100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
We're all
|
|
perfectly imperfect
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not a terrible idea,,in the technology aid
eliminates all the risks that cheaters expose their partner to,,,like disease, outside children,,etc,,,,, but why have brothels? put them on the market for couples to get so they dont have to hide or go out of their way for their so called 'needs' when they arent necessarily both 'needing' it at the same time,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maybe they are fearing for their lives
IVe heard cops have the right to use deadly force as long as they were 'fearful' for their life,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course she got caught but what was she thinking. It was obviously not going to pass as her baby. from what I read she was supposed to be adopting, and its also possible that she may have been light enough to have a baby that appeared white,,,, I did,,,, Ssshh! If it's a black-on-white crime, don't talk about race! Even if its relevant to the crime. That makes you a racist. But if its a white-on-black crime - then you are just exposing a social issue that we really need to address. I remember some pretty sensational black on white crimes that were all over the place OJ,,the parolee who killed someone after being released by Bushs political oponent, the smith baby kidnapper(that turned out to be a lie though), etc,,, there are sensational stories that make the news because of their 'omg' factor,,,,race is a subcultural motivation for what causes people to say omg blacks killing blacks doesnt make people go omg,,cause its the criminal 'norm' for black victims whites killig whites doesnt make people go omg, cause its the crimnal 'norm' for white victims blacks killing whites usually doesnt make people go omg, because its believed to be the criminal norm for blacks whites killing blacks usually doesnt make people go omg, because its believed to be inherent in blacks to be criminals whose profiling is justified,,,, but when you have a kid (Regardless of race) whom an adult has followed around , fought with, and shot,,,its gonna make people go OMG,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
proof of a scuffle we already knew occurred the photography is too shotty (lighting) to tell the damage under the blood,,,, There is no law that requires that you allow yourself to be beaten to near death before you protect yourself, so the severity of the wounds don't matter. This proves that Trayvon was on top pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground. Just like Zimmerman and the witnesses have stated. Zimmerman should walk free, the fact that he is being prosecuted is a true injustice. Hypothetically: What if Zimmerman started the fight? Suppose I attack someone. They start to defend themselves, causing me harm. They get the upper hand, but I keep fighting so they keep fighting back, even though they are winning. Then I decide my life may be in danger, so I use deadly force to end the fight. What should happen to me? thank you,, someone gets it,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
proof of a scuffle we already knew occurred the photography is too shotty (lighting) to tell the damage under the blood,,,, 
Yeah. It's either someone else, a bad photo-shop, the wounds were self-inflicted after the fact or, he paid white cops to beat him up to look like it was done by the dead thug. No way a dead thug would have done that to a Messican.
you miss my point, all I see is blood,,I dont see the wounds at all blood flows downward so a picture of blood on a head doesnt do much to show what type of injury caused the bleeding,,,(ie. hitting the head on the ground during a scuffle, VS, having ones head BANGED against the ground repeatedly during a scuffle) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
proof of a scuffle we already knew occurred the photography is too shotty (lighting) to tell the damage under the blood,,,, There is no law that requires that you allow yourself to be beaten to near death before you protect yourself, so the severity of the wounds don't matter. This proves that Trayvon was on top pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground. Just like Zimmerman and the witnesses have stated. Zimmerman should walk free, the fact that he is being prosecuted is a true injustice. come now,, there are laws that determine in a 'fight' how much force is excessive or excusable in a fight for ones life against someone with a gun,, IF the gun owner is the aggressor and ends up killing the non aggressor.... there is no law that required the one without a gun to retreat to avoid being shot,,,, there are laws against killing though,,,and degrees of reasonableness like,, if someone pushes you, y ou may not be justified in shooting them if someone comes at you with a broken bottle, you may not be justified in shooting them if a teenager is fighting you on the ground, you may also not be justified in shooting them,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
question is,,,whether one believes a trade off of that magnitude is worth it
and what the trade off is,,, if , any number of deaths are being prevented by the added security that requires temporary discomfort,,,,but no physical harm or death and applied equally to all,,,, ?? I really dont know. I personally dont mind being checked so long as that is the standard equally applied to all travelers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Obama officially ineligible
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 04/20/12 01:48 PM
|
|
I really liked Clinton, except that he was and still is a liar and a sleeze ball... 
Democrats lie because stupid people believe them...sad. 
sad part is they know about the lies, and then just ignore them or try to weakly justify them in some strange and obscure way... and a lie under oath,,(Excluding the oath taken when they earn their position) is 'supposed' to be punishable but they pick and choose who they actually will 'go after' to implement said punishment,,, like they pick and choose whose lies qualify them as 'traitors' or the 'worst',,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
proof of a scuffle we already knew occurred
the photography is too shotty (lighting) to tell the damage under the blood,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Mel Gibson At It Again!
|
|
So what we have is a guy yelling at his high paid employee who produced crappy work and the same guy complaining that some tramp used him and played with his heart in order to get rich. I honestly don't see the problem here. He was upset and he was vocal about it. I have been in supervisor and management positions for years and no matter how mad an employee has made me I have never even raised my voice or used profanity twoards them. thats commendable I worked for three years in a place where the owner/boss spoke to people with profanity DAILY if they werent doing their job Every company I have worked for has had a no tolorance policy for that. I have seen managers get fired for it. Frankly, there is no need to talk to an employee like that and people who do have no business supervising someone. in my case, the one who set policy WAS the one who spoke like that,, it was his company,, he was a hands on boss, there everyday working and overseeing things,,,(Except when away for business conventions)... Then I would have a talk with a lawyer and the labor commissioner. I dont think Id have any grounds,,,as he did nothing to me directly and those he did speak to,, Im sure, have tried to take some action to no avail,,,,, If he came at you yelling and being agressive then yes you do. It's harassment and even workplace violence. he didnt, he yelled at others,, but not at me |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Mel Gibson At It Again!
|
|
So what we have is a guy yelling at his high paid employee who produced crappy work and the same guy complaining that some tramp used him and played with his heart in order to get rich. I honestly don't see the problem here. He was upset and he was vocal about it. I have been in supervisor and management positions for years and no matter how mad an employee has made me I have never even raised my voice or used profanity twoards them. thats commendable I worked for three years in a place where the owner/boss spoke to people with profanity DAILY if they werent doing their job Every company I have worked for has had a no tolorance policy for that. I have seen managers get fired for it. Frankly, there is no need to talk to an employee like that and people who do have no business supervising someone. in my case, the one who set policy WAS the one who spoke like that,, it was his company,, he was a hands on boss, there everyday working and overseeing things,,,(Except when away for business conventions)... Then I would have a talk with a lawyer and the labor commissioner. I dont think Id have any grounds,,,as he did nothing to me directly and those he did speak to,, Im sure, have tried to take some action to no avail,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Mel Gibson At It Again!
|
|
What I'm saying is what I actually said. Please re-read it if you are confused. Nothing is stopping them from looking for something new, as putting up with an unprofessional boss would be horrible. But, these days, it's not easy to change jobs. I wouldn't just quit a job because I was not happy without a new job already lined up. I read what you posted and I wasn't confused by it, but I think you might be. When it's hard to get a job, anyone who has one should just be glad to be employed and not complain about their boss. You might not feel that way, but it's the way it is. I'm sure there are plenty of jobless people who would love to be cussed out by Mel Gibson while pulling down a ridiculously huge salary. I'm certainly not confused about what I said. I am also not going to tell people not to complain about their boss if they're horrible. Sometimes it helps to vent. Mel Gibson was out of line and completely unprofessional. There's no doubt about that. I agree, its never cliche to complain about abuse be it physical or verbal,,,, a work environment should be about responsibility and compensation, not someones personal issues being taken out on others BUT,,it is hard to find another job on a whim and so most (like I Did) stick it out,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Obama officially ineligible
|
|
Someone must have turned out the lights because I can hear the cockroaches all over this post. 
If Obama is not an American he will not be on the ballot this November and the republicans will see to it. I think that ought to be enough proof for anybody because they will leave no stone unturned. Bottom Line!!!!!! Obama's birth certificate PDF file that was released has multiple layers. There are any number of experts who have stated that a scanned document wouldn't have layers. The PDF file was put together one layer at a time and whomever created it forgot to compress the layers into a single document. I've made the same mistake in the past, it's easy to forget. Unfortunately, it's also a tell-tale sign of a fake. other 'experts' disagree http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A question of tolerance...
|
|
See i have read the quran and the bible.What gets me is both basically have in it if you don't believe in their beliefs you are worthless and well be punished,rather it be from their God or their followers.It's really that simple no other way to interpret that except for what it is. basically,,,is a word that introduces some subjective interpretation,,which means there are OTHERS....... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Mel Gibson At It Again!
|
|
It must suck to work for a boss who is that unprofessional! lol,,he actually left me alone because I let him know upfront that he kind of scared me,,,,,said he respected me for telling him and I never had an issue with him personally,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A question of tolerance...
|
|
I think peoples beliefs are their personal business, and that beliefs dont need to be tolerated unless they turn into behavior then I think certain actual behaviors exhibited by an individual may or may not be wise to tolerate,,,, Problem is, if the entire reason you aren't tolerating something is based on religion......then you are stepping into their personal business in effect which you really have no place doing. But again what if the core tenants of a faith are to lie, kill, harm, and do mean things to those NOT of your faith? Christians are annoying but they don't have a holy war on everyone else. Can you tolerate a faith out to either force you to their way or kill you? Im not aware of such a universal faith most FAITHS Im aware of have books with many doctrines that can and have been interpreted many ways depending upon who reads them,,,, you then clearly have not read a Quaran then. Read up on conduct pertaining towards infidels. there is similar conduct in my bible the interpretation lies in whether one perceives it as an absolute instruction/commandment or a specific instruction to specific group for a specific circumstance,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Mel Gibson At It Again!
|
|
in my case, the one who set policy WAS the one who spoke like that,, it was his company,, he was a hands on boss, there everyday working and overseeing things,,,(Except when away for business conventions)... Does that make his behavior any better? my personal opinion is that the behavior is not mature or responsible,,,but I also dont think its rare or illegal,,,especially if it is actually in private conversations between private parties,,, in a non public space like a home,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issue being what's restricted going to someone's home yeah that's stalking. Going to any public building or office to protest is over stepping the bounds of restrictions and such. The only safe haven fro peaceful protest they should be allowed is home and family gatherings. Other than that all public gala's, outings, etc should be fair game for protesting. I think this depends on the exact nature of the protests - something which I don't think is being adequately discussed in specific terms. I think we already have more than enough laws addressing all of the forms of protests which might be objectionable. I could protest something by vandalizing it - and vandalizing is already illegal. I could protest something by getting a megaphone and shouting about it publicly - and we already have laws regulating this. I could protest something by getting a group of people to stand in the middle of the road and block traffic - and this action is already illegal. I could have a march - and there are already laws that deal with having marches with permits, and generally making it illegal to have marches without permits. On the quiet end of things - suppose I get together with 30 people and we all wear the same t-shirt with a message printed on it, and we want to go somewhere and stand or sit together. I feel that this kind of action should always be allowed anywhere or anytime that doing the same thing without the t-shirts would be allowed. For someone to say that people standing quietly wearing t-shirts are 'protesters' and therefore should not be allowed to attend an event - that's insane. That's offensive. That should never be allowed by a society that has the lease bit of concern for freedom of speech. Just for perspective - is it all all possible that such people qualify as 'protesters' under this legislation? from what I read, it was more about 'restricted areas' than protestors,,, secret service have to do a job and its reasonable to give them the determined space they need to do it,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Obama officially ineligible
|
|
The birther issue again? Geez, give it a break. my great grandkids will still be hearing about it,,, its a movement like the Grassy knoll or Roswell type stories,,,, |
|
|
|
|
Previous
