Community > Posts By > raiderfan_32
what it shows is how much trouble we are in . when a criminel group has more influence than people who vote . its time to start buying a lot of bullets for the neer future .when the police are stoped from inforceing the laws we are in big trouble.this is how the liberials work best . It was time to start buying lots of bullets a long time ago.. if you don't have a stash already, it's going to be hard to build one now.. as for Sheriff Joe, I don't find any part of this surprising.. He's got a history of hardline tactics enforcing the law and God love him for it! This move out of Washington is a clear signal from the Administration how they feel about enforcing border laws and policing the border.. Janet Nepalitano has a very selective sense of how laws should be enforced. Her view of America's military veterans and classification of them as threats is more than a little offputting.. but I'm just being paranoid. I know.. |
|
|
|
I'm damned if I do...damned if I don't ![]() I see people complaining about BHO or this and that political...I have tried to post odd news once in a while for a laugh and hardly anyone posts in those. ![]() *edit* Queen posts these articles too.....I thought I need to give her credit as well ![]() don't let 'em get you down, rose. Don't be so hard on yourself! That should be my job! ![]() |
|
|
|
I think Playboy came out with an outrageous idea to make news. It's simple as that. If it would have been a celebrity, nobody would have cared so they have to raise some attention and people gonna buy the magazine. Perhaps they are in a financial trouble. why can't it just be for fun? i mean, it's not like they haven't done outrageous stuff in the past to mix things up.. I think it's funny and novel. why not.. it's not like you haven't wanted to see Marge nekkid, c'mon, you know you have. besides throughout the series, she's always been portrayed as something of a sexual figure.. and she's done well to keep her figure over the years so if marge wants to take it off for playboy, I say good for her! |
|
|
|
Gotta say that I ain't much into the likes of Playboy, I like my porn to be sleazy not all classy like Playboy. I almost want to buy one just to have for the future....dunno why though ![]() you're just classy like that, Rose ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Fri 10/09/09 03:00 PM
|
|
But not in private schools. ?????? why not? private schools are just that: private. they can make up any rules they like. If you don't like the way they run their school, don't send your kid there, whether it's about prayer or what they serve in the cafeteria. if you don't like it, don't send your money and your kid there. it's really that simple. no one puts a gun to your head and forces you to.. |
|
|
|
sorry.. if you don't like people practicing christianity, move to saudi or France.. they're perfectly happy to restrict your freedom of religion there.. Just responding to above quote - what makes this a solution??? When all else fails, tell them to leave. I could careless whether a person wants to pray to God, Allah, or the Jolly Green Giant? I'm not telling her to leave.. just pointing out the alternatives and the places that enact the kinds of policies that achieve what she the ends she seeks here. Thank you for clarifying ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Fri 10/09/09 01:05 PM
|
|
sorry.. if you don't like people practicing christianity, move to saudi or France.. they're perfectly happy to restrict your freedom of religion there.. Just responding to above quote - what makes this a solution??? When all else fails, tell them to leave. I could careless whether a person wants to pray to God, Allah, or the Jolly Green Giant? I'm not telling her to leave.. just pointing out the alternatives and the places that enact the kinds of policies that achieve what ends she seeks here. Geez read much into that tiny word, FROM?
I have no problem with what someone believes, how they practice those beliefs in the privacy of their own homes or churches or private schools. Frankly I am too old to give a crap about changing anything. I won't be the one that has to deal with religion expanding it's influence in government or in public places. But I will make remarks any time fundamentalists try to step over the line into my life. It's not a tiny word at all.. else you wouldn't have capitalized it. you know exactly the implication made by and the distinction between freedom of and freedom from. In some islamic countries, they have freedom from christianity being practiced in their presence. The price? authoritarianism. Is authoritarianism what you seek? That's what it means to tell people that they only have their religious freedoms within the confines of the walls of their own homes.. |
|
|
|
Freedom of religion is cast in stone. An undeniable constitutional fact. Separation of Church and State is an interpretation. You'll not find the words Separation of Church and State anywhere in the Constitution. You really want to make this argument? It should be freedom FROM religion. But I don't have time to argue it anyway. says you.. fact remains it is not.. There might as well be a freedom from being offended. it'll never happen. you don't have the right to impede someone else's religious practices, whether they be christian, jewish, muslim or flying spaghtetti monster.. The way the first amendment was written it was specifically designed against protecting anyone from religion.. It's impossible to protect "freedom of" and "freedom from" at the same time.. you don't like the way someone prays? too bad.. walk away, turn off the tv, the radio, pull your kid out of school. do whatever you feel like you must, that's your freedom. but it's not your freedom, neither is it your right or imperitive to keep someone from practicing their faith as they see fit.. sorry.. if you don't like people practicing christianity, move to saudi or France.. they're perfectly happy to restrict your freedom of religion there.. |
|
|
|
de Tocqueville: Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
![]() ![]() and look on them now.. I would argue that it is the socialist tendencies of those economies in which their troubles lie.. think about how the housing bubble started.. socialist agenda in the congress began about getting people into homes that they couldn't pay for.. many argue that it was the repeated, socialis based, stimulus packages in Japan that resulted in their "lost decade".. socialist ideology resulted in the Nationalist Socialist regime in Germany.. Socialist economic system resulted in breadlines in Russia and their ultimate dissolution.. It wasn't until they embrace socialism that those democrady based government oversee their own demise.. |
|
|
|
de Tocqueville:
Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
|
|
|
|
I agree, unintelligent and extremists on both side. I am just still puzzled about the categories, socialist, liberal, conservative,,,and WHY any are better or worse than the next....? I kind of think, depending upon the issue, that I could be labeled any of the three at any given time. if you're confused, for conservatism, try reading Alexis de Tocqueville "Democracy in America", try listening to some of Reagan's speeches (any of them really but the 1964 speech to the RNC is a good place to start), listen to Mark Levin, Neil Boortz. Levin has a great book that you've never heard of called "Liberty and Tyrrany" For socialist thought, try reading The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. try reading "Rules for Radicals" by Sal Alinski. Listen to some of Obama's more open rhetoric before he came on the national scene, before he had to watch what he said when the camera was on. The 2001 WBEZ Chicago interview is particularly revealing.. those are good places to start.. foremost, think for yourself. Think on what the principles are on which this nation was founded, individual freedom, liberty, self determination, protection from tyrranical government, limited government, etc... Don't let someone dissuade you from taking information from particular sources on the grounds that "they" think that source is biased.. chances are they don't want you to listen to Boortz or Levin because they know you might identify with some of what those people have to say.. Those are still someones opinion of what conservative and liberal are and not a clear definition. There are some who will point me in totally different authoritative directions as examples. ![]() ![]() college is fine.. but all you really need is a library card. To MsHarmony: de Tocqueville is brilliant. Read him before you dismiss his writing as mere opinion. You wouldn't classify Plato or Socrates as mere opinion, would you? de Tocqueville's and Jefferson's writing are foundations of what conservatives, free thinking ones anyways, base their way of thinking.. Read the Federalist Papers.. |
|
|
|
I agree, unintelligent and extremists on both side. I am just still puzzled about the categories, socialist, liberal, conservative,,,and WHY any are better or worse than the next....? I kind of think, depending upon the issue, that I could be labeled any of the three at any given time. if you're confused, for conservatism, try reading Alexis de Tocqueville "Democracy in America", try listening to some of Reagan's speeches (any of them really but the 1964 speech to the RNC is a good place to start), listen to Mark Levin, Neil Boortz. Levin has a great book that you've never heard of called "Liberty and Tyrrany" For socialist thought, try reading The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. try reading "Rules for Radicals" by Sal Alinski. Listen to some of Obama's more open rhetoric before he came on the national scene, before he had to watch what he said when the camera was on. The 2001 WBEZ Chicago interview is particularly revealing.. those are good places to start.. foremost, think for yourself. Think on what the principles are on which this nation was founded, individual freedom, liberty, self determination, protection from tyrranical government, limited government, etc... Don't let someone dissuade you from taking information from particular sources on the grounds that "they" think that source is biased.. chances are they don't want you to listen to Boortz or Levin because they know you might identify with some of what those people have to say.. |
|
|
|
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Thu 10/08/09 06:30 PM
|
|
the person who wrote the article admits being a socialist, not the thread starter. Unless it's the same person, but I doubt that. nahhh he NEVER writes his own stuff you're right. should have given that some consideration.. still. if anyone thinks either side of that conversation represents an actual, discrete exchange of thoughts between two individuals rather than being a biased characature intended to put the "conservative" in a bad light, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. but if you want a characterization of people supporting Obama, here's an actual conversation recorded for WJR Detroit of people standing in line to get money through the City of Detroit.. Reporter: "why are you here?" peroson in line: "to get some money" reporter: "what kind of money?" person in line: "Obama Money" reporter: "Where's it coming from?" person in line: "Obama" Reporter: "and where did Obama get it?" Person in line: "I don't know. His stash, I don't know. I don't know where he got it from but he giving [sic] it to us, to help us. We love him, that's why we voted for him." Other person in line: "O-Ba-ma! O-ba-ma!" Both persons in line (together): "O-Ba-ma! O-ba-ma! O-Ba-ma! O-Ba-ma!" Reporter: "In Downtown Detriot, Ken Regurski, WJR News" |
|
|
|
So you admit to being a socialist? Where did it say that? sorry you can't read.. It did not say that so maybe you can't read. check again.. ninth line of the "dialogue" “A communist? He may be a jerk, Marie. But a communist?”
“And so aren’t you, David. You’re a communist too.” “I am? I may be a socialist. But I’m not a communist.” So what? How did that imply the OP was a socialist still? Come on. ![]() you really are a parody, aren't you? the op himself implied he was a socialist.. actually didn't imply it at all.. he came out and said it.. |
|
|
|
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Thu 10/08/09 05:47 PM
|
|
So you admit to being a socialist? Where did it say that? sorry you can't read.. It did not say that so maybe you can't read. check again.. ninth line of the "dialogue" “A communist? He may be a jerk, Marie. But a communist?”
“And so aren’t you, David. You’re a communist too.” “I am? I may be a socialist. But I’m not a communist.” |
|
|
|
So you admit to being a socialist? Where did it say that? sorry you can't read.. |
|
|
|
So you admit to being a socialist?
|
|
|
|
everyone not shocked at this, raise your hand
![]() |
|
|
|
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Thu 10/08/09 04:41 PM
|
|
Fosters Farms Chicken is hiring at $28.55/hour. I told them about your experience handling cokcs, and well, you start on Monday..
![]() |
|
|
|
Topic:
Mingle Upgrade
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Thu 10/08/09 04:35 PM
|
|
In your case Lex, you get me, as I would choose you as my "mod for the night". ![]() Hey, I could do worse! ![]() So, I assume you are gonna pick me up, as I have no registered vehicle right now, right? Also, I figure I should include a "true" pic of myself for you, so there's no confusion ![]() ![]() the timeless art of seduction... ![]() |
|
|