... are you referring to something other than my comments in this thread? not at all. i meant id read and reread your comments in this thread
kingbee
this exerpt may help to clear up some questions about the timeline of events. i found the full article at : shaheenlaw.com When Homeowners and Homeowners' Associations Clash (This Article, authored by Victor A. Shaheen and originally published in the July 2002 Issue of Mobility Magazine, is re-printed, in an abridged format, with the Permission of the Publisher) By
first of all, a conversation between friendly equals is a very good description of the way i feel about it. if ive seemed to be abrupt, i apologize. like i said, its been a pretty hectic week and i havent had as much time to spend here as id hoped. until i reread all of this one more time (hey i can be pretty obtuse), i wasn't understanding the issue that was causing you such concern because, as jaded as i may be, i never considered the po
ABOUT HALF THE WORLD HAD ENTERED JUNE 6TH WHEN PRESIDENT REAGAN DIED. reagan and i shared a timezone. i dont believe i could easily persuade my clients to approve a billing based on 'well i started it at 9am pst and completed it by 4:05 pm in the uk so im gonna give you a break and only charge for 7 hours'.
Thus ends Democracy article 3, section 2 prevents tyranny if youre of a mind to take madison's word for it.
wihch blimpport? for a short time, i lived across the freeway from one.
bill o'reilly pat robertson geraldo rivera oliver north g gordon liddy in transition... dennis miller members emeritus walter winchell father coughlin
Your numbers are also quite wrong my qualification of what those numbers represent was inaccurate for this reason. social welfare is a nebulous term that is easiest to identify as a percentage of the federal budget covering all means-limited entitlements and represents about 6% of the 2000 budget. (or about 100 billion). temporary assistance to needy families (which is, i believe, the type of welfare being discussed in the articles to
That can also be seen as political grandstanding -- finding a way to put the focus on himself and look good at a time when nobody would be paying much attention to him anyway -- if one wanted to nit-pick and ascribe negative intentions to people just because they were from the other side of the political aisle. it would be very expensive and self-destructive grandstanding at best, and to what effect? Are you quite sure your
Has it occurred to you that maybe the president does not want to bring unwanted attention and publicity to military familes? to buy into that notion, i'd also have to conclude his predecessors were a cruel and insensitive bunch for having disregarded those considerations over the past 200+ years.
(especially when the only one who has been seen doing anything that could be accused of same is his opposition) i suppose i could have also mentioned kerry cancelling two major fundraisers--one on each coast--that have been in planning since march in order to 'butt his way' (he remains a senator does he not--with the deference normally attached to that office as well as security considerations associated with a presumptive nominee?) pas
of course he didnt. im not sure what your point is tho cuz this has nothing to do with kerry bush is the only president in my memory (which goes back pretty far) to actively avoid being photographed anywhere near the casket or graveside of soldiers fighting in a war over which he presides..
im very familiar with it (there are lots of covers but authorship is generally conceded to slim harpo--if you havent heard him doin it, you should) and thats the song from which i took my nick. verrrrry insightful!
mention of tax loopholes and subsidies as the equivalent of social welfare programs in other blog articles seemed to elicit a chorus of denials such things exist or a condescending concurrence while dismissing any comparison as largely irrelevant. in a sense, there is no comparison. the entire cost of all us social welfare programs in 2000 was 26.4 billion dollars
i was using contaminated in a more general sense: to indicate they evidenced some actual payload or potential payload. no i do not want chemical weapons used against our troops. whether or not that happens is hardly dependent upon how much coverage these stories receive (unless it works to the opposite effect, and enquiring anti-coalition forces are monitoring the fox network thereby discovering what it is theyre sitting on--if that is truly the ca
there was--and continues to be--press and broadcast news coverage of these two incidents and it included just about everything youve mentioned. so whats the point? we spent all those millions of dollars and so many lives have been lost to discover 2 contaminated shells over the course of 15 months? they were clearly NOT in the hands of anyone capable of utilizing them as they were intended. seems like a pretty sloppy pl
coulda been worse dharma. imagine if shed married a woman.
If you're just going to make smart ass remarks without adding to the discussion, piss off and go somewhere else. i dont believe i did. i wasnt commenting on stossel's conclusion but the ludicrous mixing of apples and oranges that abc originally provided as an explanation as parroted by mandine and amplified by helix.
let's find some way to put a bad spin on that one. it spins itself pretty badly without my help.
my point is this president--either by his own choice or at the behest of his advisers; it makes no difference because its shameful either way--has gone out of his way to avoid attending, and thus being photographed, at memorial services for military personnel who died in service to their country in iraq.
except Simpsons after their trip to australia, i figured they might get the 'boot' for real from yall. i havent seen more than a handful of australian tv productions, but australian films are generally exceptional--as are most of the performers who bring them to life. and yall make some very decent music (including a halfway decent blues band who call themselves the kingbees <IMG
The underlying question is still valid. Experts have raised questions about whether produce fertilized with manure is healther than produce fertilized with "unnatural" chemicals and the underlying question of whether poulty is fertilized with manure or chemicals?
as the nation readies itself for the pomp of former president reagan's state funeral, you'll see lots of pictures of president bush paying his respects. regardless of his sincerity (and i don't for a minute question his grief or sympathy for the
Makes it sound like NO tests had been performed and the accusations completely false.. but "Apparently Stossel said there were some tests performed on produce, but the tests were actually performed on poultry." thanks to Madine that tests have been performed, just on a different food group. It is remarkable how ONE situation has so many spins on it. Just another example of politicking in progress..even if it isn't about politics <B
There was nothing to "retract". there are two sides to every story. this is an excerpt from a cnn story that was published 8/10/2000. "Stossel reported that a test conducted on produce for ABC News found that there was no pesticide residue on either conventional samples or organic ones. But ABC, after an investigation, concluded that no such test had been done. "We've completed our review of the circumstances sur