Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

I just knew some people would make this into an argument

Posted By: Backwards typist on 2008-10-25
In Reply to: How Palin pales in comparison to Teddy Roosevelt. - Let me count the ways.....sm

I just thought it was pretty cool and on the lighter side. But...as usual, some people just want to argue.




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Yes, anything to make an argument...sm
No pun intended to reality check, but yes anything can turn into an argument. Yep.
Knew such smart people here could just get by with (sp?) and guess what?
it worked.
"a lot of people stayed home because they knew it wouldn't count"
If I knew my vote wouldn't count I wouldn't drag my kids to the polling place w/ me. Why would I?

I think you hit the nail on the head and i'm going place this on Obama's My Space comments. Maybe it will get to him some how.



People who make more
pay more taxes to begin with.  So why up it for them?  I have no problem with people receiving money from the government if they paid too much from their earnings.  However, when there are people out there who aren't working and so no money is going to the government....I don't think they should get a check back from the government.  You should have to contribute before you get anything back.  That is taking money from hard working individuals and giving it to people including the ones who don't work.  That isn't fair and that is nothing but welfare.
I think what he really does is make people think.
What he says may sound outrageous, but once you think about what he's really saying, some of it makes sense.

There should have been an investigation about 9/11, yes, but did we need those families on the TV every single night repeating that? No. I can't say I hate them for doing it because it was really the fault of the journalists that kept shoving cameras in thier faces. That's not to say at all that they don't deserve compassion, but they also should have been left alone to grieve.

And yes, the Katrina victims certainly deserve compassion, but I know for a fact that if a hurricane was coming my way, I'd get as far away as I could by any means that I could find. I don't hate the people that stayed behind, but what about the people who did get out and still lost everything - do they deserve any less compassion? And you didn't hear thier stories every night.

Yes, Beck is a radical right-winger and that's why us right-wingers like him so much. I may not always agree with what he says (much like Rush), but what he says definitely makes you think.

If you want to think he's an idiot, that's fine, but him and a lot of other right-wingers on "Fixed Noise" have been and are still right about a lot of things going on in our country. The left doesn't have the market cornered on what's right just because thier man is in the White House - no one knows that better than those of us who voted for Bush and have been regretting it for several years.


All these people make up a minority

I never said that Jefferson was alone in his views just that he was in a minority.  Again, from the evidence I've read on both sides liberal philosophers and professors have chosen to re-write history.  I think the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights speak for themselves and literally scream about a country with it's foundations in God.  You can choose to ignore the words Almighty God, Divine providence etc., but it does not make them any less there in  A deist belives in a deity to answer the question posted above either by the writer of the post or the writer of  the excerpted text (I could not figure out who was posing the question). 


We could throw quotes back and forth all day and never see eye to eye about it, but I choose to err on the side of God and Jesus Christ.  I choose to live by faith that Jesus Christ is the only way, but let's look at it in a common sense way.  Say I am wrong, and there are many *paths* to God then I'm still eternally okay, because I have embraced this path of which there are many, but say there are not many paths to God and Jesus Christ is truly the only way....then that's going to leave the people on the *other paths* in sad condition when they leave this world.


 


How about we tax the PRODUCTS that make people fat, sm
rather than "fatness"? Modified food starch, high fructose corn syrup, soy oils hidden in products? Imagine how much $$ we could make for so-called children's health programs if we actually taxed the items (like SODA POP and crappy snacks) that are MAKING THEM FAT in the first place!
With the flat tax, people who make under 40,000 per year will not have to
pay taxes the way it reads now. They estimate that people making over 40,000 will be able to produce more tax income than the current income tax w/o including people who make under 40,000.

Q and A about the Flat Tax.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7146/flattax.html
People like you make me ashamed to call myself
su
your mixing people up to try and make a point but not doing it well
First you compare Obama to her, but then on an issue you compare Obama to McCain because you know you don't have anything bad to compare to Gov Palin with. Then when you talk about Obama you praise him and when you talk above Gov Palin you demean her. Where is the fairness in that?

First, nobody is taking anything away from Obama. He is intelligent, articulated, has a beautiful family, has done quite well for himself both career and family wise.

Nobody is saying he is exotic and comparing it to her saying she is a quantessential American Story. People are very impressed with Obama's life history. Hawaii is a very exotic sounding state (I've never heard him described as exotic). Ahh Hawaii, beautiful oceans, white sandy beaches - everyone's dream vacation. You make it sound like people are tearing him down because he was born in Hawaii. Alaska is quite different. You have to admit that hunting moose is not your everyday experience but nowhere in any news source or anywhere have I heard people compare where they grew up in to put one down and bring the other up.

Nobody has said that because his name is Barack he's a radical unpatriotic Muslim. He's a Muslim turned Christian period, but not because of his name, and nobody has said she's a Maverick because of what she named her kids.

Nobody has said he is unstable because he graduated Harvard. On the contrary. People have said he is one of the most intelligent persons to have graduated and become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. That's not an accomplishment many people can say they have and that is what I am hearing everywhere. And who cares how many colleges she went to (this is your first demeaning statement of her by saying they were "small" colleges instead of just saying "5 colleges"). My DH has attended about 7 colleges all because of where he was living at the time and he is far from "well grounded" and I have never heard people say that about her.

Second part of belittling her and raising him up is by saying he is a "brilliant" community organizer. Brilliant may be your view of him, but I would just say he was a community organizer. No need to say he is brilliant and all other words of praise while belittling her. Yes, she was on TV but she was not a "local weather girl" (another cheap shot at trying to put her down). She was a TV News anchor and covered sports. And your description of her time served as councilwoman, mayor, and governor is a little more than insulting. It goes to verify that you just hate her and what she has accomplished. You need to research all the good things she has done and whether you like it or not, she has done a lot of good things for the people and made their lives better. And to try attack the population of Alaska as though it's some kind of negative for her, and make her sound any less by saying they were small towns and state. Governer is governer. Responsibilites are the same wether your a governor of Alaska, Hawaii, California or any other state (give or take a few of the state programs). BTW Alaska is more than twice the size of Texas. And funny how Dean was the frontrunner for the dems when the population of Vermont is smaller than Alaska (yes, I'm sure you all don't want to remember that little tid bit).

Gov. Sarah Palin was on the city council for 2 years, Chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee for 1 year, was mayor of Wasilla for 6 years. She defeated a 3-term mayor. She created positions and even reduced her salary. She cut property taxes by 75% and eliminated personal property and business inventory taxes. She made improvements to the roads and sewers and increased funding to the police department. She also procured funding for storm-water treatment to protect freshwater resources. She ran a second term and won by 74%. She's promoted oil and natural gas resource development. She sold a jet, got rid of a personal chef and drives herself to work from her home (50 miles) even though she is allowed a per diem and hotel. She got rid of the bridge to nowhere and she signed into law the AGIA. So your portrayal of what Gov. Palin has done is quite inaccurate while boosting up Obama. Gov. Palin's past qualifications will most definitely contribute and help her to be a good VP.

Obama was a state legislature from 1997-2004, in the US Senate in 2004, and became a junior senator in 2005. You can't even seriously compare the two.

Yes Obama has been married to Michelle for 19 years and their two daughters are beautiful. Sarah has been married to Todd for 20 years and they have five beautiful children. (your comparing Barack to Sarah in all your answers - so why did you jump to John McCain on this one?)

Whatever kind of safe sex education you want to give pre-schoolers (who should be
more concerned with learning how to read and write is just wrong). Gov. Palin did not advocate teaching only abstinence. And she had nothing to do with her daughter getting pregnant. The best of children come up pregnant both in democratic and republican party.

Funny how you were all for Bill Clinton getting ready to be called "First Dude", but now you have a problem with Todd Palin being called "First Dude", and don't even try to justify that one with Bill Clintons background. Are you saying the the VP's spouse is suppose to have a college education? How egotistical of you. Especially since he is a commercial fisherman, for 18 years worked in the oil fields, member of the United Steelworkers, among other things. That's a pretty stable background.

Kudo's to Michelle for graduating from Harvard, but not everyone wants to go to college to be a lawyer (and in my opinion we need less lawyers in DC, not more), but to take away from Todd Palin because he doesn't have a college degree????

And to mention such an insignificant note that he didn't vote until 25? Who cares? And I'm not sure that is even true, but just plain trivial.

This post is just another liberal post trying to trash and demean decent people, not giving credit where credit due, while propping up your candidate, with inflated statements.

Ok, much clearer now to you?
To make it easier for some people, I tallied the votes (sm)

O did not vote  on the issues 289 times. He voted yea 220 times and voted nay 128 times.


I haven't had the time to really check out the yea's or nay's but I will in the next couple of days.


 


Perhaps if you would try to make sense people could answer your questions. nm
x
is it our government's job to make the world's people happy?
nm
why do we vote for people to make things complicated?
People who make their bills 900 pages should be rejected on the spot.  There should be a page max to make sure that the people representing us fully understands what they are getting US into.  JERKS!!!!  thanks for showing me that!
Why does the Government have to create Laws to make people Volunteer?...

 


http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/meet-the-compulsive-service-orwellian-give-act-to-be-voted-on-this-week/


Next up on the agenda this week is the GIVE Act, short for the “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act”.


The ABC News headline ‘GIVE’ Act Would Give Back. Volunteer Programs Would Provide Jobs to Unemployed, Assist Those in Need says it all.


    In his address to Congress last month, President Barack Obama called on lawmakers to expand federally funded national service opportunities.


    “To encourage a renewed spirit of national service for this and future generations, I ask this Congress to send me the bipartisan legislation that bears the name of Sen. Orrin Hatch as well as an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country — Sen. Edward Kennedy,” the president said.


    Democrats say they may be able to respond to that call by the end of this month.


    The Senate is working on the Kennedy/Hatch Serve America Act of 2008, and the House is working on a similar bill, called the Generations Invigorating Volunteering and Education (GIVE) Act.


Here's a real nice conservative statement. How to make friends and influence people.

"Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested on-air Monday, Aug. 22, 2005, that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."


 


LOL No argument s/m

I'm neither Democrat or Republican, I usually call myself independent.  I march to my own drum.  I would have liked to have seen 2 different candidates than what we had.  I would have liked to see a true Christ-like man, humble and honest in his/her campaign...i.e. the "Straight Talk Express" which McCain claimed to have and didn't.


I simply voted AGAINST the man who bragged that he had voted "with the president over 90% of the time, more than even his Republican colleagues."  We certainly need change.  I know I haven't fared so well under Bush.  All is not lost for those who think Obama is a monster if he in fact turns out to be what he's been accused of being. .  Remember Richard Nixon? 


you win the argument
If you like Bush you are a rare person indeed. His approval rating is 26%.

So now is your time to shine because your guy is still in charge and you should enjoy it.
Why don't you take your little argument over to the CON board.
You can con each other on the CON board.  How's that?
So is posting the same argument.
I remind you that the monitor recently posted we could cross-post, as we have had liberals on the conservative board, as long as the posts were not bashing. 
Wow, that's a good argument....
it is not a personal choice. There are two people involved, one of whom has NO choice. Not fair.
Is that your only argument for socialism?
My word....people are committing adultery on both sides of the fence, that will never change. What in the world does that have to do with socialism and socialists candidate?
But you have made your argument here FOR
You already know where Obama stands. He has said outright he will raise taxes to pay for more social programs. He wants to tell you how to get your healthcare. I agree we definitely need to do something about healthcare but then that could be easily done if the fat cats on capitol hill, including Obama, would stop insurance lobbyists and make it illegal for lobbying....period!!! They then would have to make it more affordable or they will not have a business to run in the first place.

I too would like to see our troops come home from Iraq but not give that money to Obama because it will be wasted faster than you can blink and on what? More socialist programs...

If you look deep into what Obama hasn't detailed in his healthcare plan, you will see that you WILL be paying DEEPLY for it. He has managed to waltz around the details of his plan, which include HUGE tax hikes to pay for that wonderful healthcare he wants to give you.

With the two candidates I am left to choose from, I choose a capitalist over a socialist any day. I'm about to believe Obama would sell his soul to the devil to get in that position.
Okay, that argument aside, here's a legitimate
What will be your thoughts, and more importantly - your ACTIONS - if the candidate of your choice doesn't win?

Where do you go from there?
Do you have a plan as to what you will do, or not do, or change, or flee, if your candidates lose the election?
I can see both sides of the argument
Yes, many people are getting threatened and businesses getting picketed for supporting Prop 8. You cannot deny that (what was the pink taliban or whatever that disrupted church service a month or so ago?)

But on the other hand, if they want these donations anonymous, than that means Obama and other politicians can make their donations anonymous, and I think it's the publics right to know who is financing the next leaders of the country.

I just find it interesting that the homosexuals are assaulting and threatening supporters of the Prop 8 for what they believe in when they themselves are asking for fair treatment for what they believe in.
You don't do your argument any good

by talking down to people.  The point I gathered from the the Bloomberg article seems to state what many have said and that is that with all the spending the government has done and will continue to do, the government could have paid off almost all mortgages and settled what was touted as the root cause of all the problems, the subprime mess. 


Bailouts don't work, handouts don't work, the free market does. 


With one mistake after another, rookie Obama's decisions and policies demonstrate one thing only and that is his stimulus package is political payback instead of finding genuine solutions.  The vagueness of his campaign speechmaking was the work of a hollow wordsmith after all. 


"I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
-Winston Churchill

 


I am so sick of this argument
All that clause means is that their will be no state sponsored religion - like saying everyone has to be Baptist or Lutheran or Catholic. It had nothing to do with taking God out of the white house or supreme court or anywhere else! The only reason that happened is because Christians just sat by and didn't say anything while everyone else whined about it and now it's too late to reverse all that because the mindset now is "oh we have to have separation of church and state!"

Of course as greedy and grimy as politicians are these days they probably feel better thinking that God doesn't pay attention to politics!

Here's some quotes from the founding fathers:

William Bradford
• wrote that they [the Pilgrims] were seeking:
• 1) "a better, and easier place of living”; and that “the children of the group were being drawn away by evil examples into extravagance and dangerous courses [in Holland]“
• 2) “The great hope, and for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world"

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."


Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry


Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

Article 22 of the constitution of Delaware (1776)
Required all officers, besides taking an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe to the following declaration:
• "I, [name], do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."


That is a valid argument. Thank you

I heard that argument..(sm)

They're saying they'll have to raise taxes when the extended benefits run out.  This doesn't make sense to me.  If while they are receiving extended benefits they are creating jobs with the other aspects of the stimulus, wouldn't the total bill for unemployment go down? 


Not a good argument...(sm)

I could just as easily say that if you believe in the sanctity of life so much, why are you willing to torture and kill others.


That argument won't work because most people who are pro-choice do not believe that life begins at conception.


Ah, the persecuted Christian argument. Please.............

That was the argument in 1960. We didn't buy it then and we are...sm
not buying it now almost 50 years later. Religion should have no part of politics any more than race, gender or anything else that has no bearing on whether a person can lead.
That whole "blood for oil" argument is garbage.
nm
An argument for redistribution of wealth

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm


FY 2007


Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:


1.     Individual income tax                  45%. 


Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.


2.     Payroll taxes                               35%


Social insurance (Social Security).  Funds used to pay for Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)


Supplemental Security Income (SSI).   Individual's share of this is 17.5%.  


3.     Corporate Income Tax                 15%


4.     Excise Tax                                    3%. 


Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas. 


5.     "Other"                                          2%


 


So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%.    


 


If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950.  For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.   


 


A couple of other points of interest: 


http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html


"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.(6) Put another way, small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.


 


http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm


Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion?  Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information:


 


Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS.  The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS).   To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade.  I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages.  Pay special attention to the last 3 items. 


 


1.     Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s


2.     Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s   


3.     Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s 


4.     Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s 


5.     Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s


6.     Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s


7.     Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s.    


                                  


From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture.  I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth.  This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another.  This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.  


Citizenship argument...another red herring on
Get over yourself.
The closing argument that lifts us up
what it really means to be an American.  No amount of harsh rhetoric or divisive tactics can touch the hope I hold nor the joy I take in knowing that the country I love, which has lost so much of late, is still there, is on the mend and that better and brighter days are just around the bend.     
Good argument for the 10% threshold. :) nm
nm
What kind of good solid argument is that?
All I saw was a good article assessing the state of our emergency readiness and the conservative comes back with nyah nyah, a guy got shot, hope you're happy.

Is that what anyone calls good solid argument?
Your argument does not hold a drop of water.
Number one. No they wouldn't...journalists are like lawyers...they don't rat out their sources. It is a question of professional integrity. Furthermore, the LA Times went into great detail to describe precisely what was on the video. No cigar on that media bias whining. This is what happens when campaigns declare war on the media, keep their VP pick on a short leash, avoid one-on-one interviews like the plaque and squeal out loud when the rogue goes off script. The media would not be having a field day if there weren't such an abundant pool of news stories being generated daily by this pathetically mismanaged and misguided camp.

Since when is the International REPUBLICAN Institute, chaired by McCain, the REBPULICAN presidential candidate apolitical? Explain this to me, please. The Center for PALESTINIAN Research and Study...apolitial? On what planet is the subject of Palestine apolitical? Seriously, can you point out any Palestinian living either in OCCUPIED Palestine or in the diapora who is NOT political. If it weren't political, there would have been no exchange of funds. Not at all the same as what...a little incoherent here.

The "meeting" was a farewell dinner for Khalidi held at a Palestinian community center in Chicago for this American born, Yale graduate, Oxford University Doctor of Philosophy, former professor and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the Center for International Studies at the University of Chicago, current professor at Columbia University. He is a member of the National Advisory Committee of the US INTERreligious Committee for Peace in the Middle East...a national organization of Jews, Christians and Muslims. He is also a member of the Board of Sponsors of the Palestine-Israel Journal, a publication founded by prominent Palestinian and ISRAELI journalists.

Radical Israel hater? Sam, this may come as a shock to you, but Palestinians take great pride in crossing cultures and religions for the sake of garnering peace in their war-torn country. You need help interpreting what Obama meant by "showing me my own personal bias." This is what occurs when people cross cultures, talk to one another, listen to points of view other than their own and start the process of coming to terms with the ethnocentric bias they carry around from their own cultures. I know exactly what he means. It is precisely the quality an effective foreign policy leader need to have to make effective diplomatic inroads. If you want to make something suspicious and subversive out of that....be my guest. In the absence of the tape, Sam, just how is it that you claim to know precisely what transpired during that farewell dinner?

Notably absence from you post is any direct comment on the fact that Chairman McCain's IRI funded the organization that Khalidi founded for 2 years in a row. If he is the Jew hater you suggest he is, then wouldn't that mean that once again, Chairman McCain had a vetting deficit?

Rabid rants will not support your argument.
with anything. Rememer the burden of proof thingy in the courts? Why do you think Berg the Boob is suing on grounds of "standing" and alleged "harm"...claims that thus far have been laughed out of court?
Another argument based on false premise.
underpinnings of our democracy? Here's a clue just for you. What is the function of the Supreme Court? Since when do the 3 branches of our govt NOT interpret the constitution? This has absolutely nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with the ignorance you seem to feel compelled to display, and dern proudly, I might add.

Before you try to tell the rest of us how we should be thinking and such, perhaps you should be addressing your own severe afflictions, starting with your blind hatred.
Wow, that was a powerful, cogent, scholarly argument!..................nm
nm
The fire safety argument is a lot of hooey.

Is it more of a fire hazard just because more than 15 people meet on a regular basis than if someone has a single  party for 30 people? 


As long as you and the other wiccans are clothed and no open-burning laws are being broken (in a residential area, that would  be a fire hazard) I would have no particular problem with your rituals.  Depending on the time of day/night and loudness of chanting, it might constitute a disturbance of the peace, same as a loud barbecue party in the neighborhood.  But with the basic concept of your meeting, no big deal.


sam, weak argument based on semantics, that reporter's
implication was all too clear, and just another stupid accusation in order to mislead yet more uneducated, misinformed voters.
I'm afraid my history lesson disqualifies your argument.
be a smartass and ask what has changed since his statement. I simply stated the obvious answer. What has changed is his MIND. If he didn't feel qualified, he would not have run. Evidently, 65,431,955 citizens agreed with this chane of heart. You cannot argue away the fact that GREAT presidents have held office with much less experience than Obama...and I look for him to be adding his name to that list of the BEST our country has to offer in short order.
Nope, never said I wasn't black, but I remember the argument you're talking about...sm
Nan, Military Brat and Bush supporter took me to task over whether or not I was black when I said *and who said I was black anyway* I'm trying to find this in archives.

But, what I can't stand is people having a preformed opinion about how I am going to think or should think since I'm black, that's why I don't post my race. Once I posted that I was African American that's when they started the *I thought you said you weren't black.* Which I have never denied my race. Sorry, but not true.
Hindsight is 20/20. The same argument could be made of North Korea if they decide to attack...sm
after Bush's 2nd term has ended.

Clinton and Bush definitely were opposites on foreign policy, but I think he did try - probably didn't do as much as he could. What Bush is doing with the war in Iraq though, I think is irresponsible as well.
NOBODY can make Saddam look good. But Bush seems to be the ONLY one who can make him look less

If you can't make abortion illegal, just make it impossible (sm)

That's right, Bush is still alive and well.  Check this out.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#28024676


Yeah, I know it's MSNBC, but how many other people are doing a lame duck watch?


Just because you make a statement does not make it true...
.
I always knew I would NOT

vote for Obama.  Now that Palin is McCain's running mate.....I feel more confident than ever that I made the right decision when I chose to vote for McCain......even if McCain is really really really old.  ; - )


McCain and Palin ང