timesjoke

Give it up Snaf, they see what they want to see, not what is there. A mixed couple could for example try to raise their child in a community more accepting of children with mixed heritage for example, not in areas that tend to be less accepting, this was my point and all of these people are capable of understanding that is what I meant snaf, but they don't want to understand, all they want is to attack. More often than not children end up paying for the lack of planning and responsibility of their parents, that was the other point. Consider that all of them come down on me like a ton of bricks over something taken out of context, but Hugo attacks my dead mother and not one person said one thing negative to hugo, not even negative rep for what he said, they are all hypocrits.

So you can't see a difference between stopping the children already created from being born, and not making them or being more careful to plan for their life better? Under Hugo's way of saying it, he implies I want the children to be aborted, and I don't. Again, you guys pile on trying to make what I say completely different than what I actually said. My son's best friend is mixed, you have no idea how many times he came to my house crying because so many times he was rejected by both the whites and the blacks. It seems that "some" people don't think past their own selfish desires and passions long enough to consider what the future may hold for their possible children, and that is not a situation limited to just mixed children, it is very comon with many people in general, that is why single, never wed mothers are the fastest growing segment of American and European society. This again goes back to responsibility as almost all of my possitions are based. More responsibility, less pain for the children, imagine that.

Really? Did you really post that? Yes I did post that Joe. There is a huge difference between not agreeing with someone and being hostile with someone just because they do not share your view point. I don't do the hostile part. Look how emkay constantly makes these discussions all about attacking me and completely ignores what is said. Take my point about how the images shown were offered by the woman and her lawyer and even one of them was completely irresponsible to wear to a work environment (unless you worked at a strip club). It is very reasonable to believe that she wore a lot more stuff that was just as bad as the one. Then there is also the point the woman refused a direct order from her bosses. Point after point ignored, but personal attacks still made.

Which part is a lie. Tammy isn't white, or you didn't say that mixed race kids shouldn't be born? No, Tami is white, I have never said that mixed children should never be born, my oldest son's best friend is mixed and is currently staying with me so obviously I don't wan't all mixed children to be killed. I have in the past expressed concern with parents who bring mixed kids into the world without considering the problems they are setting the child up for, but that does not mean I think they should not be born at all. For this lie to be true I would have to support abortion so they could be killed off and I definately do not want any child killed in the womb.

New UN sanctions were announced today with Obama patting himself on the back for getting them passed but a closer look at what was passed and we see......nothing. There is not one meaningful change to dealing with Iran, most of it is voluntary requests for other Nations not to do certain kinds of business with Iran and some of it's supporters. There are no teeth in this resolution so it is nothing. More of the same weak crap from the weakest President to ever hold the office. We can impose our own sanctions without the UN if we wanted to, but this President has handed our security over to the UN to let them decide what we will and will not do.

^^^^^and that is my point about you made clear. I would not give you more so you took what I offered, made several crazy claims like all the previous presidents for 20 years were all conservatives (Clinton was a very left leaning liberal, he was the guy who signed the law that forced banks to lend money to the people who could not pay for them and caused the domino effect that turned into the current housing/bank crisis). I never supported the bailouts on any level, not the smaller version Bush started and certainly not the more increased version Obama started but there is a bigger difference between the two, Obama attached strings to his actions to let him take over things Bush never tried to do. I don't support handouts for private or public entities but we can say one thing for the public entitity, they do employ people, the welfare family does not, "IF" we have to choose one, I would choose the one who is employing people and keeping them off welfare because that is exactly where all those workers would end up and the Government spends the same money anyway with no chance of ever getting repaid, at least the banks are mostly going to pay the loaned money back. Anyway, I did not dodge your question, I gave you a very simplified answer to see what you would do with it and see if you were serious about wanting an honest debate or if you were just out to try and start a fight, when I would not give you more you did exactly what you always do, you used what was there to try and start a fight and lie about things like the last 20 years have only had conservative Presidents. The truth is not in you Wez, only lies and a desire to fight with people. No point in me wasting my time on that mess.

Well you will be missed, you know, I have always wondered at how many people that are so stuck on their own beliefs that they cannot accept ideas that do not conform to their own as even worthy of viewing or considering. I take acception to a lot of what other people say and do not agree with them but you don't see me get emotional about it. The real problem with emkay is she can't address the points I made, it stands to reason that there is more to this story then just this one side emkay has used to make up her mind. To me the really big problem is the woman refused a direct order several times from her bosses, the right thing to do is to follow the order and work to get it changed after, not completely ignore your boss and think your above their authority.

Well Builder, put simply we have all spoken from one degree to another against some of the things Bush has done, there are very few koolaide drinkers who are conservative. I liked a lot of what Bush accomplished such as bringing the fight to the radicals that kept America safe while Obama has visibly weakened our security and we have seen everything from North Korea and Iran take advantage of his weakness to renewed American attacks even on our own military bases by Muslim soldiers because everyone is too scared to do their jobs for fear of an Obama administration attacking them for being racist against Muslims. Some of the things you mention like the WMD's is an interesting thing, I once pinned Bender down by asking him what Lie did Bush tell? I have hundreds of quotes from both Clintons, Pelosi, Reed, etc who all said the same things Bush said, some of those comments before Bush ever took office. Of course Bender and no other hard liberal has ever been able to answer how it is possible for Bush to have lied when even Bill Clinton who had the same access to information as Bush did said the exact same things? Lastly, even if it was all the same, Bush never ran on a promise of "change", Obama did. Obama is the most partisan and divisive President to take office in over 20 years, he has broken almost every campaign promise he has ever made from not having lobbyists in his cabinet to being transparent and bringing people together from both sides of the asile. Obama has put down America as a whole and has made us weaker on the world stage. Even his healthcare reform was about rewarding his long standing political contributers with sweetheart deals like the break given to the Unions for their insurance policies that nobody else in America can get.

Wow, more lies, is that all you can contribute these days hugo? Liberal talking points and personal attacks?

At first, yes. She was told by her bosses to ease up on her sexy look, she ignored the order and tried to fight it instead of doing the smart thing and doing as she was told "and then" fight it as a reasonable people would do. This is my biggest issue, she refused to even try, she admitted herself the onlyt hings she was willing to adjust was makeup and hair. Did you read the story? She has closet after closet of sexy designer clothing, her one drive is to dress sexy, everything else in her life is secondary. And that is a problem, just like if an extremely fat guy with his gut hanging out was walking around the office would also be a distraction, the company has a right to request that things don't be too disruptive in the workplace. She admitted to having several closets of designer clothing emkay, do you really think those are the only clothes she wore there? Do you think it is possible that maybe they selected the less sexy outfits to make it look better than it was? Neither one of us were there emkay, we don't know how she dressed but we do have from her own lips that she refused to follow a direct order from her bosses not once but over, and over, and over again. She offered as her excuse to refuse as her Latin background that forces her to dress that way and any woman who did not dress that way was putting down the Puerto Rican flag????? Where did I ever say that? I said she would get offers, I never said she would accept, my point was that she was obviously more interested in fashion and such and this publicity would bring her some job offers in the field she was most aligned for based on her actions and words. Why am I not surprised you again turn to attacking me as a person? You can't see beyond your own need to attack. You insert words I never said (such as claiming I said she would pose for playboy) then you get upset at me for what you inserted. How about allowing us to discuss things without you constantly ignoring the points and instead only seeing what you want to see and going after me just because I don't agree with you?

Too much for me? Please explain.. That would be too much for you too, lol. Why do you dodge a simple question? If a question was asked I would answer it, but your just trying to pick a fight, so why waste my time on a meanignful and thought out reply that will just be ignored and used as an excuse to flame me? hahahaha.. got it all figured out already? Why do you even get of bed? If I wanted to flam you I'd just do it.. It was a simple question.. you like to use the liberal label.. a lot.. so.. define it with a meaningful and thought out reply.. try me. Already gave you a big part and you did not understand that so why waste more time on someone who does not really want to discuss anything and is only trying to be ugly to me Wez? I have tried you over, and over, and over, and over for a couple years and not one time have you ever met me half way on a honest debate, not once.

Emkay, don't tell me you don't know there is more than just the clothing to consider as well. The way a woman walks can be more sexual than her dress, reading between the lines I would bet she was being showy in more ways than just the clothing. If I was a woman and looked like that I would most likely want to show it off as well, but is the workplace a fashion show? She was warned several times to dress less sexy and she admits to refusing to do as her bosses ordered her to do. She is not stupid, she is using her looks and the sexy dress to get customers but those same looks and sexy clothing was causing issues with her co-workers and bosses. Is it fair that she was fired? I believe she knew what she was doing, she was warned and instead of doing what she was told by her bosses she tried to go over their heads to get higher ups to approve of her sexy dress and look in spite of what her managers wanted. She decided to fight instead of changing her dress: Was she trying to say she dressed very sexual because she was Latin? And that the Puerto Rican women who didn't dress sexual were putting down their flag? This comment and her attitude of defiance bothers me because she almost makes it seem that she does not care about her company or anything else but herself and her national identity as a Puerto Rican female. I don't feel bad for her, she will get offers from playboy and other modeling gigs and be making ten times the money she used to make and in the industry she obviously really wanted to be in....fashion......she sure was not interested in trying to fit in with banking and business, she was way too interested in her personal appearance and looking as sexy as possible instead of looking business like.

I have worked in office setting like that and I would bet a month's salary that it had nothign to do with the men but instead their wives. Let a wife stop by and see a bombshell like that working in close proximity to their husband and many women would lose their minds. I have watched wives steer their husbands away from the hot women at parties and such too. But why act surprised? Look how many women were pissed off that Sarah Palin was pretty.....she was smart, politically strong and able to hold her own and beat the men, had strong beliefs and was successful but all these women groups could see was how pretty she was and that was just too much to allow. Very pretty women have always been discriminated against.

Too much for me? Please explain.. That would be too much for you too, lol. Why do you dodge a simple question? If a question was asked I would answer it, but your just trying to pick a fight, so why waste my time on a meanignful and thought out reply that will just be ignored and used as an excuse to flame me?

I'd have issues spending that kind of money on something that I was just going to poop out, too! LOL Don't get me wrong... I enjoy a good meal, but I have my limits on cost.... even if money wasn't an issue in my life. I think it is more along the lines of having common sense. I can certainly afford it, I can afford a lot of things but I don't spend the money just because I can spend it, that is just stupid. I have friends who have cars they never drive and home after home after home they never live at just because having "stuff" is some kind of measurement of success to them. I own a few things, and more then one home, but I use and live in all of it, nothing I have is because I just want to spend money for the sake of spending it or because I want to have something so I can "say" I have it. I like your point about not spending money on something you just "poop out" that was pretty funny, lol.

Too much for me? Please explain.. That would be too much for you too, lol.

Again, he seems like a great guy who has an understand of how these things work far beyond most politicians, but even some whispers out of California has the people looking for ways to get the out of control spending under control. This issue of the various Government levels all believing they have unlimited spending rights to what we earn is pissing people off.

Well it does tend to happen where a group of people will hear or see what they want to hear or see even if it is not there.

Probably because he is a smart politician who knows the Republican Party has enough racists (such as TJ) that he can hook the label on the party. Another great example of how people like Hugo are actually helping Liberals, not fighting against them. Hugo joins in the concept that I must be a racist if I don't want the illegals to stay. Hugo as usual is using all the liberal talking points. Obama like all liberals don't want the border secured and they certainly do not want to lose the votes sending the illegals home would represent. But it goes deeper, Obama has demonstrated that he believes American rights and benefits should extend to everyone in the world, even terrorists captured on foreign soil should get free lawyers and all the comforts an American committing a regular crime in Ohio would receive.

The answer would be to much for you Wez, and your not really interested in the answer anyway, your just out trying to pick another fight, as ususal, but I don't mind a short answer to give a general concept of what I believe is one of the many defining principles of being Liberal: Someone who believe that some people are not responsible for their own existence to the degree that they believe it is fair to steal from those who are responsible, and give to those who are not. The concept that the majority of those who are poor are only poor because they are taken advantage of by someone else. To believe that "social justice" is the job of the Government. As a Conservative I believe the American promise is equal opportunity, not equal results. Trying to make life "fair" means you at the same time have to be unfair to someone else and you actually make it worse, not better. Look at your own life Wez, you have worked hard to educate yourself and to meet goals you have set for yourself. You have been made stronger as a result. The struggle and the accomplishment is giving you more than the Government ever could.

Well, I have to say, it was the best Beef I had ever tasted, just incredible full flavor and so tender you hardly had to chew to break it up and swallow. I decided to go with fresh garlic only, sear the meat on one side of the grill that was max heat then move the meat to the other side to reach rare or medium rare giving the meat a slight char on the outside and a jucy interior. We served caesar salad, sweet and regular baked potatoes, stuffed mushrooms, cheddar biscuts, sliced tomatoes and cucumbers with a couple wines and other drinks all in a buffet style down by the river, I have to say I do not remember a nicer time with friends having dinner. Everyone commented on the steak, I did not tell anyone ahead of time we were having Kobe beef, I wanted to see what the reaction would be and everyone noticed it was special so it is not just a mental thing. But I still have to say I have real issues with the cost, I don't really want to consider how much money all that Kobe beef would have cost had I paid for it. I am not above spending money for good things, but I don't know if I am willing to spend that much for these steaks myself, I will have to think about that. I am very happy for the experience though, it was a nice reward from my boss, he has really outdone himself with me on this one, I will have to figure out some way to show him how happy I am to have such a good guy as my boss.

I remember having a lot of debates with people about the liberal leaning of the vast majority of newspapers and television stations and one of the things that I have always pointed out is how stupid their stands are because it is driving people away from them.........but now I can see why. New moves by the Federal Trade Commission ordered by Obama has them pushing an idea to create a new tax of 5% on all electronics and to use that new income to "prop up" the failing liberal meidia sources. Some other ides they are pushing is postal discounts for certain groups of written media, grants to certain advanced education centers to promote the established media sources and not the newer sources. A new segment of the AmeriCorps for just journalists, some tax credits for employing journalists, and a big boost for public radio and television. Here we see a blantant move by Obama and company to have the Government pick the winners and the losers in the media markets by pouring money into certain groups and not other groups all on a discretionary possition. This seems to me as a direct reward from the Liberals to reward the die hard support they have given exclusively to them in helping them get elected and push their agenda like the healthcare bill where all these same media outlets gave blind support and attacked anyone who did not support Obama's agenda.

Who died the worst death: Three men stand before St. Peter awaiting admission into Heaven. However, St. Peter has been informed that Heaven will only admit 33% of applicants today. The admissions standard: Who died the worst death? So, St. Peter takes each of the three men aside in turn and asks them about how they died. First man: "I'd been suspecting for a long time that my wife was cheating on me. I decided to come home early from work one afternoon and check to see if I could catch her in the act. When I got back to my apartment, I heard the water running. My wife was in the shower. I looked everywhere for the guy, but couldn't find anyone or any trace that he had been there. The last place I looked was out on the balcony. I found the bastard hanging from the edge, trying to get back in! So I started jumping up and down on his hands, and he yelled, but he didn't fall. So I ran inside and got a hammer, and crushed his fingers with it until he fell twenty-five floors screaming in agony. But the fall didn't kill the butt hole. He landed in some bushes! So I dragged the refrigerator from the kitchen (it weighed about a ton), pulled it to the balcony, and hurled it over the edge. It landed right on the guy and killed him. But then I felt so horrible about what I had done, I went back into the bedroom and shot myself."St. Peter nodded slowly as the man recounted the story. Then, telling the first man to wait, he took the second aside. Second man: "I lived on the twenty-seventh floor of this apartment building. I had just purchased this book on morning exercises and was practicing them on my balcony, enjoying the sunshine, when I lost my balance and fell off the edge. Luckily, I only fell about two floors before grabbing another balcony and holding on for dear life. I was trying to pull myself up when this guy came running onto what must have been his balcony and started jumping up and down on my hands. I screamed in pain, but he seemed really irate. When he finally stopped, I tried to pull myself up again, but he came out with a hammer and smashed my fingers to a pulp! I fell, and I thought I was dead, but I landed in some bushes. I couldn't believe my second stroke of luck, but it didn't last. The last thing I saw was this enormous refrigerator falling from the building down on top of me and crushing me." St. Peter comforted the man, who seemed to have several broken bones. Then he told him to wait, and turned to the third man. Third man: "Picture this. You're hiding, naked, in a refrigerator..."

I think your right, I will cook a couple tonight as practice and see how it goes.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/03/justice-dept-challenges-arizona-immigration-law-targeting-employers/?test=latestnews The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court decision that upheld Arizona's right to punish employers for hiring illegal immigrants. The Arizona law gives the state the right to suspend or terminate business licenses. "If you hire a person in this country illegally knowingly, you'll lose your license. First offense, 10 days. Second offense, revocation, never to do business in the state of Arizona again," said Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican who helped draft the new controversial Arizona law that cracks down on illegal immigrants. The Obama administration apparently worries letting that law stand would leave in place a precedent that states have a legitimate role in enforcing immigration laws – a notion the administration fiercely opposes. "The argument that the Justice Department is making here, is you know, the fundamental question, which is where does state authority begin and end when it comes to federal immigration law?" said Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Council. The Arizona statue relies on a law passed by the U.S. Congress in 1986, which made clear federal law preempts the states on immigration – but left one exception: "The provisions of this section preempt any state or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ unauthorized aliens." "Congress said very clearly that licensing and similar laws can be used to impose consequences on employers who hire unauthorized aliens at the state level," said Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. "And that's exactly what Arizona did." Oddly enough, the law in question was signed in 2007 by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, now Obama's Homeland Security secretary. Not only that, but the law was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. "And bear in mind that 9th Circuit is generally regarded as one of the more liberal circuits in the United States – and so the Obama administration, evidently, believes that the 9th Circuit views on this question is too conservative for this administration," Kobach said. And this is yet another issue in the ongoing tug of war between Washington and the states, especially Arizona. "The idea that states can't be involved in immigration law in any way is wrong," Johnson said. "The states have always had a role to play in immigration enforcement. The tricky part is defining where that authority begins and ends." Even Chi said going after the employers is an important step but Obama is also against that idea. I have no problem with the Federal Government stepping up and saying "this is our job" as long as they do their job, but if the Federal Government intentionally turns their backs on the illegal problem, then 'someone' has to act.