onlyaladd » 20 Jan 2018 10:31 pm » wrote:
it is nice when our children do things to make us proud!!!!!!Misty » 20 Jan 2018 8:11 pm » wrote:Congrats to my daughter who was out there today.
I'm so proud of her.
dear misty:Misty » 02 Nov 2017 1:04 pm » wrote: No.
If that's what you mean then that's what you should say.....the party I defend.
Calling it MY party means the party to which I belong.
Does that give you a hint?
They have a right to peacefully protest....antifa should not have made them fear for their lives....Misty » 20 Oct 2017 3:15 pm » wrote:
So they murdered a woman and injured dozens in Charlottesville, and now this.
Post menopausal slutVastrwc » 08 Aug 2017 9:06 pm » wrote:
My 92 yr old mom sure as **** thinks so.
That's a ******* slap heard round the worldCannonpointer » 14 May 2016 7:00 am » wrote:No, it hasn't - not in the form being shoved down society's throat.
If you really believe that men have always been able to cruise ladies' rooms scoping for victims, then tell us why this law needs passing?
The TRUTH is, men have never had a civil right to unfettered access to women's bathrooms and showers. That's what's actually so - not that stuff you were saying.
Pretending that making it a male predator's CIVIL RIGHT to cruise areas previously off limits, to the obvious detriment of their prey, = no change, is DEEPLY naive.
Giving would be rapists a civil right to get closer to their would-be victims, in a relatively isolated environment, because YOU feel "ready," is no service to those would be victims. And you're manifestly NOT "ready," because that word implies intelligent planning.
Shrinking your own perimeter is not exactly Clausewitz, babe. It's Keystone Kops.
Then don;t grab that straw. I never made such a claim.
What I said is that they will lose the right to cry out about a man being IN their facility in the first place. You're still PERFECTLY free to holler as soon as he attacks you - celebrate that freedom, with democrats on the loose, it might be next.
I'm comforted and mollified I'm sure that must be right. After all, a relatively isolated environment where you can get your victim alone and in a state of semi-undress would be a crazy place for a predator to strike. They mostly assault women in police stations, from what I hear.
How will you know there is criminal intent, unless he acts on it? And why would he act on it, until his reconnoitering yields the perfect victim, alone and unready?
Again, don't argue for the wisdom of shrinking your own perimeter - and if you're going to, then don't tell me how vigilant you are. Shrinking your own perimeter is the most UNvigilant thing you could do.
Men belong in the men's rest room - read your bible.
Ya...cannon had a lot of soks#ShePersisted » 07 Mar 2017 10:33 pm » wrote: I know.
It's fun to read through some of the old posts sometimes.
I miss a lot of them.
Oh don't act all surprised....Annoyed Liberall » 06 Mar 2017 8:59 pm » wrote: Oh goodness
hell yeah...they are an eighth day creation...but created by god almighty they were...there are four races...mongoloid negroid white and unionCedarswamp » 16 May 2014 12:54 pm » wrote:
Are unions people?
i agree with all you said...where we differ is that i dont believe that this country needs publicly traded corporations. we need jean makers in every state...auto makers all over the country...we need many fail safes...our economy should not be tied to a stock market...i dont even dabble in the **** thing and it determines my financial future? well that is ****...i should be able to do that not some **** in new york...do away with all of it i say...Huey » 16 May 2014 10:54 am » wrote:
I don't disagree with you. Yes the koch brothers are trying to influence elections. The other side of the coin is so are Buffett and Soros. And all of them do it for the benefit of their companies. Where the problem is most don't want to admit that the billionaires on their side are doing for their own purpose, not altuistic reasons. So the cycle continues.
On the other hand in order to reverse citizen's united, (the part of the conversation you joined at) we would have to remove the freedom of association, liberties, from all these different groups of people. Not sure I support doing just that. A basic understanding of what citizen's united actually did is needed as well. It does not allow corporations, unions, non profit corporations, etc to pour unlimited amounts into campaigns. It does not allow foreign money to be used. It does not allow direct contributions from unions or corporations. It simply addresses the electonic electioneering aspect. I blame the President for the misconceptions and the left, all stemming from his SOTU address where he "lied" about what that decision does. So we get these progressive posters spewing garbage that is not true.
i will say that to have an economic system that has a federal reserve, an irs, a stock market, a progressive tax system and a few mega rich mother **** influencing our legislative process...we will never be as free as we should be. so now we have politicians telling their constituents that their billionaire is better than our billionaire and even though it is in the ten commandments that unions should be able to influence politics...corporations cant...dude i am wanting to end the lies told by politicians and the enabling that politicians do to get votes...the way to do this is to get rid of all this government funded crap and KEEP IT SIMPLE...and that my friend is free enterpriseHuey » 16 May 2014 10:26 am » wrote:
For bigsky. Go to the actual post to see the context.
look, cannon is right about this...this country started out free enterprise, we are now welfare capitalists...we can either go into socialism...WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE HEADED...or just take a conservative u turn and go back to free enterprise..there is no constitutional right to a stock market or a federal reserve...none what so ever...i would argue that the constitution is against such entitiesHuey » 16 May 2014 4:23 am » wrote:
Yup, a tacit surrender on the topic. Whenever he brings up "torture" on a given subject you know he can no longer coherently discuss the subject at hand. Nor does he want to because the more in depth a subject goes the more his disdain for the consitution and individual liberty is revealed.
Tea PartyCannonpointer » 08 Jan 2017 11:59 am » wrote:Hundred times, ya say.
Show me once.
This is a new government...the tea party started under Bush...repubs are 100 times more likely to hold one of their own accountable than the party that ran HillaryCannonpointer » 08 Jan 2017 11:41 am » wrote:
This is a thread about the people in charge, and your response was to pass the buck. Your response was a yabbut