouldn't it be fairer to adjust for countries talking down their currencies
> (to be fair, if Obama keeps printing money, we'd be doing it too,
> and screwing the Chinese bond holders at the same time-- so maybe
> its not such a bad thing).
I don't think so, many countries lie about the value of their currency, besides, the reason to send production overseas is to get cheap labor
>> Example If China can undercut our
>> production of radios by paying their workers 1/10th of what American
>> workers, we tax Chinese the difference of that labor cost, thus
>> what we consider fair competition.
> Yes, but when you factor in their 5 times lower cost of living, that
> "1/10th" is probably more like "1/2". Then again, we're back to
> devaluing their currency.
Again, this is based on selling goods here, the world market would be entirely different.
>> Labor: We would tell American-based companies that if you
>> 65% of your product here, 65% of your employees must work here.
>> would stregnthen or union laws, making it illegeal for companies,
>> like Wal-Mart, to prohibit the formation of unions. We would force
>> companies to offer, at a minimum, cooperative health plans to their
>> workers, and through tax policy, offer incentives for companies
>> contribute to their workers' health plans.
> Health care is already tax exempted. And we already have
> a progressive tax rate policy. Both of these things are a good thing
> don't get me wrong, but at the same time we already do a lot for the
> less fortunate. Companies are already encouraged to pay low end employees
> more based on the lower tax rates on that level (less dead weight
> loss) and it already makes sense to subsidize their medical insurance.
Yes, but we don't compell compoanies to offer a minimum of a cooperative plan; many companies offer nothing. Additionally, the tax break is 1:1; that can be changed.
>> Globalism: No more foreign aid to anyone, and greatly reducing
>> role in the UN. We feel aid has a whiff of imperealism, is not
>> by those who recieve it, and is too damn expensive.
> I somewhat sympathize with that viewpoint. There are already enough
> poor people in the US to worry about poor people overseas, some of
> which want to kill us and/or subscribe to a very backwards barbaric
> culture. On the other hand, their poor people are poorer than poor
> US citizens and the little aid that they receive might benefit the
> US in the long run (up to a point).
I don't disagree with that per se. Plus, as a Christian, I feel compelled to help all poor, but charity begins at home, and a systme that sends foreign kids to Harvard while our own kids can't go to a private school, but have the grades to do so just doesn't pass the "smell" test with me.
>> These views are not embraced by the major 2 parties and those who
>> follow the party line. However, based on our research, there is
>> support for the ideals I mentioned. Most people who are exposed
>> our ideals call us the "common sense" party, and we are very
>> of that.
> I am quite wary of the "common sense" mantra. People who claim to
> represent common sense are in disguise saying "we don't have good
> arguments right now, but you should agree with us anyway because I
> 'just know' that I am right." It is the mantra of LJD.
We don't claim to represent "common snese;" quite the contrary, we aspire to represent the majority based on research. The characterization of common sense has been given to us through our research. Additionally, we are equally wary of the term common snese as the Supreme Court used it to justify slavery and the like.
posted August 14, 2009 at 2:01pm (EST)southernyankee wrote:
> makes Citizens First stand out from the rest. How do you stand out
> from your Know Nothings and your Prohibition Party and what not?
I apologize for not getiing abck to you sooner; I just didn't see it. Let me first clarify by saying that I don't think Dems and Repubs know nothing. Quite the contrary, they know all too well what is happening, but have allowed corruption to color their parties. Corruption in the form of taking money from big corps and foreign governments...like China.
How does Citizens First stand out? Essentially it is a party of mainstream thought as opposed to the wackadoo, outlandish parties who have ideals most Americans would never embrace or are one-issue parties. The basic ideology is a pro-citizen, nationalist one, and much of our platform has been developed from conducting focus groups and surveys. Our primary goal is political legitimacy, and placing the need of our nation above all others. Some of our big issues...trade, labor, globalism.
Trade = no more free trade. We want reciprocal trade with countries that have comparable labor costs. Example, If England charges 5% on our imports, we charge England 5% on their imports. That's what we consider "free." With countrties that have bought our technology, but don't pay their people anything, we would have ewqualizing tariffs. Or, on other words, we would adjust our tarriffs to factor the average wage of a worker in that country. Example If China can undercut our production of radios by paying their workers 1/10th of what American workers, we tax Chinese the difference of that labor cost, thus ensuring what we consider fair competition. You would probably call that protectionist, to which I would counter...about fudging time. Finally, we would make it too expensive for "Benedict Arnold" corporations, like Mattel, to do business here, lest they changed their policies.
Labor: We would tell American-based companies that if you sell 65% of your product here, 65% of your employees must work here. We would stregnthen or union laws, making it illegeal for companies, like Wal-Mart, to prohibit the formation of unions. We would force companies to offer, at a minimum, cooperative health plans to their workers, and through tax policy, offer incentives for companies who contribute to their workers' health plans.
Globalism: No more foreign aid to anyone, and greatly reducing our role in the UN. We feel aid has a whiff of imperealism, is not appreciated by those who recieve it, and is too damn expensive. The UN, well, enough said, 85% of Americans want us to drastically reduce, if not, completely pull out of the UN. We would also pull out our troops most foreign countries. Too many nations rely on our Army as part of their national defense system, like Portugal, Italy, Germany, South Korea, and the list goes on and on. We would be amennable to leaving shadow bases with skeleton crews in these places in case there were a crisis, but about 95% less than what we have now. Plus, the pull back would reopen bases in the States that could serve to boost OUR local economies. We would seek to strengthen our relationships with foreign countries based on mutual agreement...quid pro quo, rather than giving them money and then asking them to do our bidding.
These views are not embraced by the major 2 parties and those who follow the party line. However, based on our research, there is overwhelming support for the ideals I mentioned. Most people who are exposed to our ideals call us the "common sense" party, and we are very proud of that.
posted August 14, 2009 at 1:21pm (EST)cerealkiller wrote:
> You said sounds great if you were white, meaning it seemed like the
> comment was coming from someone non-white. And you're saying non-white
> people automatically have it worse or are less happy? To be honest
> - the mexican fudgeers seem to be the happiest people around here.
> they have big family get-togethers on the weekend, drink, sing, laugh,
> etc even though poor and have nothing. You never see white people
> around here having parties, or singing drunk in the back yard like
> my spic neighbor.
This is without a doubt, one of the stupidest posts I've ever seen; it's even worse than describing the North/South Korean bordered as ill-defined. We should have an awards ceremony/party for the 2 biggest idiots on SC...in the DMZ.
posted August 14, 2009 at 10:15am (EST)thus, "almost always". Additionally, comparing yourself to one other student is not the same as comparing schools.
posted August 14, 2009 at 10:05am (EST)Private schools are almost always better however, in terms of quality of education, facilities, and overall cost. Here in the DC area, the Catholic system spends 1/3 the amount per student, yet scores almost 40% better. That's no accident; that's the failure embodying the public school system. Allow me to reiterate...The Catholic system spends 1/3 per student and scores 40% better.
posted August 13, 2009 at 12:40pm (EST)offensive, obscene? That seems dumb.
However, I don't really see the merits as a piece of art either; it looks like a bad playground toy.
posted August 13, 2009 at 7:51am (EST)FauxLo wrote:
> cerealkiller wrote:
>> Most people have excellent healthcare and polls say they are happy
>> with what they have. Why would anyone want to throw it away on
>> system that has proved a disaster in other countries for years?
>> government has no business meddling in healthcare at all.
> Are you serious? Where are you getting your information? Source,
How about the US Department of Labor who cites that most people who have health care through their employer are content with it?
The problm is that's not the issue. The issue isn' even whether most people believe the government should do something about the uninsured...becasue most people do think the government should step in to assist those with no health care, in one way or another, but something...NPR. The problem is the same problem with everything else...money...NPR Obama's approval rating just dropped to 49%, primarily because most Americans are concerned about how big our debt is becoming...take your pick here, any major news group.
Personally, I am as ambivalent about health care as the general feeling around the nation. I want to insure those who have nothing...for a variety of reasons, practical to conceptual, but I don't want to sap my grandkid's livelihood to pay for today's patients.
I also feel that protesting and speaking out are just as acceptable now as they have ever been. Debate is good, so long as the discourse is reasonable and may accomplish something. I would also like to point out that the liberals who are seeking to stifle free speech are in fact, the same liberals who railed against Bush for the same thing. Again, we need something other than this 2-party system because it really amounts to a 1 party system.
posted August 11, 2009 at 8:13am (EST)I thought you were married.
posted August 7, 2009 at 1:16pm (EST)No luck involved brother, you just tell the blower to remove her shirt and use her bewbs, too. This is a joy you won't experience; I know that, but since you called it interesting, I thought I'd help demystify it for you.
posted August 7, 2009 at 1:01pm (EST)My wife doesn't feel comfortable doing anything sexually when she's flowing. Besides, I usually like to mix a blow job wuth a titty fudge, requiring her nakedness.
posted August 7, 2009 at 12:59pm (EST)Nah, I love my wife. I would neither cheat nor try to compell her to do things she doesn't want to do.
posted August 7, 2009 at 12:57pm (EST)exactly...but not mine
posted August 7, 2009 at 12:51pm (EST)southernyankee wrote:
> Matty wrote:
>> Turtle: it may sound that way, but the truth is I get laid every
>> day...thanks for your concern, though.
> For a guy who is getting laid every day, you do come off as quite
> angry (or intense if you will). If this is how you are when you are
> getting some, I'd really hate to imagine the days you aren't.
I just don't see myslf as that intense, but whatever.
Well, trugh be told, there are about 3-5 days/month when I'm pretty miserable.
posted August 7, 2009 at 12:49pm (EST)Melf wrote:
> EyesOfCharisma wrote:
>> come over i'll hump ya!
> I second that
Would you ladies care to post the pictures of all that humping; it would definitely spice up the site!
posted August 7, 2009 at 12:48pm (EST)Frostbrand wrote:
> Matty wrote:
>> Turtle: it may sound that way, but the truth
>> is I get laid every day...
> That's what people who aren't getting laid at all like to say. >
No, that's waht liars say.
posted August 7, 2009 at 12:45pm (EST)Goat meat tastes good; I hope the voodoo priest got at least a few sandwiches.
posted August 7, 2009 at 12:44pm (EST)LindaH wrote:
> No offense to any Texans here, but Texas is a backwards place. You
> can sacrifice a goat in the name of your religion, but you can't smoke
unlike Alaska...the height of civilization...and home of Sara Palin. talk about glass houses
posted August 6, 2009 at 2:54pm (EST)icurok wrote:
> Do you have the slightest clue what you're talking about? I mean really?
> I know 10 year olds with a better grasp of world geography than this!
> The NK/SK border is "not as defined as it should be"? Are you out
> of mind? It's the most heavily militarized border in the entire world.
> The buffer zone is two miles wide and stretches from coast to coast.
> No one walks into North Korea from South Korea 'by mistake' unless
> they want to be shot to ribbons.
ICUROK: For your own edification this is called (by the US) the Demilitarized Zone, or D-M-Z. I was stationed here (Pam-mu-jyon) for about 1.5 years and can tell you both sides take minor "pot shots" into the DMZ if anyone is seen getting to close. This happens almost daily when opposing soldiers wander too close to the big, fudging, painted green, red, and yellow line on either side of the D-M-Z. I am not clear on how these journalists got into N. Korea, but I can certainly agree that no one could simply wander into N. Korea haphazardly. And I also agree this "ill-defined border" assertion with acompanying arrogance is really demonstrative of the height of ignorance. Wow!!!!!!!
Frosty: You know, you would have been much better off with a simple apology to They and EOC. As far as the border stuff, you simply could have admitted that you made a mistake. Such statements would have demonstrated integrity, contrition, and in your case, personal growth. Would it really have been so hard for you to say "Golly, Amy, I didn't mean to insult you," or "Gee, I guess the stuff I read about the border wasn't right." Hell, even a cleverly crafted, yet sincere lie would have benn better than to attack. I just don't get why you do the things you do.