Comments Posted By Carol
Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments
I suspect someone set the thing up bass-ackward.
» Posted By Carol On 21/February/2005 @ 12:59 pm
Sorry baby it was the hormones talking. Of course I meant every word of it.
» Posted By Carol On 21/February/2005 @ 10:56 pm
You could be the lonliest person ever created and yet I would highly reccomend you avoid buying drinks for pretty or even unpretty Korean females! Get my drift?
» Posted By Carol On 21/February/2005 @ 1:01 pm
I sat beside a man on the train this morning. He was workign on his laptop or so I thought. A glance at the screen revealed he was playing Civ. I almost cried.
» Posted By Carol On 19/February/2005 @ 9:26 am
When the cause is just, as in World War II, and all levels of society are engaged, Americans tolerated the draft. They did not support the draft during Vietnam because a signifcant minority and eventually a majority did not support the reasons behind the war. I am not sure Americans would support a draft for Iraq or a war in Korea or Iran or Syria. Maybe its because during Vietnam the public observed that even with a draft the more affluent of our society did not serve in numbers proportional to their representation in our country. You probably wouldn’t in a new draft either. Having said that I am in favor of required service for 2 to 3 years for all young people. However,if we do requir it of young women or draft women, do you think we could get the equal rights amendment finally passed? It was the fear of women being forced to serve in the military that helped to defeat its passage oh so many years ago.
» Posted By Carol On 18/February/2005 @ 10:40 am
T.J. Jordan is not accused of saying the military intentionally targeted our own journalist. (This is one of several post on this blog on this subject. You should read all of the comments to all of the posts. But for you I will quickly rehash.) As reported by R. Abovitz, a blogger present at the conference, Jordan said the military had targeted journalists. He made this comment following a comment describing the deaths of journalist as collateral damage. He repeated his comment adding tha the knew of 12 journalist who had been targeted. Abovitz asked him if he had any proof of htis claim. Jordan told him he did not and that he didn’t personally believe it. Many Arab journalist in attendance did. There is no question but that journalist have been killed and in some cases targeted. Now whether that is due to the fact that they were Arabs or journalist or mistaken for the enemy is the dispute. This allegations are not new but have been floating overseas for some time. As Americans we get news filtered for our interest shall we say. Since these comments have been floating for some time (start of the war when we blew up the hotel housing al jezeera journalists) it is not like Jordan siad anything our “enemy” and other antiAmericans hadn’t already heard. He specifically stated he did not personally believe it. However, just because you don’t beleive something doesn’t mean you should ignore the allegation. (Abu Garib abuse went on far too long because MSM wouldn’t market the story to us when the rumors first broke.) Unless of course you are totally dead set against hearing criticism in the first place and think all criticism of the military or government (apparently that doesn’t extend to all branches- say the Post Office)is treason. The blog world is taking credit for bringing Jordan down. I say they did us all a disservice. Jordan’s allegations should be investigated. The value system that we are trying to promote throughout the Middle east, is that you do try to address the inequties or injustice where ever you find it even if its in your own backyard. An investigation would have put the rumors to bed and deprived conspiracy nuts and critics overseas the opportunity to embellish the story. We could have used the chance to find the ways and the means to make journalist safer. As it stands teh blog world has given us a black eye. Our critics overseas will see only that we hounded a man our of his job because he spoke up. They will use this as an argument that we do not live the values we preach and that spreading Democracy is merely a front for securing Middle East oil. In other words the bloggers taking credit for running Eason Jordan off have given aid to the enemy in the form of support for their argumetns agaisnt us. That is why I do not believe they have done us any favors. I asked John to defend his charge of treason because the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary does not apply in the case. I assume he was using hte term liberally and wanted to know what the criteria was for the nonlegal manner in which he used it. Treason is defined as an attempt to overthrow the government to which you owe allegiance by either making war or materially supporting its enemies. Jordan’s comment does not fit the definition. He made a similar comment months ago in Portugal I believe. Then he stated that journalist had reproted being imprisoned and tortured by the military. Again not treasonous. However, you probably never heard Jordan’s statements expresed so benignly. Nope you probably heard the doctored versions. Let’s see Captains Quarter, who picked up on Abovitz’s account, said Jordan accused the military of “assasinating” journalist even though Abovitz did not report Jordan as saying so and Abovitz was there. Later bloggers added other inflammatory words to beef up the story. The worse part of all of this is that I believe these bloggers sensationalize the Jordan event simply to attract readership. If anyone fails to see the wrongness of that then I suggest they check their moral compass. Its due for an overall.
» Posted By Carol On 16/February/2005 @ 8:59 pm
The Supreme Court, Justice O’Connor, held that First Amendment protects independent contractors from termination or prevention of automatic renewal of at-will government contracts in retaliation for their exercise of freedom of speech.
Affirmed and remanded.I’ll post these as I find them. You should have realized I did my homework before making the statement.
Board of County Com’rs, Wabaunsee County, Kan. v. Umbehr 518 U.S. 668, 116 S.Ct. 2342 (U.S.Kan.,1996)
By the way you are sidestepping the real issue here. Defend your charge of treason against Jordan.
» Posted By Carol On 16/February/2005 @ 7:40 am
The Washington Times is owned by the Reverand Moon, a nutcake, and was formed by him to spread his nutcake ideas. It is a horrible paper dealing in the most extreme yellow journalism that I have ever seen. Much worse than REader’s Digest or True Grit. It is the Fox news of the newpapers. The Times doesn’t deal in information but in disinformation. Besides they hire journalist rejects. If yo uwant to bolster yoru arguemtn at least cite a respected paper. I know how about the Wall Street Journal? Oh that’s right, they agreed with me.
» Posted By Carol On 16/February/2005 @ 4:04 am
Firing at will does not mean fire in violation of a law. For instance you could not fire an employee for being black or being female. You could fire them because you decided to reduce the overall number of employees or because you think they have a bad attitude. In other words you cannot discriminate because that would be against the law and you cannot similarly fire a person for the sole reason of viaolating a constitutionally protected right such as free speech. You know this and are simply making a specious argument.
You were on stronger ground when you said this wasn’t about free speech. The problem was in your blog you did allude to his right to free speech so I responded in kind. Whether or not this is truely a case about free speech or simply a case of rabble rousing the result is the same. Those people who will tolerate no criticism of the government have trampled on the a right that many world wide think of as inherently American. For those with an antiAmerican bent you’ve simply given them a new reason to criticize America, support for their charge of hypocrisy and a reason to mistrust us. For those intent on turning others away from America, you aided them plenty.
You claimed that if the US put Eason on trial for treason it would be a close call. Eason did not commit treason. His actions do not amount to giving aid to the enemy. If in fact these journalist (who by the way were killed and were targeted in some instances by the military I assume because the soldiers thought they were the enemy) are aligning themselves with insurgents then I would think Eason’s words would serve to discomfort them not aid them. It does not aid the enemy when we review ourselves for excesses, abuse or even errors. It makes us look stronger wehn we are willing to police our own behavior.
Besides which John you are ignoring what Abovitz wrote. Eason said he knew of 12 journalist targeted by the military. He said he had no proof of this allegation and tha the did not personally believe it was true. How is this treason? How is it outrageous? Several months ago Eason is reported to have made a remark that allegations were being made by some journalist that they had been arrested and tortured by the military. Well John that is true -some journalist have made this allegation. Why don’t you admit that you went with the story after coming across it on Captains Quarter and you failed to do any back ground check. Why dont’ you go to your first blog on Eason where you were complaining that the MSM reported on the general but not Eason. Problem is MSM did report on Eason but it wasn’t as big a story as a general saying he liked to kill people. You know take that jackass general’s comments and Eason Jordan’s comment together and it appears JOrdan may be on to something cause our military leaders think its fun to kill. Now how big a leap does a person with an AnitAmerica frame of mind have to go to connect them dots? Who really did the damage, the guy you bolggers venerated for no other reason than he is a genreral or the guy you trashed FOR NO OTHER REASON than he was a member of MSM. That is what this is really all about!
» Posted By Carol On 16/February/2005 @ 3:59 am
Well John you are just plain wrong again. Your employer may not fire you because you exercise free speech, particularly when the speech is criticism of the government. Lot of court cases on the subject. I suggest you check them out. An employer may fire you for using poor judgement (or if you ar a general they can “counsel” you). Jordan said the military had not just killed but had targeted 12 journalists. When asked if he could prove this was true he stated that he could not and that he did not personally believe the targeting was deliberate but that the accusation was being made. Sorry John but there is no other way to interpret this as poor judgment unless you mean poor judgement for criticizing or repeating an allegation against the military. Under your thinking the reporters who broke the Abu Garib scandal are also guilty of por judgment and therefore should be fired. Sorry kiddo it cannot be done in a free society. You bloggers just helped make it less of a free society by distorting the truth and then targeting not just public opinion but the advertisers for CNN. If this can happen to Jordan it can happen to anyone, including you and me. The litmus test will get more strigent everytime the rabble is successful at pulling this off. The question should not be can democracy survive the media but can democracy survive bloggers!
You both ignore the fact tht he was repeating allegations made by others. I am sure it would make you both more comfortable to sweep the mess under a carpet. John you misquoted Jordan. Ashley we do have an idea of what Jordan said because Abovitz was there and wrote his article following that days events. I am much more likely to believe what Abovitz wrote than Captain’s quarters, Powerline or Lngtimegne. These three bloggers merely picked the story up embellishing it along the way like the child’s game of teltphone line. This is where one child whisper to another and that child then whispers it to another until the message is passed one from one to another throughout the whole group. Inevitably the message heard by the last child is different from the message said by the first child. We teach our kids that game to instill in them the power of rumors and how they can distort the facts. Well that is what these bloggers are playing.
» Posted By Carol On 15/February/2005 @ 7:52 pm
Let’s get the Eason Jordan story straight. First off, several main stream newspapers did report on this incident before it became the latest “gate” story for bloggers. Kurtz was not the first person to run the story.
More improtatnly though take a look at what the blogger, R. Abovitz, who witnessed the entire thing at the conference wrote the day afterwards:
“During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted.” Notice in this first hand account that Eason Jordan did not use the word assasinate or murder or even the word deliberate.“To be fair (and balanced), Eason did backpedal and make a number of statements claiming that he really did not know if what he said was true, and that he did not himself believe it.” Gee John your blog buddies conveniently left this part of the story out. Oh, Captain’s Quarter linked to Abovitz as credit for his first write up on this story only the Captain used the term assassinate. Hmmm, puts a new spin on it doesn’t it? Makes the whole accusation seem more hihgly charged, more inflammatory, more awful. If it were so awful why didn’t the Captain let the words speak for themselves? Why did he have to spin it?
“Members of the audience took away what they wanted to hear, and now they will use it in every vile and twisted way imaginable.” This is true and it is unfortunate. However, John and Ashley are guilty of the same thing.
“As a last note, I think that this article is a good pointer to the future of the news: average people, freely saying what they want, as they saw it, for anyone to see. To me, that is freedom of the press.” Apparently though freedom of the press is just another way of saying liberal and unAmerican. Am I understanding you correctly John and Ashley? Before jumping to conclusions you two ought to do your homework.
-R» Posted By Carol On 15/February/2005 @ 10:51 am
And just why is his accusation “sick”?
» Posted By Carol On 15/February/2005 @ 10:31 am
Powerline is apparently short on imagination. Eason chose a fifth option (there are probably many more). When challenged at the conference about his comment he tried to explain what he meant. The blogger, who did the chanllening though didn’t accept the explanation. In fact he used it to bash Jordan.
As for your comment that the exercise of free speech comes with consequences, may I suggest you brush up on your civics lessons. The amendment protecting free speech is designed to keep people from experiencing adverse consequences as a result of exercising that right. It is literally against the law to fire a person for critizing the government or a branch thereof such as the military. Shame on you for not knowing better. You haven’t been gone that long!
» Posted By Carol On 15/February/2005 @ 10:30 am
Unfortunately, I am unable to read the Post article since it insist my email address is nto valid so I will simply have to take your word for it. It doesn’t surprise me however, to find that there is another person out there who thinks as I do on this subject.
I could not care less about Eason Jordan. However, I do not like to see him railroaded. People make rash statements from time to time. Sometimes it is jsut the case where what we say comes out the wrong way. Eason tried to clarify what he meant. The general didn’t and yet all he got was a counseling which means he got nothing. A counseling is not a form of disciplinary action. The president has made rash statements, Rice has made some whoppers and Rumsfled’s middle name is “rash statement.” Clearly it did nto cost them their jobs. It is okay because they are Republicans. Don’t kid yourself Ashley, this is all about controling public opinion. I suggest you check out Easongate.com to see the crowd you are running with. Personally I have never thought displaying such hatred was indicative of patriotism. What is worse is these bloggers, this includes you John, only did this becasue they wanted to fles their muscle and have something to write about to attract readers. Sorry kiddo but that is wrong. Decency is seriously undervalued in America and tolerance is under attack. Bloggers with aren’t helping.
By the way many people have asked the people in charge of the Davos Conference to release the tape and they are refusing not Jordan. Although, my understanding is that the blogger who was in attendance and questioned Jordan believes he may be able to secure a copy of the tape. I think they should look into the deaths of those journalists if for no other reason so that they can devise a way to reduce this types of incidents.
» Posted By Carol On 15/February/2005 @ 10:20 am
Wrong, wrong and wrong. MSM picked up both stories. Eason did not alledgedly say soldiers were “systematically targeting journalist” and he did not call our soldiers “murderers”. If he had it would have been a bigger story. Eason said that the dead journalist were not collateral damage but had been “deliberately targeted.” There are dead journalist that were killed by American soldiers and in some instances they were targeted. Eason’s comment wasn’t simply taken out of context; it has been distorted beyond recognition. The difference between the treatment of the two men lies in their remarks, what one of them actually said and a distortion of what the other said. Eason criticized the military. That is his right and the right of every American. Right now soldiers are fighting to defend this right for Iraqis and Afghanis. If its good enough for them to have this right then by golly its good enough for us to have that right without fear of reprisal. Everytime you ignore the obvious and go along with this shameful situation in the name of partriotism you move us closer to a time that the very values we hold dear will be wrest away from us through political correctness designed to censure disent. As for the general, an unfortunate by product of his job is that people get killed. He doesn’t, no he shouldn’t, paint the picutre that America revels in the death and mayhem that necessarily accompany the fight for freedom. He adds fuel to the criticisms and hard feelings many abroad already feel towards this country. He makes the job of every soldier more difficult. Eason’s comments the real comment or the distorted comment simply does not have that effect or a similar effect on journalists or soldiers. We are quickly moving to a point where the far-right is suppressing our ability to dissent, to air criticisms freely, to challenge the status quo. If people fear that their jobs, their ability to care for their families will be impacted by speaking out then they will quit speaking out. It happened in Germany before WWII and it can happen here.
» Posted By Carol On 14/February/2005 @ 10:16 am
You are using the term “bias” pretty loosely here as if the word were interchangeable with the phrase, “opinion I don’t like.” Eason did not display bias, he displayed criticism. He pointedly and brazenly accused the military of targeting journalist. Earlier In Portugal he stated that he believed to be true reports (coming from journalists) that the military was arresting and torturing journalists. Bias is when you write a story as fact but use verbage to portray an event or person in a manner so as to taint the judgement of the reader. The blogsphere is rife with bias and no it isn’t stated up front. You all act as if you are doing genuine reporting. Eason jsut quit because he wasn’t PC in his remarks made recently at a closed conference. Closed conference meaning it was off the record meaning people could supposedly speak their minds. In the America that this is rapidly changing to where people can no longer speak their minds for fear of having their words used against them. In Eason’s case he was castigated because he has expressed his belief that journalist have been arrested and tortured by the military (as reported by journalist) and because he took exception to calling the deaths of journalist as collateral damage stating that the journalist were targeted. He recognized his remarks failed to convey what he meant and he explained himself. However, the blogger in attendance described this as Eason backpedaling. Realizing how his remark has been taken Eason tries to explain. That is pretty much what anyone would do but for some reason in Eason’s case that wasn’t good enough. The blogger in question did not want to let Eason soften his comment or back away from it if you will. I guess it was just juicier to report Eason was claiming that the military was killing journalist because they were journalist and not accept his explanation that he took exception to the use of the term collateral damage. Funny thing is Eason is not the first American to take exception to the term collateral damage. Relatives of dead soldiers killed by friendly fire have taken exception to the term for decades. They would perfer to see someone take responsiblity for the carelessness that resulted in the death of their loved ones. Collateral damage is actually an euphemism for an accetable loss of life in the carrying out an operation. Eason obviously did not think it was acceptable. I may be no fan of Eason’s, I thought his article in the NY Times about the unreported atrocities by the Hussien regime was a sop to neocons, but I am disturbed by the wave of political correctness being generated by the blogsphere. While I may believe that most of the men and women of our armed forces serve bravely and with distinction that doesn’t mean that I don’t think the military machine is above criticism. I hate to think that our country is devolving into a place where citizens are not free to criticize the military or hold it accountable for its actions. Abu Garib is proof of that if you needed it. Conservatives love to poke fun at political correctness but that is precisely what has been practiced in this case-a the new brand of PC tha now includes the parameters that you cannot criticize the President or you are antiAmerican, unpatriotic, a liberal (god-forbid), anyone on his staff such a Rice (or else you are a racist) or the military. What does this sound like? McCartheism revised with a new twist. Sorry but in my opinion the blogworld did not do America any favors. Instead of generating debate that might lead to transparency they have insured the issue of journalists being killed, arrested and possibly tortured will langusih behind a red curtain of political correctness, the truth hidden. That is too bad. The truth could well be that the deaths were all unavoidable, the journalist arrested perfectly justified given the situation and claims of torture exaggerated. However, because some people don’t want this issue to see the light of day we will never know for sure and conspiracy theories will abound for some. Worse yet it prevents any action being taken to prevant future accidental killings.
» Posted By Carol On 13/February/2005 @ 10:32 am
One day little Johnny was playing with his toy train and it was going round and round when he stoped it he said, “all you sons of bitches getting on get on, and all you sons of bitches gettin off get off.”
His mother comes in and says, “What did you say young man? Go to your room and think about what you said.”
So after 4 hours his mother comes and says, “Come eat some supper and then you can play with your train again.”
After supper little Johnny goes back to his train and says, “all you sons of bitches getting on get on, and all you sons of bitches gettin off get off, and all you sons of bitches pissed off about the delay, talk to the bitch in the kitchen!”» Posted By Carol On 12/February/2005 @ 9:49 am
So Condi is the equivalent of a Bond girl. Hmmm, my feminist side is appalled but my secret inner self says “Cool! I want to be one too-sexy, smart and lethal.” Then another part of me chimes in, “only I don’t want to be a bad actress.” I want to be Meryl Streep sexy, smart and lethal only she never got to be a Bond girl. Too smart or too good an actress?
Anyway wht is Euroyanks point? I checked out his website and quite frankly he is more Moore than Moore is.
» Posted By Carol On 11/February/2005 @ 11:26 pm
Did you actually read that study? It is deeply flawed. It is based on comparing media outlet’s references to liberal think tanks versus conservative think tanks as compared to the number of times a member of Congress cites a liberal think tank compared to a consrvative think tank. On a scale of 1 to 100 39 was the established meidan based on what members of the House do. No surprise there because the House is controled by Republicans. The ACLU came up as one of the more centrist of establishments, as did the Drudge Report. What is really comes down to is how the think tanks were determined to be liberal or conservative. The Children’s Defense League (I may have that last word wrong-doing ths onthe fly) was labeled as a liberal think tank. Why is that I wonder? Are we to assume that promoting children is a liberal thing? AARP also came out as liberal. The Rand Fondation cmae out s liberal. Excuse me? The two college sutendents who prepared this paper forgot to include a nutcase category which is where Rand firmly belongs.
» Posted By Carol On 09/February/2005 @ 8:24 pm
Thomas Hardy sums it up nicely. But for the fact that we are at war our enemy wouldn’t be our enemy and we wouldn’t think of killing him or her. And to set the record straight Ashley, killing as in “thou shalt not kill” is against our Christian-Judeo beliefs. And to you John darling, let me remind you that Eason has survived a firestorm of his own creation before, so I wouldn’t herald his demise quite yet.
The main thrust of your article was the so called bias in the media. I think we all accept that a certain amount of bias exist, but apparently, while liberals admit to bias we claim it swings both ways, whereas libertarians, neocons, and conservatives insist that the bias in MSM is strictly liberal. So I decided to check out the headlines today in a couple of newspapers as well as online news services from TV networks. Here is a sample of those headlines. Where you see a colon indicates a large headline followed by a smaller headline. Try to match the headline to the news service:
“President Sends ’06 Budget to Congress: Programs are Cut, but War Costs Are Not Included”“Deficit Puts Pressure on Bush’s Budget”
Bush to Propose Billions In Cuts”
“Bush Offers Budget That Sets Priorities”
“The Fog of the Budget: How Bush Will Mask the Biggest National Debt in History By Largely Ignoring the Costs of his Own Priorities”
“Bush Proposes 2.5 Trillion Spending Plan”
Your choices are The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The L.A. Times, Business Week, ABC News and MSNBC.
One of the headlines above appeared with this in the main story, “…slashes nondefense spending and the deficit while relying more heavily on taxes from affluent Americans.” There was no explanaiton as to how the budget was relying or in any way tied to taxes from affluent Americans. On the contrary, Bush plans to make his last round of tax cuts permanent which would help affluent Americans. I can only assume that the writer meant that Bush’s failure to address the ATM equates to “relying on taxes from affluent Americans: except that the ATM impacts families earning 65k a year– hardly affluent. Even more amusing is that in the same paper on the editorial page it was written, “the budget deficit will continue to increase”. This remark was accompanied by the deficit numbers for the last couple of years and the projected deficit under this budget.
When I worked at DOJ I was absolutely amazed by the duplication of programs targeting drugs. Let me clarify that. Within DOJ there exist departments solely devoted to contianing the drug trade, plus there are programs within departments with the same goal. Not of of these programs or departments came up on the chopping block. Faith based initiatives and abstinence only programs will actually grow under Bush’s budget. Go figure. There is a lot of waste in the the government and far to many entitlement programs. I am totally in favor of trimming some sails. Let faith based organizaitons raise their own money through their parishoners. I don’t want to finance them. Abstinence only programs are like flushing money down a toilet; beside parents should be teaching abstinence. And don’t overlook cutting duplicate programs simply because it isn’t PC. Cutting programs that provide assistance for housing, heating and food should be the last items on the chopping block. To do otherwise is simply immoral.
» Posted By Carol On 09/February/2005 @ 11:47 am
Come on John. The general showed remarkably piss poor judgement (sorry Bonnie, but no other word will do). Our military is in the business of defending our country and its inhabitants. That they may have to kill someone in the process is an unfortunate by-product of their business. Stating that you enjoy killing, regardless of who you are killing, makes you sound like a psycho and its antiethical of our Christian-Judeo beliefs. Our soldiers kill because they have to not because they like it. I am sure the general was simply trying to inject soem levity into his presentation but darn it this was a truely mispoken remark. As for the other guy, the chief executive of CNN or what ever, I read about him in the Post so what do you mean MSM isn’t covering it? Bias does make its way into the media. Actually the editorial pages are all about bias. Regualr news stories unfortunately also reflect bias from time to time, but that bias is just as likely to be slanted toward conservative veiwpoints as it is towards liberal viewpoints. Furthermore, what doesn’t get reported also reflects a bias. Americans do not see news that the rest of the world sees and this is based on bias. The new we recieve is reported with an American point of view, which is frequently not the point of view shared by the interantional community. The whole “liberal media” concept is vastly over-hyped. Conservatives dominant talk radio, commentary TV shows and the editorial pages.
» Posted By Carol On 08/February/2005 @ 10:36 am
Women of America, do your part
Really??!!! I’m game. Of course I’ll need a few more months at the gym first.
» Posted By Carol On 06/February/2005 @ 5:16 pm
Shame on the court for finding for the woman! In the story it states that she claimed she thought it might be a burglar or neighbors with whom she had a conflict in the past. The plate of cookies should have dispelled those notions and put her mind at ease. the fact that they faile dot do so tells me she is either a liar, looking for a lawsuit, or that she is abnormal. Those girls should not be held responsible because the woman’s paranoia drove her to have a anxiety attack. While tort reform is much needed in this country, it would not have protected the girls in this case. What this country really needs is a good dose of common sense and for Americans to quit thinking they are entitled to something anytime things dont’ go as planned.
» Posted By Carol On 05/February/2005 @ 9:53 am
Something else bears do in the woods
Are you sure these pictures are real? How could a bear be that big?! I am surprised the dead guy’s relatives aren’t sueing over the release of that picture-loss of dignity in death and all that crap. In fact you should consider the advisibility of posting a picture that could cause a reader extreme distress. No Ashley you cannot sue your parents. I need all my money for my old age.
» Posted By Carol On 05/February/2005 @ 9:59 am
Hmmm, I want to believe this is true…
🙄 Please, that is so not you. Altuistic? Ha!! Spiratual?? I dont’ think so. Helpful, okay as long as there is soemthing in it for you. Loving, hmmmm, what would Anonymous say? Enjoyable, all right I will concede that one and of course you are young. And just think, I love you.
» Posted By Carol On 06/February/2005 @ 5:22 pm
Well I could have given up the chase, but you make it too interesting. Consider this, a cat will lose interest in a toy if it just sits there.
» Posted By Carol On 06/February/2005 @ 11:31 am
Let’s see, I too am linguistic, type A personality(big newsflash), my element is earth with a Hunter soul and I am the 2004 song “Vertigo” by U2.
» Posted By Carol On 05/February/2005 @ 10:45 pm
No what you said and I quote, “He said it, I believe it…” You did not put a period after the first “it” so the second part of the sentence becomes dependent on the first. Moreover, if the second part of your sentence were not dependent on the first part then why include the first part at all? Thus the meaning of your statment is that you believe it simply because he said it. Sheep.
» Posted By Carol On 03/February/2005 @ 10:20 pm
You are starting to sound like a sheep. Never thought I would see the day. I do not disagree him not because he said and therefore I believe, I don’t disagree with him because, even though Medicare may be the biffer problem, Social Security stills needs tweaking to keep it viable given our demographics. However, as they say the devil is in the details. I am encouraged that thre President has decided to limit investment opportunities and though not mentioned last night in his speach (or did I miss it) it is reported that he adjusted his position and now favors automatic rebalancing. Now, that he has addressed the problem for future beneficiaries in their 20s,30s and 40s,I want to see what he proposes for those of us entering our 50s and beyond that are still working and not yet drawing our benefits.
» Posted By Carol On 03/February/2005 @ 8:43 pm
Social Security: Point/Counterpoint
«« Back To Stats PageThree cheers for Pamela Clark!
» Posted By Carol On 22/April/2005 @ 11:33 am