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.

Messages - Brent

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 56 7 ... 96
General Issues / How Will You Die? The Death Psychic Knows....
« on: Feb 17, 2006, 09:03:51 AM »
How will you die? The Death Psychic knows and he'll tell you the exact manner of your untimely demise. Possibly gory, possibly embarrassing, but *always* fun:


Let your death be foretold........

General Issues / Five Questions you Should Never ask Your Children
« on: Jan 16, 2006, 08:40:00 AM »
The author of this article contacted us and asked us to remove it:

Please remove.
Thank you
Gina Roberts-Grey
8729 Marinus Drive
Baldwinsville, NY 13027

Five Questions you Should Never ask Your Children
by gina roberts-grey

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Maecenas pellentesque convallis nulla. Nulla ligula quam, tincidunt at, condimentum sit amet, consectetuer in, tellus. Suspendisse rhoncus ligula a purus. Duis lacinia nulla in ligula. Aenean egestas posuere metus. Vivamus viverra. Etiam bibendum lacus ut quam. Morbi mi. Nulla ac libero sed lacus mattis eleifend. Praesent sagittis, arcu in molestie dignissim, eros orci ullamcorper nibh, sed lobortis nisi dolor gravida mi. Morbi purus. Curabitur vel metus vitae turpis blandit mollis. Donec ut elit sit amet tellus ullamcorper ultricies. Vestibulum libero. Nullam vel risus. Mauris sodales, felis sed dictum hendrerit, erat pede vehicula nisi, non gravida augue purus in ligula. Duis rhoncus.

Nullam semper luctus pede. Nam lacinia, mi quis lacinia vulputate, velit leo porttitor nisi, eget porta metus sem vitae risus. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Vivamus nec tellus in nunc venenatis tristique. Donec vel quam. Donec eget justo in purus tempor nonummy. Fusce dignissim enim. Curabitur sit amet nisl nec justo sodales sodales. Ut lacinia adipiscing mauris. Pellentesque sit amet justo. Maecenas ante. Pellentesque id tortor non magna nonummy pretium. Duis sed velit. Sed sapien. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Aenean convallis. Mauris at ligula et arcu fermentum sodales. Ut facilisis, elit id ornare faucibus, metus ligula semper lectus, sed nonummy nisi mauris ac elit.

Fusce ac mauris non ante fermentum venenatis. Vivamus id ligula in dolor cursus congue. Duis tortor magna, vestibulum vel, ultricies in, elementum eget, nunc. Sed lobortis. Cras vitae tellus ut pede adipiscing ullamcorper. Pellentesque tellus nibh, semper ac, facilisis et, sollicitudin nonummy, mi. Integer a lorem. Nunc eu nisl. Proin odio. Sed tristique blandit felis. Nulla facilisi. Suspendisse ligula nisl, porttitor in, dignissim ut, viverra ut, neque. Vestibulum tincidunt feugiat dolor. Nullam sit amet sem. Sed nec diam. Sed at erat et libero lacinia iaculis. Sed suscipit leo a nisl.

Donec pretium velit ut ligula posuere eleifend. Nam tincidunt rhoncus ligula. Suspendisse potenti. Vivamus imperdiet euismod lacus. Morbi faucibus mauris. Vestibulum a ligula et tortor tempus egestas. Duis nonummy vestibulum est. Praesent dignissim bibendum urna. Nunc feugiat augue ut quam feugiat faucibus. Pellentesque dignissim ipsum non massa. Sed lobortis diam sit amet nibh. Praesent at massa. Nulla in tellus. Donec viverra, lacus in dictum venenatis, urna dolor dictum orci, quis auctor nulla arcu vel leo. Duis sit amet quam et elit laoreet egestas. Suspendisse tempor lobortis nisl.

Aliquam erat volutpat. Curabitur venenatis mauris in ligula. Phasellus lacinia vulputate mi. Fusce sed mauris. Etiam quis purus nec felis dignissim dictum. Cras viverra, magna at pharetra porta, magna tellus convallis tellus, vitae vestibulum pede justo et purus. Praesent suscipit interdum arcu. Sed leo. Mauris volutpat. Donec eget sem et orci placerat rutrum. Fusce eu eros in purus scelerisque molestie. Pellentesque aliquam ipsum ut enim. Maecenas ultrices nunc eget ligula. Donec erat risus, facilisis sed, iaculis eu, blandit sit amet, nisl. Sed ut nunc. Nunc vulputate elit a odio. Integer vulputate augue sed odio varius posuere. Mauris sollicitudin vulputate leo. Integer eu purus at lacus posuere ultrices. Ut imperdiet magna vitae ipsum.

General Issues / Totally Off Topic....
« on: Jul 28, 2005, 09:42:15 AM »
....but worth posting.

> From:  Ed Chenel (police officer in Australia)
>  Hi Yank, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from
> Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia
> were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be
> destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia
> taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.     The first year results
> are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent ; Australia-
> wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent ; Australia-wide, armed robberies
> are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone,
> homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the
> law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and
> criminals still possess their guns!)    While figures over the
> previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with
> firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months,
> since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
> There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of
> the elderly, while the resident is at home. Australian politicians
> are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such
> monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding
> Australian society of guns." You won't see this on the American
> evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly
> disseminating this information.   The Australian experience speaks
> for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and
> property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
>   Take note Americans, before it's too late

General Issues / OT But Still Important
« on: Jun 21, 2005, 07:52:14 AM »
Rumor has it that someone on the senate appropriations committee is going to try and sneak an amendment in to make the broadcast flag (DRM in digital television broadcasts) law this week.

 URGENT: Call your Senator RIGHT NOW or live with the goddamned Broadcast Flag forever!

    We've heard rumors that the Broadcast Flag that Cory, the EFF, and a coalition of pressure groups have fought so hard against (and beat in the courts) will be sneaked back via an amendment to the giant Senate Appropriations Bill in a sub-committee at 2PM EST on Tuesday 21st. This week is Hollywood's last chance to ram the flag past Congress, and they're working hard to get it under the radar.

    There's no time to write letters or start a media campaign: but folk in the states below have just enough time to warn their senators, who are all on the sub-committee. People of Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin - it's up to you!

    There's a sample script after the phone list. Remember: be cool, collected and polite. Most of these senators won't know a thing about the flag, until one of them makes it a throwaway amendment tomorrow. Make sure their ears twitch when they hear "broadcast flag" today.

    ALABAMA Senator Richard Shelby (202) 224-5744
    ALASKA Senator Ted Stevens (202) 224-3004
    HAWAII Senator Daniel Inouye (202) 224-3934
    IOWA Senator Tom Harkin (202) 224-3254
    KANSAS Senator Sam Brownback (202) 224-6521
    KENTUCKY Senator Mitch McConnell (202) 224-2541
    MARYLAND Senator Barbara Mikulski (202) 224-4654
    MISSOURI Senator Christopher Bond (202) 224-5721
    NEW HAMPSHIRE Senator Judd Gregg (202) 224-3324
    NEW MEXICO Senator Pete Domenici (202) 224-6621
    NORTH DAKOTA Senator Byron Dorgan (202) 224-2551
    TEXAS Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (202) 224-5922
    VERMONT Senator Patrick Leahy (202) 224-4242
    WASHINGTON Senator Patty Murray (202) 224-2621
    WISCONSIN Senator Herb Kohl (202) 224-5653

    "Hello, Senator _________'s office"

    "Hi, I'm a constituent. [Remember: Only say 'I'm a constituent' if you really are -- if you're calling the Senator from _your own state_] I'm registering my opposition to the broadcast flag amendment being introduced in the Senate Commerce Justice and Science Appropriations subcommittee mark-up on Tuesday, and in full committee on Thursday."

    (*** You can give your own reasons for opposing the flag here. Here's a sample: ***)

    "The Broadcast Flag cripples any device capable of receiving over-the-air digital broadcasts."

    "It give Hollywood movie studios a permanent veto over how members of the American public use our televisions."

    "It forces American innovators to beg the FCC for permission before adding new features to TV."

    "It will prevent fair use of copyrighted works: critical review, and use of material in distance learning"

    "This is an important issue which will affect all Americans, and should not be inserted in a large bill, at the last moment, with no debate."

    "Please oppose the broadcast flag amendment. My name and address are ___________________."

    "Thank you for your time."

    Good luck!

The EFF has an action alert where you can contact your senator on the committee, and tell them to stop the amendment. You can now fax and email appropriation committee members for free at the EFF's action center. Do it tonight, or live with the consequences of a Hollywood veto over your PC forever.


General Issues / OT - Stop the Broadcast Flag
« on: May 21, 2005, 08:12:32 AM »
Tell Congress to reject the Broadcast Flag

Earlier this month, we completely creamed the motion picture studios over the Broadcast Flag, an effort to criminalize open source and win a veto over the design of electronics and PCs. Now they're floating draft legal language on the Hill that would put the entire technology industry under their thumb, turning their friends at the FCC into device-czars with jurisdiction over any technology that could be used to facilitate "indiscriminate redistribution" of movies over the Internet (monitors, PVRs, analog-to-digital converters, hard drives, etc).

EFF has an action-alert you can use to tell your elected law-maker how you feel about this. Just enter your ZIP code and click submit, or better yet, rewrite our form letter to express your outrage in your own words.

A lawmaker who breaks America's televisions and PCs has no business expecting to be re-elected. In fact, such a Congresscritter would be lucky to get away with a mere tarring and feathering.

Send them a letter with this handy form:

The National ID card is a TERRIBLE idea, and I urge you to speak out and act against it while there is still time.

Subject: 48 hrs to D-Day on National ID card

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h


The Senate is expected to vote Monday on the
emergency appropriations bill containing the national
ID card provision.

Once this national ID card is in place it will be
almost impossible to get rid of it again. So now is
the time to act to oppose it.

Messages are flooding into the Senate. Add your voice
of opposition by clicking here:


I have an article about the "Read the Bills Act" on
page 15 of the current issue of LP News, and that
same op-ed is available at FreeMarketNews.com in
their Editorials & Market Analysis section. There's
also a new installment of Harry Browne's e-TV show,
"This Week in Liberty" posted on that site.


Two more people have joined the Submission Committee
for RTBA: Gregory A. Wolfe and David del Rio. To make
a contribution to join the Submission Committee click

General Issues / RE: Teaching Man Hating in College.
« on: Mar 28, 2005, 12:28:08 PM »

>"Hello, my name is Mary Man-Hating-Is-Fun," one participant
>said. "I am 23 years old, and I am what a feminist looks like.
>Ever since I learned to embrace my feminist nature, I found
>great joy in threatening men's lives, flicking off frat
>brothers and plotting the patriarchy's death. I hate men
>because they are men, because I see them for what they are:
>misogynistic, sexist, oppressive and absurdly pathetic beings
>who only serve to pollute and contaminate this world with war,
>abuse, oppression and rape."

Un-f*cking believable. Pure hatred, based on gender. Wonderful. Yes, these ladies certainly hold the "moral high ground", spreading love and tolerance around like that.

Now, can you imagine if males had a similar event on campus? I can't. They'd NEVER get a permit for something like "woman-hating night".


General Issues / Some Fun Stuff
« on: Mar 25, 2005, 08:53:27 AM »
I get these every day from Someone.  :)

Quiz: [a href=http://www.quicktrivia.com/quiz.php?data=Q:187&name=Look,%20It    %27s%20Mr%20Death]"Look, It's Mr Death!"[/a]

Fun Pic: [a href=http://www.stupidstuff.org/cm/displayimage.php?album=random&cat=0&pos=-1339]Paranoid Barbie (tm)

ROTD:  [a href=http://www.royalrecipes.com/recipe.php?recipeid=2214]Bad Bob's Thai Pork Chops[/a]

General Issues / Even Ann Coulter gets it right sometimes
« on: Mar 20, 2005, 11:38:19 AM »
Have to say, regardless of her political opinions, she hits a lot of nails on the head in this column.

Ann Coulter
Freeze! I just had my nails done!

How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? Last week, a defendant in a rape case, Brian Nichols, wrested a gun from a female deputy in an Atlanta courthouse and went on a murderous rampage. Liberals have proffered every possible explanation for this breakdown in security except the giant elephant in the room — who undoubtedly has an eating disorder and would appreciate a little support vis-à-vis her negative body image.

The New York Times said the problem was not enough government spending on courthouse security ("Budgets Can Affect Safety Inside Many Courthouses"). Yes, it was tax-cuts-for-the-rich that somehow enabled a 200-pound former linebacker to take a gun from a 5-foot-tall grandmother.

Atlanta court officials dispensed with any spending issues the next time Nichols entered the courtroom when he was escorted by 17 guards and two police helicopters. He looked like P. Diddy showing up for a casual dinner party.

I think I have an idea that would save money and lives: Have large men escort violent criminals. Admittedly, this approach would risk another wave of nausea and vomiting by female professors at Harvard. But there are also advantages to not pretending women are as strong as men, such as fewer dead people. Even a female math professor at Harvard should be able to run the numbers on this one.

Of course, it's suspiciously difficult to find any hard data about the performance of female cops. Not as hard as finding the study showing New Jersey state troopers aren't racist, but still pretty hard to find.

Mostly what you find on Lexis-Nexis are news stories quoting police chiefs who have been browbeaten into submission, all uttering the identical mantra after every public safety disaster involving a girl cop. It seems that female officers compensate for a lack of strength with "other" abilities, such as cooperation, empathy and intuition.

There are lots of passing references to "studies" of uncertain provenance, but which always sound uncannily like a press release from the Feminist Majority Foundation. (Or maybe it was The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which recently released a study claiming that despite Memogate, "Fahrenheit 911," the Richard Clarke show and the jihad against the Swift Boat Veterans, the press is being soft on Bush.)

The anonymous "studies" about female officers invariably demonstrate that women make excellent cops — even better cops than men! One such study cited an episode of "She's the Sheriff," starring Suzanne Somers.

A 1993 news article in the Los Angeles Times, for example, referred to a "study" — cited by an ACLU attorney — allegedly proving that "female officers are more effective at making arrests without employing force because they are better at de-escalating confrontations with suspects." No, you can't see the study or have the name of the organization that performed it, and why would you ask?

There are roughly 118 million men in this country who would take exception to that notion. I wonder if women officers "de-escalate" by mentioning how much more money their last suspect made.

These aren't unascertainable facts, like Pinch Sulzberger's SAT scores. The U.S. Department of Justice regularly performs comprehensive surveys of state and local law enforcement agencies, collected in volumes called "Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics."

The inestimable economist John Lott has looked at the actual data. (And I'll give you the citation! John R. Lott Jr., "Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments and Crime," Economic Inquiry, April 1, 2000.)

It turns out that, far from "de-escalating force" through their superior listening skills, female law enforcement officers vastly are more likely to shoot civilians than their male counterparts. (Especially when perps won't reveal where they bought a particularly darling pair of shoes.)

Unable to use intermediate force, like a bop on the nose, female officers quickly go to fatal force. According to Lott's analysis, each 1 percent increase in the number of white female officers in a police force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7 percent.

Adding males to a police force decreases the number of civilians accidentally shot by police. Adding black males decreases civilian shootings by police even more. By contrast, adding white female officers increases accidental shootings. (And for my Handgun Control Inc. readers: Private citizens are much less likely to accidentally shoot someone than are the police, presumably because they do not have to approach the suspect and make an arrest.)

Donate to JWR

In addition to accidentally shooting people, female law enforcement officers are also more likely to be assaulted than male officers — as the whole country saw in Atlanta last week. Lott says: "Increasing the number of female officers by 1 percentage point appears to increase the number of assaults on police by 15 percent to 19 percent."

In addition to the obvious explanations for why female cops are more likely to be assaulted and to accidentally shoot people — such as that our society encourages girls to play with dolls — there is also the fact that women are smaller and weaker than men.

In a study of public safety officers — not even the general population — female officers were found to have 32 percent to 56 percent less upper body strength and 18 percent to 45 percent less lower body strength than male officers — although their outfits were 43 percent more coordinated. (Here's the cite! Frank J. Landy, "Alternatives to Chronological Age in Determining Standards of Suitability for Public Safety Jobs," Technical Report, Vol. 1, Jan. 31, 1992.)

Another study I've devised involves asking a woman to open a jar of pickles.

There is also the telling fact that feminists demand that strength tests be watered down so that women can pass them. Feminists simultaneously demand that no one suggest women are not as strong as men and then turn around and demand that all the strength tests be changed. It's one thing to waste everyone's time by allowing women to try out for police and fire departments under the same tests given to men. It's quite another to demand that the tests be brawned-down so no one ever has to tell female Harvard professors that women aren't as strong as men.

Acknowledging reality wouldn't be all bad for women. For one thing, they won't have to confront violent felons on methamphetamine. So that's good. Also, while a sane world would not employ 5-foot-tall grandmothers as law enforcement officers, a sane world would also not give full body-cavity searches to 5-foot-tall grandmothers at airports.


General Issues / Whopper of a fib
« on: Feb 10, 2005, 10:30:09 AM »
Wow, talk about making things up. This lady ought to win a prize.

Colorado Woman Reports Story of Bravery, Death in Iraq, Then Admits It's All a Hoax

The Associated Press
Published: Feb 10, 2005

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. (AP) - A woman concocted a heartbreaking story of how her soldier husband died a hero in Iraq - and then admitted the story was all a hoax.

"I think I need some serious counseling," 24-year-old Sarah Kenney told The Daily Sentinel newspaper on Wednesday editions. "This is the most serious lie I've ever told, but I've been caught in many lies."

The touching story of how Spc. Jonathan Kenney took a bullet meant for an Iraqi child on Jan. 29 was reported by a score of Colorado media after a news release was sent to them by the nonprofit group Homefront Heroes.

In reality, there is no record of a soldier with that name dying in Iraq. Sarah Kenney is married to a man named Michael Kenney, and he is neither currently in the military nor serving in Iraq.

Mesa County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger said Tuesday that he had convened a team of investigators to look into the hoax and see if any laws were broken.

Phyllis Derby, founder and president of Homefront Heroes, said Kenney convinced her group the story was true. The account of the fictitious man's death was then released to local media.

"I would have never thought in a billion years that she was lying to me," Derby said. She said the donations on behalf of the fictitious soldier would be returned.


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 56 7 ... 96
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.