Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center
crazy gamesriddles and jokesfunny picturesdeath psychic!mad triviafunny & odd!pregnancy testshape testwin custodyrecipes

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - StPaulieGirl

Pages: 1 23 4 ... 6
General Issues / More on John Kerry
« on: Feb 24, 2004, 10:01:23 AM »
Anyone who is curious about John Kerry, and the whole anti war movement, come and check this out:


Many of you folks who are on these boards, weren't even born yet when the Viet Nam War was being fought.  My parents made sure I didn't know about anti war protests.  They managed to censor everything...lol, try doing that these days ;-)  I'm posting this for educational purposes, not so you'll vote for George Bush :+

I'm going to post a link to the active thread, because it's full of personal commentary, and great links.  


There's some choice stuff on Jane (America's sweetheart) Fonda.

Diotima and friends busted their butts on this site, so if you like it tell them so!

General Issues / Interesting perspective on John Kerry's war record
« on: Feb 19, 2004, 01:10:40 PM »

(I couldn't find this on the link provided)


[ Browse | Search | Topics | Post Article | My Comments ]

Click to scroll to commentary.

Something's fishy.
The Essex Soapbox ^ | February 17, 2004 | Mike Morrison

Posted on 02/18/2004 8:06:40 PM PST by Bubba_Leroy

I've long thought that John Kerry's war record was phoney. We talked about it when you were here. It's mainly been instinct because, as you know, nobody who claims to have seen the action he does would so shamelessly flaunt it for political gain.

I was in the Delta shortly after he left. I know that area well. I know the operations he was involved in well. I know the tactics and the doctrine used. I know the equipment. Although I was attached to CTF-116 (PBRs) I spent a fair amount of time with CTF-115 (swift boats), Kerry's command.

Here are my problems and suspicions:

(1) Kerry was in-country less than four months and collected, a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three purple hearts. I never heard of anybody with any outfit I worked with (including SEAL One, the Sea Wolves, Riverines and the River Patrol Force) collecting that much hardware so fast, and for such pedestrian actions. The Swifts did a commendable job. But that duty wasn't the worst you could draw. They operated only along the coast and in the major rivers (Bassac and Mekong). The rough stuff in the hot areas was mainly handled by the smaller, faster PBRs. Fishy.

(2) Three Purple Hearts but no limp.. All injuries so minor that no time lost from duty. Amazing luck. Or he was putting himself in for medals every time he bumped his head on the wheel house hatch? Combat on the boats was almost always at close range. You didn't have minor wounds. At least not often. Not three times in a row. Then he used the three purple hearts to request a trip home eight months before the end of his tour.. Fishy.

(3) The details of the event for which he was given the Silver Star make no sense at all. Supposedly, a B-40 (rocket propelled grenade) was fired at the boat and missed. Charlie jumps up with the launcher in his hand, the bow gunner knocks him down with the twin .50 (caliber machine guns), Kerry beaches the boat, jumps off, shoots Charlie, and retrieves the launcher. If true, he did everything wrong. (a) Standard procedure when you took rocket fire was to put your stern to the action and go (away) balls to the wall. A B-40 has the ballistic integrity of a Frisbee after about 25 yards, so you put 50 yards or so between you and the beach and begin raking it with your .50's. (b) Did you ever see anybody get knocked down with a .50 caliber round and get up? The guy was dead or dying. The rocket launcher was empty. There was no reason to go after him (except if you knew he was no danger to you - just flopping around in the dust during his last few seconds on earth, and you wanted some derring-do in your after-action report). And we didn't shoot wounded people. We had rules against that, too. (c) Kerry got off the boat. This was a major breach of standing procedures. Nobody on a boat crew ever got off a boat in a hot area. EVER! The reason was simple. If you had somebody on the beach your boat was defenseless. It couldn't run and it couldn't return fire. It was stupid and it put his crew in danger. He should have been relieved and reprimanded. I never heard of any boat crewman ever leaving a boat during or after a firefight.

Something is very fishy.

Here we have a JFK wannabe who is hardly in Vietnam long enough to get a good tan, collects medals faster than Audie Murphy in a job where lots of medals weren't common, gets sent home eight months early, requests separation from active duty a few months after that so he can run for Congress, finds out war heros don't sell well in Massachusetts in 1970 so reinvents himself as Jane Fonda, throws his ribbons in the dirt with the cameras running to jump start his political career, gets Stillborn Pell to invite him to address Congress and Bobby Kennedy's speechwriter to do the heavy lifting, winds up in the Senate himself a few years later, votes against every major defense bill, says the CIA is irrelevant after the Wall (Berlin) came down, votes against the Gulf War, a big mistake since that turned out well, decides not to make the same mistake twice so votes for invading Iraq, but oops, that didn't turn out so well so he now says he really didn't mean for Bush to go to war when he voted to allow him to go to war.

I'm real glad you or I never had this guy covering out flanks in Vietnam. I sure don't want him as Commander in Chief. I hope that somebody from CTF-115 shows up with some documented facts challenging Kerry's Vietnam record.

I know in my gut it's wildly inflated. And fishy.

This e-mail was written by Mike Morrison, who won a bronze star in Vietnam and who is now retired, but wrote speeches for Lee Iacocca for many years. It was sent to his brother Ed, who sent it to one of our readers who follows such matters. -Ed.-
_________________________________________________ __________

Since Howie's out of the race, just a little FYI...

General Issues / So What Do Normal Dads Do On Their EOW?
« on: Feb 17, 2004, 11:15:31 AM »
No, I'm serious.

This is Mr. Wonderful's idea of spending time with his kids:  if he does take them to his house, they sit and watch tv.  He and his wife go to bed at 9pm, and deadbolt themselves in their bedroom.  I received a call from my youngest at 10:30pm, saying she was bored.  She has a tv and a VCR in her bedroom, plus a lot of toys.  This was 2 weeks ago.

Many times, their father and his wife will rent a hotel room close to shops they want to browse through, and the kids spend the weekend cooped up in a room watching tv.  This last weekend was a pain.  My son in law got an email from Mr. Wonderful announcing that he would pick up the kids on Saturday, not Friday, and to make sure that they brought their bathing suits.  Unfortunately, the youngest has grown out of everything.  I spent thursday buying all new clothes for her.  Bathing suits are not available(at least the ones I can afford)in stores, yet.

My son is sick, so he didn't want to go.  When my girl found out they were going to stay at a hotel, she pitched a fit, but I made her go anyway.  Guess where they stayed?  The Beverly Hilton!  My oldest daughter went online and checked out the room rates.  I couldn't believe it, but when my girl came home she told me that the room was 397.00.  Daddy left the bill right on the table next to her.

She went wearing one of her new outfits, and told them about all the clothes she got( Susie's Deals had 3 racks of clothes for 99 cents-and I rounded it out with the regular 5 buck items) so daddy and stepmom took her to the Gap store in Beverly Hills and bought her more clothes, including a 2 piece bathing suit.  I'm sorry but I don't allow my girls to wear 2 piece bathing suits...at least not when they're 9.  When I can find them on sale, I'll buy her a 1 piece.  She can keep the other suit at Daddy's.

You know, I don't know why he bothers exercising visitation.  How in hell are you supposed to bond and spend quality time with your kid in a hotel room?  That's ok, when we eventually move, they have an uncle in that area(ex bro in law), who loves camping.  He doesn't have kids of his own, so mine are always welcome.  My friend loves camping and fishing.  He also collects non poisonous snakes and breeds them for a side project.  He'll find healthy things for them to do.  Hey who knows, maybe someday he'll be able to exercise HIS visitation, and all the kids can go hiking together.

So, back to my question...what do normal Dads do on their weekends?

Sorry about the rant, but I've been stewing about this all weekend.

General Issues / Actual Testimony in the Courts
« on: Feb 09, 2004, 11:22:43 AM »
This is pretty funny :D

These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters who had the torment of stayting calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.


Q: Are you sexually active?

A: No, I just lie there.


Q: What is your date of birth?

A: July 15th.

Q: What year?

A: Every year.


Q: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?

A: SPAMSPAMSPAM sweats and Reeboks.


Q: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?

A: Yes.

Q: And in what ways does it affect your memory?

A: I forget.

Q: You forget? Can you give us an example of something that you've



Q: How old is your son, the one living with you?

A: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.

Q: How long has he lived with you?

A: Forty-five years.


Q: What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke up that


A: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"

Q: And why did that upset you?

A: My name is Susan.


Q: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo or the


A: We both do.

Q: Voodoo?

A: We do.

Q: You do?

A: Yes, voodoo.


Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he

doesn't know about it until the next morning?

A: Did you actually pass the bar exam?


Q: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?


Q: Were you present when your picture was taken?


Q: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?

A: Yes.

Q: And what were you doing at that time?


Q: She had three children, right?

A: Yes.

Q: How many were boys?

A: None.

Q: Were there any girls?


Q: How was your first marriage terminated?

A: By death.

Q: And by whose death was it terminated?


Q: Can you describe the individual?

A: He was about medium height and had a beard.

Q: Was this a male, or a female?


Q: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice

which I sent to your attorney?

A: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.


Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?

A: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.


Q: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?

A: Oral.


Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?

A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.

Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?

A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy.


Q: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?


Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?

A: No.

Q: Did you check for blood pressure?

A: No.

Q: Did you check for breathing?

A: No.

Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the


A: No.

Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?

A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.

Q: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?

A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.

First a disclaimer.  I'm going to provide links to a prolife website, plus the relative thread on Free Republic.  This post is not meant to endorse or condemn abortion.  My intent is to show how biased the news media is regarding anything that does not fit into their liberal, feminist, communistic agenda.  Basically, they're 0wn3d!

When I was "pinged" to this thread this morning, I thought about the candlelight vigil for Michael Franke, and the obvious bias of the article calling him a "deadbeat dad", not once, but twice.  There are many of us here, and elsewhere who are ready to picket Claire's and David and Goliath for those damn T shirts and other merchandise. Let us not forget the ongoing struggle to keep Terri Schiavo from being starved to death.  The media insists on calling her a vegetable.

Original article with contact info:

On this Free Republic link, scroll down for some very impressive pics.  Estimates vary as to the total number of participants, but there's a lot of them!  How many people reading this post even knew this was happening?  Look, when that many people show up to march, I don't care what your position is, it's NEWS!


My purpose for this post is to educate those of you who are just getting into activism.  The media will more than likely ignore you.  Another example:  The 5th Annual Repudiation of Jesse Jackson.  The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson and BOND(African American Men's organization-Brotherhood for a New Destiny) have been doing this every year, and FReepers usually show up to support them.

There was a rally last Monday, castigating Jesse Jackson for perverting MLK jr's vision, and riding on his coat tails.  Did any of you folks know that this has been going on annually for 5 yrs?  It's a public protest.  Lots of high profile people were there.  There ya go.  Our news media would make Goebbels and Pravda proud.

This is my sole opinion.  

General Issues / Origins of Planned Parenthood, precursor to NOW?
« on: Jan 11, 2004, 02:10:32 PM »
That's my title.  I've read about PP's origins and original goals over the years.  I found this article and link on FR today.  I just printed out the whole thing for people I know to read.  Even though I am reluctantly pro-choice, I find their "mission statement" completely disgusting.

Towards how fathers are treated these days,  read (better yet print it out, it's 13 pages long...my friend is reading it right now) the whole article.  


First page of the article:

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.

While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

These eugenic and racial origins are hardly what most people associate with the modern Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which gave its Margaret Sanger award to the late Dr. Martin Luther King in 1966, and whose current president, Faye Wattleton, is black, a former nurse, and attractive.

Though once a social pariah group, routinely castigated by religious and government leaders, the PPFA is now an established, high-profile, well-funded organization with ample organizational and ideological support in high places of American society and government. Its statistics are accepted by major media and public health officials as "gospel"; its full-page ads appear in major newspapers; its spokespeople are called upon to give authoritative analyses of what America's family policies should be and to prescribe official answers that congressmen, state legislator and Supreme Court justiices all accept as "social orthodoxy."

Blaming families

Sanger's obsession with eugenics can be traced back to her own family. One of 11 children, she wrote in the autobiographical book, My Fight for Birth Control, that "I associated poverty, toil, unemployment, drunkenness, cruelty, quarreling, fighting, debts, jails with large families." Just as important was the impression in her childhood of an inferior family status, exacerbated by the iconoclastic, "free-thinking" views of her father, whose "anti-Catholic attitudes did not make for his popularity" in a predominantly Irish community.

The fact that the wealthy families in her hometown of Corning, N.Y., had relatively few children, Sanger took as prima facie evidence of the impoverishing effect of larger families. The personal impact of this belief was heightened 1899, at the age of 48. Sanger was convinced that the "ordeals of motherhood" had caused the death of her mother. The lingering consumption (tuberculosis) that took her mother's life visited Sanger at the birth of her own first child on Nov. 18, 1905. The diagnosis forced her to seek refuge in the Adirondacks to strengthen her for the impending birth. Despite the precautions, the birth of baby Grant was "agonizing," the mere memory of which Sanger described as "mental torture" more than 25 years later. She once described the experience as a factor "to be reckoned with" in her zealous campaign for birth control.

From the beginning, Sanger advocacy of sex education reflected her interest in population control and birth prevention among the "unfit." Her first handbook, published for adolescents in 1915 and entitled, What Every Boy and Girl Should Know, featured a jarring afterword:

It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.

To Sanger, the ebbing away of moral and religious codes over sexual conduct was a natural consequence of the worthlessness of such codes in the individual's search for self-fulfillment. "Instead of laying down hard and fast rules of sexual conduct," Sanger wrote in her 1922 book Pivot of Civilization, "sex can be rendered effective and valuable only as it meets and satisfies the interests and demands of the pupil himself." Her attitude is appropriately described as libertinism, but sex knowledge was not the same as individual liberty, as her writings on procreation emphasized.

The second edition of Sanger's life story, An Autobiography, appeared in 1938. There Sanger described her first cross-country lecture tour in 1916. Her standard speech asserted seven conditions of life that "mandated" the use of birth control: the third was "when parents, though normal, had subnormal children"; the fourth, "when husband and wife were adolescent"; the fifth, "when the earning capacity of the father was inadequate." No right existed to exercise sex knowledge to advance procreation. Sanger described the fact that "anyone, no matter how ignorant, how diseased mentally or physically, how lacking in all knowledge of children, seemed to consider he or she had the right to become a parent."

Religious bigotry

In the 1910's and 1920's, the entire social order–religion, law, politics, medicine, and the media–was arrayed against the idea and practice of birth control. This opposition began in 1873 when an overwhelmingly Protestant Congress passed, and a Protestant president signed into law, a bill that became known as the Comstock Law, named after its main proponent, Anthony Comstock. The U.S. Congress classified obscene writing, along with drugs, and devices and articles that prevented conception or caused abortion, under the same net of criminality and forbade their importation or mailing.

Sanger set out to have such legislation abolished or amended. Her initial efforts were directed at the Congress with the opening of a Washington, D.C., office of her American Birth Control League in 1926. Sanger wanted to amend section 211 of the U.S. criminal code to allow the interstate shipment and mailing of contraceptives among physicians, druggists and drug manufacturers.<.p>

Continue to page: 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

LEARN was officially established in 1993 at the African American Pro-Life Planning Conference in Houston, Texas. One of the primary goals of LEARN is to facilitate a strong and viable network of African American and minority pro-life/pro-family advocates.

L.E.A.R.N. Northeast is part of the Life Education And Resource Network (LEARN), a national network of Christian pro-life/pro-family advocates who are dedicated to protecting the pre-born and promoting traditional family values

This article first appeared in the January 20, 1992 edition of Citizen magazine and can be found on the LEARN website.
_________________________________________________ ___________

I think many of you will see a pattern of behavior towards these goals, that are now targeting fathers as a way of punitive birth control.  How many of you guys want to start a second family?  Yep....

General Issues / George, what the hell were you thinking?
« on: Jan 07, 2004, 09:37:36 PM »
Ohhhh I'm pissed off.  I'm actually faced with the fact that I don't want to vote to reelect George W. Bush after this bs amnesty plan.  George, does Vincente Fox have something on you?  Why are you selling this country down the river????  Jesus Christ, Kalifornistan is bad enough already.  Jobs that Americans won't do???  Your examples of hotel maids, meat cutters and landscapers is bs!  I know unemployed Americans who would jump on those jobs.  We'll jump on those jobs thanks to all the jobs that were sent overseas in the last few years.  The jobs that paid a living wage.  George may you have to sit on the phone for 4 hours trying to find someone who speaks English and can help you troubleshoot your pc.  


What's Wrong With the Proposals for a New Guestworker Program?
 Proposals for a massive new "guestworker" program would:

threaten homeland security
grant amnesty for law-breakers, a step overwhelmingly opposed by the American public
establish a back door immigration program
threaten the jobs and wages of American workers.
The politicians pushing a guestworker amnesty know that Americans staunchly oppose amnesty, and so they shy away from calling it what it really is, instead cloaking it in terms like "earned legalization" or "normalization of status."  They are deliberately misleading the American public.

THEY SAY that the overwhelming majority of people entering the country illegally pose no threat to our country and that if we allow them enter in a lawful manner, we will enhance our homeland security.

THE TRUTH is that there are an estimated 8-11 million illegal aliens in the United States, and it only took 19 to perpetrate the attacks of September 11.  Our immigration system has become overburdened and unmanageable due to mass illegal immigration.  As a result, there is little reason to feel confident that, absent a massive infusion of new resources, which is highly unlikely given current fiscal realities, anything approaching thorough background checks can be conducted on applicants for a guestworker program.  Even without the added burden of an amnesty, people like Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric who masterminded the first World Trade Center bombing, and Mohammed Atta, the leader of the September 11 attacks, managed to slip through the screening process.  There is every reason to believe that adding new responsibilities to an overtaxed system will make us less safe.

No one has yet explained how the millions of applicants would be given security checks or whether that’s even remotely feasible, given an already overburdened immigration enforcement system. Immigration officials would have to deal with hundreds of thousands of more applicants a year, to say nothing of how we would verify eligibility for any of the eight million potential applicants already here illegally, particularly with many of them armed with false identity documents.  When the immigration system can’t adequately perform its most essential mission, adding in the responsibility for security checks, tracking, and removal when necessary for millions of participants in a guestworker program will guarantee disaster.

THEY SAY that the legislation is not an amnesty, but that guestworkers who participate in the program will be eligible for permanent resident status.

THE TRUTH is that the proposal would be an amnesty with an “apprenticeship” provision.  Illegal aliens who are already in the U.S. would  be eligible to apply.  Thus, they would be excused for having violated our immigration laws in the first place, and then be rewarded again with permanent residency--thus making the law, in effect, a double amnesty.  Calling it something else does not change the reality that this proposal is a massive amnesty program.

THEY SAY the program will help regain control of the borders and stop illegal immigration.

THE TRUTH is that the proposal does nothing to discourage future illegal immigration or enforcement of our immigration laws, ensuring that any guestworker or illegal alien who wants to remain in the U.S. can and will.  In fact, about one-third of illegal aliens in the country right now arrived on legal visas and simply never went home.  In addition, it does nothing to strengthen border security to ensure that only guestworkers, and not terrorists, are being admitted.

THEY SAY that spouses and children of illegal aliens may also be eligible to participate in the visa program.

THE TRUTH is that this would be an amnesty not only for those who qualify for this “guestworker” program, but a simultaneous amnesty for their dependents, whether or not they are workers.  Aside from expanding the amnesty to include non-workers, it also grants a benefit to the dependents of illegal aliens that is not afforded to the families of other guestworkers who never violated the law.  Moreover, it undermines the stated – if flawed – purpose of a guestworker program:  that foreign workers come temporarily and then return home.  Employers would be able to utilize a virtually limitless supply of guestworkers at low wages, while the expense for services like education and health care for dependent family members would have to be picked up by taxpayers.

THEY SAY that an electronic job registry operated through the Department of Labor will allow employers to post jobs and American workers would have the first chance to apply.  Moreover, the jobs would have to be offered again at the end of the three-year period, and that workers’ visas would be renewed only if no Americans are willing to take them.

THE TRUTH is that in the estimation of the General Accounting Office and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, the provisions in existing guestworker programs that are intended to ensure that American workers get first crack at jobs have been a complete failure.  Even if the political will existed to prevent employers from bypassing American workers in favor of foreign guestworkers – which there doesn’t – the Labor Department does not have the resources to monitor the hiring process.  A federal government that managed to fine a grand total of 13 employers nationwide in 2002 for violating employer sanctions laws cannot be counted on to enforce the provisions of a guestworker program either.

THEY SAY that BSIIA would be a market-driven program that will negate the reasons why employers hire illegal aliens.

THE TRUTH is that under BSIIA, there would not even be a prevailing wage requirement, meaning that employers will be able to offer wages far below what most Americans would be willing to accept, thereby creating an artificial need for guestworkers.  In effect, the law would grant legal sanction to employers who want to hire workers at low wages and limited leverage.  One of the primary purposes of our immigration laws is to prevent employers from undermining wages and working conditions of American workers.

THEY SAY that the program would prevent abuse of foreign workers by affording them mobility and the ability to file grievances against abusive employers.

THE TRUTH is that the mobility of guestworkers would still be very limited and their ability to change jobs would depend on finding another employer who was willing to go through the procedure of posting a job and wading through the bureaucratic red tape.  The primary interest of the workers would be to hold a job for six years in order to qualify for permanent residency.  Moreover, at the end of the “apprenticeship” period, when the guestworker would be granted permanent residency and would gain bargaining power, there is no reason to expect that the employer would not seek another guestworker who is willing to work at below-market wages.

THEY SAY that the program would prevent deaths along the border.

THE TRUTH is that U.S. immigration laws are not responsible for the deaths along the border – it is the violation of our immigration laws that is  responsible.  If there is any culpability on the part of the American government, it is in its failure to deter illegal immigration by aggressively enforcing laws that prohibit illegal aliens from working here or accessing public benefits.  Sending a clear signal that illegal entry to the U.S. will not be rewarded would have the desired effect of dissuading people from placing their lives and safety into the hands of unscrupulous smugglers.  Besides, when the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE) adopted a measure that demonstrably cut down the likelihood of border deaths – by repatriating illegal alien crossers who were apprehended in Arizona to border towns in Texas – the open borders lobby protested, charging that the program was unfair to illegal aliens.

THEY SAY the program will provide workers when and while they’re needed.

THE TRUTH is that when the economy takes a downturn, there will be millions of guestworkers in the U.S. without a job, without a home, without health care, and with no intention of returning to their home countries.  The guestworkers’ unemployment problems become the public’s burden.

_________________________________________________ ___________

Okay, there is a grassroots effort that started a couple of weeks ago regarding any amnesty plan.  The deal is to stay home on January 12th.  Don't go to work, school, or buy anything.  If enough people do it across the country, maybe we change some minds.  I seriously doubt it, though.

Admin:  If my post is out of line for this forum, I'll understand if you remove it.  I'm just sooo pissed off, and FR is for some reason, cracking down on those of us who think this is an absolute national nightmare.  don't ask us why.



Published: Dec 31, 2003

If Michael Jackson, the King of Sophistry, thinks he was manhandled by law enforcement authorities during his recent arrest, there could be a perfectly reasonable explanation.

After all, it was probably the first time this freak of nature had experienced physical contact with a male old enough to shave. You know it's fairly pathetic when you claim Elizabeth Taylor as some sort of earth mother from Neiman Marcus as one of your best pals. But it's probably an inkling of just how far down the food chain of support Michael Jackson has had to reach when Darryl Strawberry shows up at Neverland Ranch as a - character witness!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeepers, wouldn't that be a bit like Bill Clinton calling upon Hugh Hefner as a moral counselor during the height of Monica-gate? ``Manhandled''?

Should the King of Tots get convicted on all those counts of performing lewd and lascivious acts on a child younger than 14, by the time he arrives at San Quentin to begin serving a sentence of as much as 20 years, he'll be introduced to an entirely different form of ``slumber party.''

Max Factor

Ever since the latest allegations arose against Jackson concerning his rumored dalliances with little boys, a number of questions have come to mind. And certainly not the least of those queries should be: Ought not the parents of the supposed victim also be charged with similar crimes as Jackson since they allowed their child to spend time alone with one of the strangest human beings on the face of the planet, with the possible exception of Moammar Gadhafi?

Which, of course brings us to Jackson's bewildering interview with Ed Bradley on Sunday on CBS' ``60 Minutes.''

Good grief, ``Survivor'' has more journalistic credibility.

``60 Minutes'' would have had every right to identify the King of Maybelline as ``Michael Jackson - Lying Through His Teeth,'' as he responded to Bradley's questions with all the candor of Baghdad Bob meets Strom Thurmond's genealogist.

For example, when Bradley asked Jackson whether he knew of any other 45-year-old men who liked to share their bed with children, Jackson said he certainly did, although he didn't name names.

Ahem, memo to Jackson: The Boston Archdiocese doesn't count.

But forget all that.

Forget that Michael Jackson, under a nine-count felony indictment relating to the sexual abuse of a child, just went on national television and admitted - AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - that he thinks it's just peachy for a middle- age wacko to turn his bedroom into the Playboy Mansion meets ``Sesame Street.''

Forget all that.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that indeed a man who likes to parade around in public looking like Joan Crawford is in fact merely an innocent, misunderstood Peter Pan-like figure who simply enjoys the nocturnal company of rug rats over, say, Halle Berry.

Fine, but still none of that would acquit Michael Jackson of being dumber than a sack of Limbaughs.

For this is the same guy who some 10 years ago agreed to pay millions of dollars to another alleged child victim of sexual molestation, effectively buying his way out of the hoosegow.

Despite the King of Chanel's insistence that he is merely a harmless Pied Piper of the prepubescent, if you already had paid out a tidy sum of hush-money to buy off an accusation of child molestation, wouldn't you have to be thicker than Warren Sapp's gut to continue to engage in the same suspect behavior that almost landed you in prison?

But it would seem there was another payoff of sorts in the works here, too.

About the same time Ed Bradley was sitting down with a man sneaking up on 50 who wears more lip gloss than Britney Spears, CBS also was announcing it had rescheduled a special: ``Michael Jackson Number Ones,'' which was not a reference to his mug shot photo ID. The original air date for ``Michael Jackson - A Man and His Dermabrasion,'' had been postponed once the Ward Cleaver from hell, who likes to dangle infants over hotel balconies, was indicted. A CBS flack admitted the special, ``Michael Jackson - A Man and His Pacifier,'' would never have been rescheduled had not Jackson addressed the charges against him in the Bradley interview.

Whew! Thank goodness the King of Avon cleared everything up.

I just love sarcastic humor )(

Btw, I saw the televised press conference given by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff.  MJ's ass is grass, and the Sheriff is the lawnmower.  They're going to nail his ass to a tree one way or another.  I'm ok with that, too....

Caution...this video is upsetting and could quite possibly piss you off.  I especially loved how that asshole yanked Lori Piestewa by her hair so we could get a better look at her mauled face before she died.


General Issues / One Nagging Wife is Too Many
« on: Dec 25, 2003, 08:07:16 AM »
Man Commits Suicide to Escape Nagging Wife  
Wed Dec 24, 9:17 AM ET  Add Oddly Enough - Reuters to My Yahoo!

DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania (Reuters) - A Tanzanian man killed himself by drinking a chemical used in cattle dips, leaving a suicide note saying it was to escape a nagging wife, police said on Wednesday.



The body of the 32-year-old was found in the commercial capital Dar es Salaam on Sunday with the suicide note and a glass containing traces of the chemical, used for killing insects on livestock, regional police commissioner Alfred Tibaigana told Reuters.

"I've decided to end my life," Tibaigana quoted the suicide note as saying.

"I am fed up with the constant nagging of my first wife."

Police did not have any further details about the man's death in the east African country, where polygamy is common.


Pages: 1 23 4 ... 6
Copyright © SPARC - A Parenting Advocacy Group
Use of this website does not constitute a client/attorney relationship and this site does not provide legal advice.
If you need legal assistance for divorce, child custody, or child support issues, seek advice from a divorce lawyer.