Topic:
Astrological compatibility
|
|
Which Astrological Signs Are Most Compatible? Zodiac Sign/Harmonious Signs/Inharmonious Signs/Opposite Sign Aries/ Gemini, Leo, Sagittarius, Aquarius/ Cancer, Capricorn/ Libra Taurus/ Cancer, Virgo, Capricorn, Pisces/ Leo, Aquarius/ Scorpio Gemini/ Aries, Leo, Libra, Aquarius/ Virgo, Pisces/ Sagittarius Cancer/ Taurus, Virgo, Scorpio, Pisces/ Aries, Libra/ Capricorn Leo/ Aries, Gemini, Libra, Sagittarius/ Taurus, Scorpio/ Aquarius Virgo/ Taurus, Cancer, Scorpio, Capricorn/ Gemini, Sagittarius/ Pisces Libra/ Gemini, Leo, Sagittarius, Aquarius/ Cancer, Capricorn/ Aries Scorpio/ Cancer, Virgo, Capricorn, Pisces/ Leo, Aquarius/ Taurus Sagittarius/ Aries, Leo, Libra, Aquarius/ Virgo, Pisces/ Gemini Capricorn/ Taurus, Virgo, Scorpio, Pisces/ Aries, Libra/ Cancer Aquarius/ Aries, Gemini, Libra, Sagittarius/ Taurus, Scorpio/ Leo Pisces/ Taurus, Cancer, Scorpio, Capricorn/ Gemini, Sagittarius/ Virgo So if I counted correctly I am compatable with 7 out of 12 signs. Shoot, then why are so many geminis single? I probably counted wrong. I think the last one listed is our worst match. I am Gemini too. And Sags are our opposites. I know all the Sags I have had in my life are not my friends. They don't care for me nor me them, Some of them have to love me because we are family but they don't like me...lol |
|
|
|
I do understand that something has to be done with bits and pieces of men and women at war time but this just doesn't sit well.
I do not have a better answer other than stop war. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Astrological compatibility
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Wed 12/07/11 08:34 PM
|
|
After having a string of Cappies that are now exes, I would say that sign and I are not too compatible.
My perfect match is suppose to be an Aquarius but I just don't meet them. I have had two female friends who were Aquarius and our friendships did okay but no love interests. Sags are suppose to be my hell and I have found that to be true. |
|
|
|
yes, IM sure we could make plenty of political policies based upon the ideas from 8 year olds of what needs 'fixing',,,,, You REALLY need to get over this gay issue you have. The boy LOVES his mother, he doesn't see her as broken like haters do. It wouldn't be a bad idea to get ideas about the world from children,. They are innocent, have no agenda and are able to see things from a different perspective than stuffy, old, stuck in their ways grownups. An 8 year old child knows more about love an acceptance than most adults. The child has it absolutely correct. His mother doesn't need to be fixed, she needs to have the same rights as everyone else. |
|
|
|
Air Force dumped ashes of more troops’ remains in Va. landfill than acknowledged
By Craig Whitlock and Mary Pat Flaherty, Updated: Wednesday, December 7, 5:50 PM The Air Force dumped the incinerated partial remains of at least 274 American troops in a Virginia landfill, far more than the military had acknowledged, before halting the secretive practice three years ago, records show. The landfill dumping was concealed from families who had authorized the military to dispose of the remains in a dignified and respectful manner, Air Force officials said. There are no plans, they said, to alert those families now. The military has long borne a sacred obligation: to treat its fallen members and their families with utmost levels of dignity and honor. The Air Force had maintained that it could not estimate how many troops might have had their remains sent to a landfill. The practice was revealed last month by The Washington Post, which was able to document a single case of a soldier whose partial remains were sent to the King George County landfill in Virginia. The new data, for the first time, show the scope of what has become an embarrassing episode for vaunted Dover Air Base, the main port of entry for America’s war dead. The landfill disposals were never formally authorized under military policies or regulations. They also were not disclosed to senior Pentagon officials who conducted a high-level review of cremation policies at the Dover mortuary in 2008, records show. Air Force and Pentagon officials said last month that determining how many remains went to the landfill would require searching through the records of more than 6,300 troops whose remains have passed through the mortuary since 2001. “It would require a massive effort and time to recall records and research individually,” Jo Ann Rooney, the Pentagon’s acting undersecretary for personnel, wrote in a Nov. 22 letter to Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.). Holt, who has pressed the Pentagon for answers on behalf of a constituent whose husband was killed in Iraq, accused the Air Force and Defense Department of hiding the truth. “What the hell?” Holt said in a phone interview. “We spent millions, tens of millions, to find any trace of soldiers killed, and they’re concerned about a ‘massive’ effort to go back and pull out the files and find out how many soldiers were disrespected this way?” He added: “They just don’t want to ask questions or look very hard.” Senior Air Force leaders said there was no intent to deceive. “Absolutely not,” said Lt. Gen. Darrell D. Jones, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for personnel. This week, after The Post pressed for information contained in the Dover mortuary’s electronic database, the Air Force produced a tally based on those records. It showed that 976 fragments from 274 military personnel were cremated, incinerated and taken to the landfill between 2004 and 2008. An additional group of 1,762 unidentified remains were collected from the battlefield and disposed of in the same manner, the Air Force said. Those fragments could not undergo DNA testing because they had been badly burned or damaged in explosions. The total number of incinerated fragments dumped in the landfill exceeded 2,700. A separate federal investigation of the mortuary last month, prompted by whistleblower complaints, uncovered “gross mismanagement” and documented how body parts recovered from bomb blasts stacked up in the morgue’s coolers for months or years before they were identified and disposed of. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/air-force-dumped-ashes-of-more-troops-in-va-landfill-than-acknowledged/2011/12/07/gIQAT8ybdO_story.html?tid=sm_facebook How very sad. |
|
|
|
Good deal.
Human rights should always be a priority no matter what |
|
|
|
'Obamacare' to the rescue
A woman who felt President Obama had let the middle class down has changed her mind. By Spike Dolomite Ward December 6, 2011 I want to apologize to President Obama. But first, some background. I found out three weeks ago I have cancer. I'm 49 years old, have been married for almost 20 years and have two kids. My husband has his own small computer business, and I run a small nonprofit in the San Fernando Valley. I am also an artist. Money is tight, and we don't spend it frivolously. We're just ordinary, middle-class people, making an honest living, raising great kids and participating in our community, the kids' schools and church. We're good people, and we work hard. But we haven't been able to afford health insurance for more than two years. And now I have third-stage breast cancer and am facing months of expensive treatment. To understand how such a thing could happen to a family like ours, I need to take you back nine years to when my husband got laid off from the entertainment company where he'd worked for 10 years. Until then, we had been insured through his work, with a first-rate plan. After he got laid off, we got to keep that health insurance for 18 months through COBRA, by paying $1,300 a month, which was a huge burden on an unemployed father and his family. By the time the COBRA ran out, my husband had decided to go into business for himself, so we had to purchase our own insurance. That was fine for a while. Every year his business grew. But insurance premiums were steadily rising too. More than once, we switched carriers for a lower rate, only to have them raise rates significantly after a few months. With the recession, both of our businesses took a huge hit — my husband's income was cut in half, and the foundations that had supported my small nonprofit were going through their own tough times. We had to start using a home equity line of credit to pay for our health insurance premiums (which by that point cost as much as our monthly mortgage). When the bank capped our home equity line, we were forced to cash in my husband's IRA. The time finally came when we had to make a choice between paying our mortgage or paying for health insurance. We chose to keep our house. We made a nerve-racking gamble, and we lost. Not having insurance amplifies cancer stress. After the diagnosis, instead of focusing all of my energy on getting well, I was panicked about how we were going to pay for everything. I felt guilty and embarrassed about not being insured. When I went to the diagnostic center to pick up my first reports, I was sent to the financial department, where a woman sat me down to talk about resources for "cash patients" (a polite way of saying "uninsured"). "I'm not a deadbeat," I blurted out. "I'm a good person. I have two kids and a house!" The clerk was sympathetic, telling me how even though she worked in the healthcare field, she could barely afford insurance herself. Although there have been a few people who judged us harshly, most people have been understanding about how this could happen to us. That's given me the courage to "out" myself and my family in hopes that it will educate people who are still lucky enough to have health insurance and view people like my family as irresponsible. We're not. What I want people to understand is that, if this could happen to us, it could happen to anybody. If you are fortunate enough to still be employed and have insurance through your employers, you may feel insulated from the sufferings of people like me right now. But things can change abruptly. If you still have a good job with insurance, that doesn't mean that you're better than me, more deserving than me or smarter than me. It just means that you are luckier. And access to healthcare shouldn't depend on luck. Fortunately for me, I've been saved by the federal government's Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan, something I had never heard of before needing it. It's part of President Obama's healthcare plan, one of the things that has already kicked in, and it guarantees access to insurance for U.S. citizens with preexisting conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months. The application was short, the premiums are affordable, and I have found the people who work in the administration office to be quite compassionate (nothing like the people I have dealt with over the years at other insurance companies.) It's not perfect, of course, and it still leaves many people in need out in the cold. But it's a start, and for me it's been a lifesaver — perhaps literally. Which brings me to my apology. I was pretty mad at Obama before I learned about this new insurance plan. I had changed my registration from Democrat to Independent, and I had blacked out the top of the "h" on my Obama bumper sticker, so that it read, "Got nope" instead of "got hope." I felt like he had let down the struggling middle class. My son and I had campaigned for him, but since he took office, we felt he had let us down. So this is my public apology. I'm sorry I didn't do enough of my own research to find out what promises the president has made good on. I'm sorry I didn't realize that he really has stood up for me and my family, and for so many others like us. I'm getting a new bumper sticker to cover the one that says "Got nope." It will say "ObamaCares." Spike Dolomite Ward is the founder and executive director of Arts in Education Aid Council, a nonprofit organization that is restoring the arts to public schools in the San Fernando Valley. http://www.aieac.org http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ward-in-praise-of-obamacare-20111206,0,6794828.story Apologies are difficult. |
|
|
|
Solyndra Was An Anomaly, Independent Report Finds
Solyndra Was An Anomaly, Independent Report Finds share Carl Franzen December 2, 2011, 6:36 PM 2748 31 Unfortunate as the bankruptcy of California solar panel company Solyndra was, considering it defaulted on a $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, it isn’t reflective of the overall performance of the Energy Department’s loan guarantee program. In fact, aside from Solyndra, the loan guarantee program is actually extremely sound, supporting low-risk investments and maintaining a reserve of funding to draw upon, and ending it — as Republicans have tried to do — wouldn’t help balance the budget. Instead, it would probably sacrifice advances in clean energy. That’s at least the conclusion of a new independent report from Bloomberg Government analyzing the $16.1 billion Department of Energy’s loan program, which appears to further vindicate Energy Secretary Chu and the rest of the Department of Energy, who have said all along that they did due-diligence on Solyndra and all other energy companies that received loan guarantees. “This report reaffirms that the loan program is working as Congress intended, and highlights the strength of the Department’s overall portfolio of clean energy loans,” the DOE said in a statement, The Hill reported. “Ultimately, this debate comes down to a simple choice: will America compete for and win the jobs of the future, or will we stand on the sidelines and allow China and other countries to dominate a market that Americans have pioneered.” China and the U.S. are currently engaged in something of a solar energy trade war, with the International Trade Commission voting on Friday to investigate complaints of U.S. companies that Chinese producers have illegally dumped artificially low solar panels into the American market. Chinese companies, meanwhile, charge that American companies are flooding their country with artificially low-priced polysilicon, the raw ingredient from which most common photovoltaic solar panels are made. In either case, the price of polysilicon continues to plummet, putting pressure on solar companies around the world, which is one of the prime factors that lead to the collapse of Solyndra in the first place. As of America’s support of the industry, the Bloomberg report finds that to begin with, the DOE’s loan guarantee program has been wildly misinterpreted: The government isn’t handing out loans — or money of any sort — as some Republican lawmakers have characterized it. Rather, the program is designed to hand out loan guarantees, that is, conditional agreements to pay back a private lender if a borrower, in this case, a clean energy startup company, defaults. As the report’s author, analyst Alison Williams, writes: “When the government agrees to a loan guarantee, it promises to pay off the debt if the borrower doesn’t. If the borrower pays the debt, the government incurs no cost for its guarantee. In energy, loan guarantees help new-to-market companies or technologies overcome the so-called “valley of death” — when a company or technology is too established to receive start-up venture capital yet not established enough to afford traditional debt financing.” Furthermore, the DOE “was appropriated $2.47 billion” to cover failures such as Solyndra, more than enough to pay for the cost of that loan, and a few others, too. And it’s worth noting that Solyndra was but a drop in the bucket of the overall loan program portfolio: Only 3 percent of the total $16.1 billion, which itself is only “1.7 percent of the federal government’s guarantee commitments across all agencies,” according to the Williams. China, meanwhile, invested upwards of $30 billion in domestic solar energy subsidies, according to the International Trade Commission, and is reportedly prepared to invest $7.1 trillion in green energy and other emerging technologies over the next five years. China, Clean Energy, Department of Energy, International Trade Commission, Solar, Solar Energy, Solyndra Carl Franzen Carl Franzen is TPM Idea Lab's tech reporter. He used to work for The Daily, AOL and The Atlantic Wire (though not simultaneously, thankfully). He's never met a button that didn't need to be pressed. He can be reached at carl@talkingpointsmemo.com. http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/solyndra-was-an-anomaly-independent-report-finds.php Hmmm. |
|
|
|
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job? Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president? Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest? Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves. Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years. And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly? In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office. But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn't that all that matters these days? See also: The Era of Confronting Obama at Public Events Update: Author's Note. A lot of readers have written in asking me how I came to the conclusion that Obama was an unremarkable student and that he benefited from affirmative action. Three reasons: 1) As reported by The New York Sun: "A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors..." In spite of not receiving honors as an undergrad, Obama was nevertheless admitted to Harvard Law. Why? 2) Obama himself has written he was a poor student as a young man. As the Baltimore Sun reported, in: "'Obama's book 'Dreams from My Father,'....the president recalled a time in his life...when he started to drift away from the path of success. 'I had learned not to care,' Obama wrote. '... Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.' But his mother confronted him about his behavior. 'Don't you think you're being a little casual about your future?" she asked him, according to the book. '... One of your friends was just arrested for drug possession. Your grades are slipping. You haven't even started on your college applications.'" 3) Most damning to me is the president's unwillingness to make his transcripts public. If Obama had really been a stellar student with impeccable grades as an undergrad, is there any doubt they would have been made public by now and trumpeted on the front page of the New York Times as proof of his brilliance? To me it all adds up to affirmative action. Mattpattersonline.com Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/obama_the_affirmative_action_president.html#ixzz1fVAl5PsL Must be an uninformed blogger of some kind that don't know their *** from a hole in the ground huh? What a waste of typing and time. Trash and garbage. |
|
|
|
ProPublica review of pardons in past decade shows process heavily favored whites
Brendan Smialowski/GETTY IMAGES By Dafna Linzer and Jennifer LaFleur, Saturday, December 3, 8:59 PM White criminals seeking presidential pardons over the past decade have been nearly four times as likely to succeed as minorities, a ProPublica examination has found. Blacks have had the poorest chance of receiving the president’s ultimate act of mercy, according to an analysis of previously unreleased records and related data. Current and former officials at the White House and Justice Department said they were surprised and dismayed by the racial disparities, which persist even when factors such as the type of crime and sentence are considered. “I’m just astounded by those numbers,” said Roger Adams, who served as head of the Justice Department’s pardons office from 1998 to 2008. He said he could think of nothing in the office’s practices that would have skewed the recommendations. “I can recall several African Americans getting pardons.’’ The review of applications for pardons is conducted almost entirely in secret, with the government releasing scant information about those it rejects. ProPublica’s review examined what happened after President George W. Bush decided at the beginning of his first term to rely almost entirely on the recommendations made by career lawyers in the Office of the Pardon Attorney. The office was given wide latitude to apply subjective standards, including judgments about the “attitude” and the marital and financial stability of applicants. No two pardon cases match up perfectly, but records reveal repeated instances in which white applicants won pardons with transgressions on their records similar to those of blacks and other minorities who were denied. Senior aides in the Bush White House say the president had hoped to take politics out of the process and avoid a repetition of the Marc Rich scandal, in which the fugitive financier won an eleventh-hour pardon tainted by his ex-wife’s donations to Democratic causes and the Clinton Presidential Library. Justice Department officials said in a statement Friday that the pardon process takes into account many factors that cannot be statistically measured, such as an applicant’s candor and level of remorse. “Nonetheless, we take the concerns seriously,” the statement said. “We will continue to evaluate the statistical analysis and, of course, are always working to improve the clemency process and ensure that every applicant gets a fair, merit-based evaluation.” Bush followed the recommendations of the pardons office in nearly every case, the aides said. The results, spread among hundreds of cases over eight years, heavily favored whites. President Obama — who has pardoned 22 people, two of them minorities — has continued the practice of relying on the pardons office. “President Obama takes his constitutional power to grant clemency very seriously,” said Matt Lehrich, a White House spokesman. “Race has no place in the evaluation of clemency evaluations, and the White House does not consider or even receive information on the race of applicants.” The president’s power to pardon is enshrined in the Constitution. It is an act of forgiveness for a federal crime. It does not wipe away the conviction, but it does restore a person’s full rights to vote, possess firearms and serve on federal juries. It allows individuals to obtain licensing and business permits and removes barriers to certain career opportunities and adoptions. Continued pg 1 For the rest of the article go to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/propublica-review-of-pardons-in-past-decade-shows-process-heavily-favored-whites/2011/11/23/gIQAElnVQO_story.html Good thing people are still checking on these things. If they listened to the white racists in this country they wouldn't even check and it would go unnoticed and unpunished. |
|
|
|
hi everyone, i am new on this thing and i wanted to know everyone's ideas/answers u go gay into women/men lets me hear from you all.. how are you all today and how is ur weekend looking . Princess C People don't "go gay". They are born attracted to the same sex possibly both sexes and they act on it at whatever time in their life they do. |
|
|
|
The Bomb Buried In Obamacare Explodes Today-Hallelujah!
36 comments, 20 called-out + Comment now US President Barack Obama speaks during a rall... Image by AFP via @daylife I have long argued that the impact of the Affordable Care Act is not nearly as big of a deal as opponents would have you believe. At the end of the day, the law is – in the main – little more than a successful effort to put an end to some of the more egregious health insurer abuses while creating an environment that should bring more Americans into programs that will give them at least some of the health care coverage they need. There is, however, one notable exception – and it’s one that should have a long lasting and powerful impact on the future of health care in our country. That would be the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care. This is the true ‘bomb’ contained in Obamacare and the one item that will have more impact on the future of how medical care is paid for in this country than anything we’ve seen in quite some time. Indeed, it is this aspect of the law that represents the true ‘death panel’ found in Obamacare—but not one that is going to lead to the death of American consumers. Rather, the medical loss ration will, ultimately, lead to the death of large parts of the private, for-profit health insurance industry. Why? Because there is absolutely no way for-profit health insurers are going to be able to learn how to get by and still make a profit while being forced to spend at least 80 percent of their receipts providing their customers with the coverage for which they paid. If they could, we likely would never have seen the extraordinary efforts made by these companies to avoid paying benefits to their customers at the very moment they need it the most. Today, that bomb goes off. Today, the Department of Health & Human Services issues the rules of what insurer expenditures will—and will not—qualify as a medical expense for purposes of meeting the requirement. As it turns out, HHS isn’t screwing around. They actually mean to see to it that the insurance companies spend what they should taking care of their customers. Here’s an example: For months, health insurance brokers and salespeople have been lobbying to have the commissions they earn for selling an insurer’s program to consumers be included as a ‘medical expense’ for purposes of the rules. HHS has, today, given them the official thumbs down, as well they should have. Selling me a health insurance policy is simply not the same as providing me with the medical care I am entitled to under the policy. Sales is clearly an overhead cost in any business and had HHS included this as a medical cost, it would have signaled that they are not at all serious about enforcing the concept of the medical loss ratio. So, can private health insurance companies manage to make a profit when they actually have to spend premium receipts taking care of their customers’ health needs as promised? Page 1 2 Next Page » for the rest of the article http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/ Good deal. |
|
|
|
I guess it could be considered an anti other countries ad?
It doesn't make any sense to me. |
|
|
|
Today is the anniversary of Rosa Parks arrest for not giving her seat on the bus to a white man.
I hope this anniversary can bring some inspiration to those in our country like OWS that are fighting for equality. |
|
|
|
Topic:
WHO on Mingle....
|
|
I had a few crushes on here but none right now.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Dark thoughts...
|
|
Again as I read through the threads.. if there is a terminally ill person who wants to end life due to the pain or whatever... this is still not normal circumstances, something is impairing his ability to want to live. I do not say it is a choice per say due to the nature of his circumstances. Had this person been healthy he would more than likely not be asking to die. It is a complicated issue. I stand by my opinion. A person in sound mind would not do such things. People thrive to live, it's human nature. Perspective is paramount. This said from someone who obviously has never been there. I was there and I was not mentally unwell, I was so physically unwell that my quality of life was almost nil. Quality of life is so important. If the quality drops to a point of bedridden and feeling so badly each day that there can be no joy no matter what. A mentally well person can make a choice to die. It will not make them unhealthy mentally. I did not however have the energy/wherewithall to do it myself and I asked a god I don't believe in to help but to no avail. I would have no regrets about it had it happened then. But I do know that there are worse things than death in life. So it is a choice of a healthy mind also along with being the choice of the mentally unwell too. You misunderstood "of sound mind completely." Pain plays into decisions about life. Had you been healthy..as I said.You would not be desiring death. As I said.. people thrive to live. I was of sound mind completely. My physical illness was so bad that death was better. Those who have never been there fail to understand. I would never wish that kind of understanding on another though so they could truly see what they do not understand. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Are You A Terrorist?
|
|
Disillusion breeds contentment! I wish you happiness in yours And obviously in yours also. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Dark thoughts...
|
|
Again as I read through the threads.. if there is a terminally ill person who wants to end life due to the pain or whatever... this is still not normal circumstances, something is impairing his ability to want to live. I do not say it is a choice per say due to the nature of his circumstances. Had this person been healthy he would more than likely not be asking to die. It is a complicated issue. I stand by my opinion. A person in sound mind would not do such things. People thrive to live, it's human nature. Perspective is paramount. This said from someone who obviously has never been there. I was there and I was not mentally unwell, I was so physically unwell that my quality of life was almost nil. Quality of life is so important. If the quality drops to a point of bedridden and feeling so badly each day that there can be no joy no matter what. A mentally well person can make a choice to die. It will not make them unhealthy mentally. I did not however have the energy/wherewithall to do it myself and I asked a god I don't believe in to help but to no avail. I would have no regrets about it had it happened then. But I do know that there are worse things than death in life. So it is a choice of a healthy mind also along with being the choice of the mentally unwell too. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Dark thoughts...
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Thu 12/01/11 01:36 PM
|
|
Having one of those days, and was just wondering: Who is the greater corward, the man who stands on the bridge and jumps, or the one that stands on the bridge but can't? Personally I don't let myself get to the point of dark thoughts. I consider it my responsibility to myself not to go there. So I do things to make sure it doesn't happen. One of them is to hold myself to high integrity and standards and expect nothing from others. Which eliminates all disappointment in life. Second, any thing that happens in my life is a learning lesson so I try to learn all the positive I can from all that happens. Thirdly, I give myself a break and forgive myself for the mistakes I have made so I can love and respect myself. Lastly, I respect others choices in life or death so there is not a stronger one, just one that wasn't ready for that road yet. It always comes down to choice. We all have to make them. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Are You A Terrorist?
|
|
If RP is our only savior then we are truly screwed. He is a lunatic for real. Obama with all his faults is still the best candidate for the next election. There isn't a sane one to challenge him. If all Americans felt as you do that the Constitution is just a 200 year old piece of paper, I fear where we are going as a nation! RP doesn't want to control us, he wants to give us FREEDOM, and defend OUR borders, NOT those of other nations! He doesn't want to "lead" the people, he wants to PROTECT our nation and its peoples freedoms and liberties! Is it wrong to want peace and freedom for our nation? He sounds more sane than ANY other POSSIBLE choice of our electorites! What has war and hate done for you that is so great? War and hate hasn't been my thing since I was born so it does nothing for me. I actually fight against it. That said, your talking points sound good until we go into how he wants to do these things. Reinstating more white racism into the pot is not a good thing no matter how freeing it is for white racists. Dissolving certain parts of the government that help people is not a good thing. Dissolving our tax code, although, yea it is screwed in favor of the rich, won't help in how RP wants to do it. ECT...... He is a nutbag, sorry. He has no concept of how to do for those outside of those like him. Which is a problem we have with lots of politicians sure but not all of them come with mental unwellness too. You have not "understood", or you refuse to, anything RP has said! Until you can tell me how ANYTHING the gov't is involved in has helped to improve it, your points are meaningless. Gov't in education....quality goes down, price goes up Gov't in health care....quality goes down, price goes up Gov't in energy.... monopolized, qualities restricted, price goes up Gov't in housing (HUD)....no need to even go there! Gov't in environment.... our Nat parks are now the property of the UN, we are dependent on foreign oil and can't do with our own land as we wish! Corporations and senators get richer, the people grow poorer, no jobs, losing their homes, freedoms, rights! Need I go on? Making yours as meaningless as mine though right? Part of what makes Ron Paul a lunatic is his "anarchy fixes everything" philosophy and will be the reason that he is not going to win a presidency. Every result you gave of govt involvement is what happens without the government involvement too. Just look at the debacle with deregulations recently. It isn't even logical what RP suggests...lol That is why he is rightfully called a looney tunes. It was lobbyist bribing GOVERNMENT that deregulated all the safety nets creating the problems, NOT fixing them! Corporations are NOT people, but this gov't says they are! IT WAS GOV'T WHO DECIDED TO "STEAL" SS FUNDS TO PROMOTE WAR! $3T FROM THE ACCOUNT, AND THEY WANT MORE! Anarchy fixes?????? You mean cutting spending on an out of control war machine? Maybe you mean removing the money from politics? Is it the idea that he wants to protect our own borders rather than those of foreign countries who vote against us at every turn? Maybe it's the fact that we could better use the BILLIONS of dollars at home from our service men and women rather than strengthening foreign economies? Which anarchist ideas are you referring to? Freedom and liberty instead of gov't control? LOL like I said talking points with no reality to them. Ron Paul is a white supremacist anarchist. With no concept of a how to live in a world unlike his or what it is like for those unlike him. It shows in his political belief system. He couldn't fix a toothpick with his ideas. He uses the constitution as a false crutch to try to hook constitutionalists but he fails if they really understand what he is talking about. Anarchy although interesting will not cure the ills of this country. There is only one anarchist ideal. If you look it up you will see. |
|
|