look up def of required
Posted By: shelly on 2008-11-12
In Reply to: Would you prefer he receive a - Marmann
The last time I knew "required" meant mandatory. And that WAS right off of is website, that is until people, that are not cloudy over O, started complaining about the "required" word and they changed it. But he is trying to get away with it. Talk to me in a year and tell me how you feel then. If I am wrong, I will admit it. Will you?
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
I didn't know anyone was required to
x
Every politician should be required...
To take one year of American history and one year of world history before ever being allowed to run for any kind of public office. Then maybe they wouldn't keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
No one should ever be required to say a pledge to anyone or anything.
Pledges are personal choices. Being forced to recite one is the opposite of freedom.
Every child in every classroom has the right to refuse to pledge.
required to hate??
What Christian religion is that - mine sure does not require me to hate. Mine teaches me to love. And yes, it is quite possible to hate the sin and love the sinner. That is what God does every day. Ask anyone who has ever loved a drug addict, an abuser, someone who lied, someone who shoplifted something, etc., etc., etc. You can hate their behavior but still love the person. And of course it is judging to say something is disgusting. that is your opinion, not everyone else's. Thus, it is a judgment, not a fact. Have you yourself never sinned in any way? Did you expect people to them hate you because they may have hated what you did? Of are you above everyone else?
Gonzales not required to take oath??
That just beats all. Why even have him testify if he is not required to tell the truth UNDER OATH? Not too hard to figure out where this is all coming from - reminds one of the way Bush visited with the 9/11 commission but refused to be put under oath.
The question is, and always has been - why is this administration so terrified of telling the truth?
The word is that Rove is threatening to withdraw all Republican funding and support from any Republican senator or representative who fails to fall in line with the administration's ambition of unbridled above-the-law autonomy. If they so much as make a peep about protecting the Constitution rather than dear leader, they're dead in the water. It's kind of pathetic watching them all sweat and stutter and grovel, heh - might even be entertaining if it wasn't such an important issue.
No effort required. Just one finger.
(And that would be the middle one, of course.)
Why not? The basic minimum that should be required. nm
.
Whistleblowers on this were required to monitor
their spouses, for starters, and also conversations of Doctors without Borders and Red Cross personnel (aid workers). The conversations were recorded. Legally speaking, this falls under the category of search and seizure and requires a warrant showing just cause. If that sounds familiar, it should, since right to privacy and protections against unreasonable search and seizure are encoded in the Constitution. There are a number of privacy issues that come into play available to illustrate what a slimey, slippery slope this can be. Suffice to say that what we have here is a government agency behaving as voyeurs, abusing their power, thumbing their noses at the law and violating the constitutional rights of Americans serving our country. I am grappling for an explanation that justifies such offensive behavior. Eqally as disturbing is the notion that that some Americas with entrenched post-911 Patriot Act mentality accept this as status quo.
If they wear red, white and blue, they are not REQUIRED to
.
FYI. Joe the unlicensed required to be licensed in Ohio.
Joe the unlicensed's 15 minutes has raised the ire of Tom Joseph, business manager for Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters, and Service Mechanics of Ohio, who claimed that Joe didn’t undergo any apprenticeship training. "When you have guys going out there with no training whatsoever, it’s a little disreputable to start with," Mr. Joseph said. "We’re the real Joe the Plumber." "This individual has got no schooling, no licenses, he’s never been to a training program, union or nonunion, in the United States of America," Mr. Joseph said. Working for a licensed plumber does not quite cut it.
Wondering if your husband has read Obama's plan for small business, for example the Making Work Pay tax credit (not a rate cut, a direct tax credit)? There is a lot of information there under issues and subheading economics. There is a section there on small business. Not a good idea to buy into the spreading the wealth mantra without that information.
The exposure of Joe the Plumber as a sham makes one raise the question of his autheticity and the possibility of his being a McCain campaign plant at that rally. The bigger picture on this is that Joe himself is being exploited by McCain's campaign (currently not something he is enjoying, having lost his privacy) in their assertions that they will look after the interests of the working class. Flies in the face of the fact that McCain himself has not even spoken the phrase middle class out of his own mouth. The "welfare" rhetoric characterizing spread the wealth as socialism sounds a bit hostile toward the middle class...the economic class of most small business owners he claims to be so concerned about.
REQUIRED IN ORDER TO GET THE COLLEGE CREDIT! NM
x
When originally posted on the web site, it said it was required ..
I have seen the images before and after ...
you can bet my kid will do it if there is a tax credit ...
but hey -- guess what? He does stuff anyway without being forced or bribed ...
required and mandatory if you want the $4000 for college - nm
x
|
