cause cirrhosis or lung cancer. My DH's aunt died of both those diseases and never smoked or drank during her life. So, how did she wind up with those diseases?
I do believe that your everyday cleaning products have too many chemicals in them and they could cause lung diseases, but no one ever did a study on those, did they? Nope, the culprits are always cigarettes and alcohol.
Don't get me wrong...the studies don't lie, but I would love to see a study on some of the chemicals in cleaning products, air fresheners, etc. Bet you'd be surprised.
The only reason I can think that these people don't have harsher punishments for drunk driving is because our prisons are full and they just really can't house them for long periods of time. It too irritates me when people with multiple offenses kill someone and hardly anything is done.....it makes me sick. I've never personally lost anyone to alcohol but I just don't understand why punishments and enforcement isn't a lot more strict than they are.
Would you support legalization of marijuana if the tax revenues could be up to 14 Billion Annually? Add to that Jobs, freeing up of police/DHS for border drug war interdiction and on and on. Legalized and sold with restrictions like alcohol?
An alternative protest along with the Tea Party protest today.
=======================================
NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre presented a mock check to the U.S. Treasury Department in the sum of $14 billion this morning at a press conference on the steps of the General Post Office in New York City.
The $14 billion check total represents the combined savings and tax revenues that would be generated by regulating the sale and production of cannabis like alcohol, according to a 2005 analysis by Harvard University senior lecturer Jeffrey Miron and endorsed by over 500 distinguished economists.
Media representatives from CNN, Fox News, Sirius Satellite Radio, and other news outlets were on hand to cover the event.
“On a day when so many Americans lament having to pay state and federal income taxes, we’re representing America’s millions of otherwise law-abiding cannabis consumers, who are ready, willing, and able to contribute to our struggling economy — while providing truly ‘green’ jobs and allowing police to focus on more important priorities,” NORML told reporters. “All we ask in exchange for our $14 billion is the right to enjoy pot responsibly and in peace.”
should marijuana be legalized
I agree, it should be legalized. Alcohol kills people every day. I'm an old hippie and have never known of anyone on pot either harming or killing another person. It's almost impossible. The country is definitely losing alot of money by not legalizing.
What is your opinion regarding medical marijuana?
Although the residents of California voted overwhelmingly to make medical marijuana legal in our state with written recommendation from a doctor, the federal government still considers it a crime.
Should the federal government laws supersede the laws of the State of California against the will of the voters?
The question was specific to marijuana
but frankly, I do not care what anybody else consumes. That includes maryjane, and so my vote is yes.
DEA to halt medical marijuana raids.
Supporters of programs to provide legal marijuana to patients with painful medical conditions are celebrating Supporters of programs to provide legal marijuana to patients with painful medical conditions are celebrating Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement this week that the Drug Enforcement Administration would end its raids on state-approved marijuana dispensaries.
Holder confirmed that states will have the final say on use of the drug for pain control.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29433708/
Another great decision by the Obama administration!
LEGAL
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE DEMMIE!And yet it is still legal....
@@
abortion will always be, whether legal or not
What these anti pro choice people dont seem to realize is, termination of pregnancy will continue whether it is legal or not. The only difference is it will go underground, performed by people who are not licensed and the rich women, they will just make an appointment in a progressive not backward country like America and have their abortion. Essentially women will be baby makers for the government, their bodies controlled by the government. What it comes down to is..the neocons need to mind their own business.
Legal or not, there will always be abortions.
Abortions will always be performed whether they are legal or not. When I was in college, abortion was illegal. Several students became pregnant and had illegal abortions by back-alley butchers, and they almost died from hemorrhage and infection. Others tried to abort their pregnancies with wire hangers, knitting needles, and other drastic measures. I would much rather have legal abortions performed by licensed physicians than force young women to resort to barbaric procedures to terminate their pregnancies.
Legal yes, moral no. n/m
x
Its not a legal issue
its a mental issue. Supreme Court does not rule in that arena.
it's not stealing - it's legal!
They are not married so they qualify for the earned income credit on their taxes even though they pay nothing in. It is based on how many children you have and your income.
It's been there forever! My sister gets upwards of $6000 a year every year and has for as long as I can remember; of course, when the children hit 17 or 18, that is gone, but for now it is like an extra $500 or $600 a month in income if you spread it out.
I don't know if the law changed, but the mother is also in Mexico. Don't know if she went voluntarily or if she was deported, too. If she went voluntarily, then I feel she really didn't put her children first.
Like I said in my earlier post, I think the children should have gone with them even though they are American citizens. Why let the eldest take care of the younger ones, I think ages 15 and 11.
Now here again, I believe in God, but I also respect the fact that there are other Americans who do not. Isn't that one of the primary reasons we fought so hard for indepence? The freedom to choose our religion or not to choose any religion?
Separation of church and state. It boggles my mind that this basic, simple premise somehow is so complicated.
The Pledge did not even contain the words, under God until some time in the 1950s. The Pledge was ammended to include them. The founding fathers did not write those words.
Believing in God should not be a qualification for being an American. Including the words, under God, if one does not believe in God, prohibits them from reciting The Pledge. They don't want to have to leave the room or be silent. They want to pledge their allegiance to their country, but for those words.
It has nothing to do with Americans excluding God. It's just the right of all Americans to practice their religion of choice or no religion.
Proclaiming one's belief in God can be exhibited in so many more meaningful ways than insisting that 2 words be included in The Pledge.
I agree. Women will have them - legal or not
Although I don't think I would ever consider abortion personally and am also sickened by people who have them over and over again (get your tubes tied darn it!!!), I believe women will have them regardless of if they are legal or not, so I think it is much safer if they remain legal.
I also think the woman should have the choice of what to do with something that is actually inside of her body. She is the one ultimately 100% responsible for the medical bills due to the pregnancy, the emotional toll and physical risks of the pregnancy, and the child's well being afterwards. The man can get off scott free if he wants and skip from job to job to avoid paying child support, so it should definitely be up to the woman.
I also find it odd that many pro-life Republicans are so adamant that each baby have a chance to be born, but yet if that baby is born to a lower-class mother many (not all) don't want a dime of their money to go to help that baby with healthcare costs or any other costs that could help the child after it's actually born. Where is the deep concern for the children that are actually living?
Though the thought of abortion is definitely disturbing to me, I do not believe at less than 3 months old a baby's nerves are developed enough to feel pain as they are aborted, but I know for a fact many children in the USA are being abused and neglected on a daily basis because they were unwanted, and my heart breaks for them. There are over 100,000 foster kids in the USA right now that need good homes and more resources, and I think our focus should be on helping these children first. My sister has 2 amazing foster kids, and I really wish the anti-abortion activists would focus on fostering or helping the kids that are here now instead of focusing so much on fetuses that are inside of other women's bodies, and therefore really none of their business in my personal opinion. (I know some do foster and volunteer, but I have a sneaking suspicion that not all of them do!)
I don't understand your question, sorry....if I don't want him controlling my health care why would I want him deciding if an abortion should be legal? I don't want him controlling my health care, and the Supreme Court already decided (unconstitutionally I might add) that abortion is legal. THIS was about INFANTICIDE. Killing a living breathing infant outside and separate from the mother by denying it medical care. Abortion is horrific enough, but that is out and out negligent homicide, and he voted FOR it. That tells me all I need to know about Barack Obama and how he cares about people.
I read your "document". Very legal-looking and all,
How exactly do you know that's legitimate? Did you see the official hard-copy? Likely not. I could have typed something like that myself, and so could you, or any other person who owns a PC. Even a photo of a 'hard copy' posted on the internet can't be automatically assumed to be valid. You do know, don't you, that most of what you read and hear on the internet is suspect in its validity, and nearly impossible to prove? The internet has more urban myths, fantasies and lies floating around on it than Carter's has little pills. So you have to be very careful about making decisions and judgements based on what you find here, and even more careful about what you say.
Anyway, it's a nice-looking document, but again, I could produce something exactly like that with ANYone's name on it, and post it on an internet in a matter of minutes.
Real 'truth' is something that's actually very, very difficult to find under the best of circumstances, and your chances of finding any during an election year?
Pretty much zip.
If Obama is not legal, he is not doing our country
nm
You can go to school as a legal resident
& don't have to become a citizen. Being adopted by someone doesn't imply that you automatically have that person's citizenship.
I lived in a country that doesn't recognize dual citizenship. I could have gotten a residence visa (work visa would have been possible, but more difficult), but I worked legally and went to school without either of these things. I married a Dutch national and did not give up my U.S. citizenship, but if I had (I was 19 at the time) I could have requested that my U.S. citizenship be reinstated when I turned 21.
The concentration camps were legal, too.
Your argument doesn't hold any water. Just because someone's allowed to murder one type of human being and not another does not make either right or just.
And, FYI, killing an adult with cancer is NOT illegal, so you need to check your facts.
If Joe Legal is married and has 2 children
and 2 parents, whom he probably supports, why else did you mention this, anyways, Joe Legal does NOT pay 30% taxes.
After I read this statement, I did NOT continue to read your rant.
Also, this inquiry was started before she was running for the VP slot - so it was not something they cooked up to get her after she got picked by McCain.
how about legal!!/common sense test...
x
I didn't say it was correct, legal, or moral.
And the WMDs didn't have anything to do with it, although you'll never convince me that Sadaam didn't have the capability for such - he'd used them in the past to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Correct, legal, moral or whatever, if you're in line with a terrorist group, like many sent to these places were, then you have no rights. Plain and simple.
I just feel that we've gotten too far from 9/11 and remembering what that day was like and all those people killed. It seems like now we care more about the "rights" of those involved in terrorist activites than those innocent people who died that day. Maybe that's why we're such an easy target.
He has no legal recourse to "recall" bonuses.
Unfortunately, because these are private companies, they have contracts with the CEOs and they are absolutely within their rights to honor those contracts. However, if Obama can find a loophole to keep them from getting paid, then we'll see what happens then.
This is why the government shoulder NEVER get involved in private businesses. Once they start handing on money, they think they own private businesses and dictate everything to them, so now we are caught in a catch 22 so to speak; government has no business in private businesses but yet they have given private businesses OUR money with NO stipulations beforehand and are now "surprised" the bonsues will continue?! Pleeeze!!!
It wasn't legal, it was unlawfully allowed; thus, the
--
This is what happens when the American legal system handles things
things can get screwed up on a minor technicality--such as the president ordering justified wire taps. The columnist is right saying that the Americans won't support impeaching Bush for trying to fight terrorism. Oh the dems are scraping the bottom trying to persue this, and in the process they are only going to hurt themselves, because they will be viewed as being totally spineless on national security (which they are--this little stunt more thanproves it).
Again, the screw up here is letting the screwed up American legal system handle legal cases that are best served by military tribunals.
McCain's legal adviser has already voted for Obama.
Yet another high-profile Republican has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama — and this time, it’s one of Sen. John McCain’s own advisers.
Charles Fried, a conservative legal scholar, Harvard professor and former solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, has asked to be removed from McCain’s list of advisers and thrown his support behind the Democratic presidential nominee.
I don't expect anyone to quit taking their legal deductions and I don't see how his taking those deductions can be construed as his not having to pay more taxes. The amount you owe comes off the adjusted amount and that will still be the same after he itemizes - just the percentage paid against that amount will change.
GOP Pays Legal Bills in Vote-Thwart Case
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Republican Party says it still has a zero-tolerance policy for tampering with voters even as it pays the legal bills for a former Bush campaign official charged with conspiring to thwart Democrats from voting in New Hampshire.
James Tobin, the president's 2004 campaign chairman for New England, is charged in New Hampshire federal court with four felonies accusing him of conspiring with a state GOP official and a GOP consultant in Virginia to jam Democratic and labor union get-out-the-vote phone banks in November 2002.
The Republican National Committee already has spent more than $722,000 to provide Tobin, who has pleaded innocent, a team of lawyers from the high-powered Washington law firm of Williams & Connolly. The firm's other clients have included former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros.
Republican Party officials said they don't ordinarily discuss specifics of their legal work, but confirmed to The Associated Press they had agreed to underwrite Tobin's defense because he was a longtime supporter and that he assured them he had committed no crimes.
"Jim is a longtime friend who has served as both an employee and an independent contractor for the RNC," a spokeswoman for the RNC, Tracey Schmitt, said Wednesday. "This support is based on his assurance and our belief that Jim has not engaged in any wrongdoing."
A telephone firm was paid to make repeated hang-up phone calls to overwhelm the phone banks in New Hampshire and prevent them from getting Democratic voters to the polls on Election Day 2002, prosecutors allege. Republican John Sununu won a close race that day to be New Hampshire's newest senator.
At the time, Tobin was the RNC's New England regional director, before moving to President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.
A top New Hampshire Party official and a GOP consultant already have pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecutors. Tobin's indictment accuses him of specifically calling the GOP consultant to get a telephone firm to help in the scheme.
"The object of the conspiracy was to deprive inhabitants of New Hampshire and more particularly qualified voters ... of their federally secured right to vote," states the latest indictment issued by a federal grand jury on May 18.
The Republican Party has repeatedly and pointedly disavowed any tactics aimed at keeping citizens from voting since allegations of voter suppression surfaced during the Florida recount in 2000 that tipped the presidential race to Bush.
Earlier this week, RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, the former White House political director, reiterated a "zero-tolerance policy" for any GOP official caught trying to block legitimate votes.
"The position of the Republican National Committee is simple: We will not tolerate fraud; we will not tolerate intimidation; we will not tolerate suppression. No employee, associate or any person representing the Republican Party who engages in these kinds of acts will remain in that position," Mehlman wrote Monday to a group that studied voter suppression tactics.
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Thursday questioned Mehlman's commitment to the policy. "This is just another example of his say one thing, do another strategy. Ken Mehlman tells crowds his party is against voter fraud and intimidation, while in the backrooms he supports Republican officials who engage in these dirty tricks," Dean said.
Dennis Black and Dane Butswinkas, two Williams & Connolly lawyers for Tobin, did not return calls seeking comment. Brian Tucker, a New Hampshire lawyer on the team, declined comment.
Tobin's lawyers have attacked the prosecution, suggesting evidence was improperly introduced to the grand jury, that their client originally had been promised he wouldn't be indicted and that he was improperly charged under one of the statutes.
Tobin stepped down from his Bush-Cheney post a couple of weeks before the November 2004 election after Democrats suggested he was involved in the phone bank scheme. He was charged a month after the election.
Paul Twomey, a volunteer lawyer for New Hampshire Democrats who are pursuing a separate lawsuit involving the phone scheme, said he was surprised the RNC was willing to pay Tobin's legal bills and that it suggested more people may be involved.
The new development "really raises the questions of who are they protecting, how high does this go and who was in on this," Twomey said.
Federal prosecutors have secured testimony from the two convicted conspirators in the scheme directly implicating Tobin.
Charles McGee, the New Hampshire GOP official who pleaded guilty, told prosecutors he informed Tobin of the plan and asked for Tobin's help in finding a vendor who could make the calls that would flood the phone banks.
Allen Raymond, a former colleague of Tobin who operated a Virginia-based telephone services firm, told prosecutors Tobin called him in October 2002, explained the telephone plan and asked Raymond's company to help McGee implement it.
Raymond's lawyer told the court that Tobin made the request for help in his official capacity as the top RNC official for New England and his client believed the RNC had sanctioned the activity.
You obviously can't come up with anything other than the religious right's OPINION of Phil Donahue. I won't waste my time reading any more of your so-called *proof.*
Believe it or not, just because you IMAGINE something to be true doesn't make it so.
This is how they know Phil Donahue and others on their hit list are athiests (copied from their site):
Most of the time, you can tell what a person believes by their lifestyle and the words that come from their mouth. An atheist has a hard time believing in anything other than his/her own reason. Reason is something that was given to man to be able to deduce solutions to problems. It is also able to make us feel like gods when we place more value on our own knowledge than what is told in the Bible.
There is hope for atheists, for God is drawing all people to Christ. Will they listen? Every atheist who has died now knows the truth and is no longer an atheists; famous or otherwise.
And this would be worse than
a president that thinks God choose him to be president to facilitate Armageddon?
we have put up with worse, think
kennedy family. In fact, there is a lot they never told us in school about almost all of them. I don't know the whole story on mccain, but I do know he is the only one running with any sense of military. Obama says he will consult with his wife and grandmother, McCain says the generals. as far as addiction, they are very clever at hiding things from their families. I have known several through the years with alcohol problems, same thing. Betty Ford Clinic. How come nobody cares about sporting figures or hollywood stars or singers? and yes, some of them do end up in politics before you go there. The truth is, the whole world is jaded and traditional values don't mean anything anymore, or at least it seems that way. I want to see a politician I CAN trust, who can take the hard road when he has to, and I think he will have to. I also take note of the fact that no democracy has much staying power after the morales have gone, when debauchery is the norm, and everybody grows tolerant, then you will soon see a lost nation.
Nothing worse than......
being blackmailed by someone to get our votes.........
which is worse . . . .
being called bitter or being called a redneck?
which is worse? .....sm
....the person doing the name calling.
None of it sticks, because it isn't true, and just reflects back on the poor judgment and character of those trying their darnest to be upsetting.
Worse
I heard last night that many of the forclosures are on loans made to illegal aliens because our government passed a law that something or other, I wasn't aware before, that had to give so many loans to them. So I say again, what I've said all along, our government allowing unbridled illegal immigration was going to, and now has bankrupted us. They take free medical care, free education, ALL the freebies and still want more. RIDICULOUS!!!!Well, I for one don't know anyone who is worse off now than
4 or 5 years ago. Sure, we have taken a hit in the market, but the market always comes back, and that isn't our main source of investment anyway. In our circle of friends, who make between 75K to 500K a year, we don't know anyone who has not been able to make a house payment, CC payment, can't afford to send their kids to college, etc. Speaking for DH and I, we have never been late on any payment, never had an NSF, never over spent our CC limit. Not everyone is in dire financial straits. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who are in our situation who have planned for the future instead of living for today only. It is not uncommon or unheard of for people to be living within their means. I guess O considers us rich at 250K a year; wait until he decides that he needs to lower that figure to get the money he will need for all his "social programs" he wants to institute.
Joy is worse!
Joy is arrogant and nasty. Barbara Walters is getting pretty bad too. It may be because I agree with Elizabeth most of the time that I like her, but I cannot even stand the sound of Joy's voice, and those lovely faces she makes are great! I like Sherry, even though I usually don't agree with what she says.
No. Will most likely be much worse now with all
nm
marks the location of current message within thread
![](http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_messenger/2005805_57541_1_300x250_lrec_freewwcalls_love.gif")
