100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Help VISTA SUCKS!! GAH
|
|
or buy a mac leapord is far better Well sure. As long as you don't want anything you like to run on it. Umm, huh? I run OSX Leopard and I am trying to think what I want that I can't run. Netflix instant movie views is one that bugs me but I just watch them when they arrive but I have had no issue with anything else. I use a chat program called Adium that houses every chat program I've ever heard of under one roof--so that's a real pain (as opposed to having to log in to a bunch of different programs)--OSX lets me run Word and Excel but I don't in favor of Neo Office--the dreaded open source. I don't want to get into a huge issue with Microsoft v. Apple (I get enough of that from our IT Dept. at work) but I do think it's funny that a lot of MS users are running from an OS that was more than 5 years in R&D. I see now they have the Mojave experiment going where users are tricked into playing with Vista for 3 minutes before being told it's really Vista. Wow, I don't know but I would not really be advertising that!! Still, I have and use both a Mac and a PC and always will. So, I'm far from anti-PC. I just love what I can do on a Mac--and how much simpler certain things are--in my opinion. Later, Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it was only a matter of time until they found the guy who knocked up Bristol Palin the 17-year-old daughter of John McCain's running mate Sarah Palin. And, boy, is this kid amazing. Meet future shotgun groom Levi Johnston (above) who, in a triumph of the human spirit, makes Casey Aldridge and Kevin Federline look they should be on the space program. The New York Post has the details: On a MySpace page subsequently taken down, Johnston boasts, "I'm a f****n' redneck" who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes. "But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some **** and just f**n' chillin' I guess." "Ya f**k with me I'll kick [your] ass," he added. He also claims to be "in a relationship," but states, "I don't want kids." Wow. Am I the only one who hopes this kid never stops reproducing? Show of hands. http://thesuperficial.com/2008/09/sarah_palins_future_soninlaw_r.php and thats her daughter choice not her moms you should be proud When did Clinton have sex with a teenage boy? either way I am not republican, but he young daughter getting knocked up by a douche bag isn't something that should matter in this election. I knew a lot of girls in High school that slept with a lot douches, some got pregnant and got stuck in that town it didn't say anything about their parents, it says they were kids and made a bad choice. What terrorists, Madison? According to people like you, Bush is the only terrorist. By the way--way to score points on the back of a couple of 17 year olds. Really, and you want to talk about lack of class? Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Will Sarah Palin withdrawn
|
|
Right, because Democrats never have kids get pregnant at 17 and Democrats never tell their kids not to have sex until older and well, you know what--I was watching a show not long ago about a man who was very much against gangs. He had worked a lot of his adult life trying to help mediate gang violence and spent a lot of time telling kids that gangs were no answer. Oddly, his son or a relative of his joined a gang and paid the price. So, we should probably tell him to abandon his message--I mean, obviously he's a really bad parent/relative and he should probably just stop. -Drew Kids, doing something which they know will make their parents angry... Let's call it "rebellion". And kids act up a lot from 13 to 19...let's call that the "teenage years".  Democrats are sinking to a new low. Anyone who supports these attacks on Sarah Palin should be ostracised from the Democrat party. These are people who are arguing for a woman to be less than a man. Of course, Palin should be home raising the kids, but Obama's kids are just fine at home with one parent. It's going to be a crazy election. It's worse than that but in some ways the Palin camp is playing this all wrong. First of all, her daughter is 17 and the only thing her being pregnant shows is that her parents obviously felt that she was old enough to begin making some of her own decisions. They did not lock her in a cave or never allow her to make choices. That she made one that puts her in the category of being a young unwed mother is one thing but to suggest that it proves that abstinence does not work is just a moronic argument. If the Palin folks were playing this right they could say--"See, look, we love our daughter and we'll love our Grandchild but this is what happens when protection is not used or choices are made in haste." They should not run from this--she's 17, not 15 and I'd also like to point out that I see DAILY 30 year olds who have kids that have all of the smarts and maturity of someone who is 9. So let's not get too excited here about this. There was no cover-up, she's going to marry the guy and if this was news six months from now, well, it would not be news! There is already some proof that this line of attack by some (see, some) liberals is not working. Seems that when some people look into their own closets and past they see some things that they would rather they had waited for. I am not unrealistic--I believe that we should teach sex-education in a practical and real-world way but my point here is that this is not an issue that determines someone's qualifications for VP. IF it is, then a former President who took a VOW of marriage and then an OATH of office and who got a top down view of an intern in a blue dress should have given is reason to question his ability to hold office. I was not in favor of impeachment in that case (it was between him and his wife) and I'm not in favor of booting Gov. Palin back to Alaska for the actions of her 17 year old daughter. Please, some consistency here. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Will Sarah Palin withdrawn
|
|
The convo was about whether Gov. Palin should withdraw--and I was answering what came before me by way of example---not sure how that is off-topic but.
Hi Duckie 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Will Sarah Palin withdrawn
Edited by
Drew07_2
on
Tue 09/02/08 06:43 PM
|
|
Right, because Democrats never have kids get pregnant at 17 and Democrats never tell their kids not to have sex until older and well, you know what--I was watching a show not long ago about a man who was very much against gangs. He had worked a lot of his adult life trying to help mediate gang violence and spent a lot of time telling kids that gangs were no answer.
Oddly, his son or a relative of his joined a gang and paid the price. So, we should probably tell him to abandon his message--I mean, obviously he's a really bad parent/relative and he should probably just stop. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But MorningSong, if you truly believe this then why would Christians be so concerned with proselyzing and telling everyone they need to be saved.
If God will ALWAYS make Himself know to man to give him a chance to accept Him WILLINGLY then what's the problem? --Abra-- Abra--perfect point. I had heard about a documentary film called "Jesus Camp" that was made a few years ago. I decided to rent it and well, my hope for the future was greatly diminished. It basically follows a group of Pentecostal Church leaders who host a Jesus Camp in Devil's Lake, ND (no, not kidding) each year. It is run by a vile youth pastor named Becky and supported by a number of parents who believe that guilt and tears equal repentance and faith. Some of these kids are younger than five---and they are being asked to think, to think about the bad things they've done and then to repent. 5 and 6 years old--some older, but some that young. While watching---I wanted to vomit. One particularly heartbreaking scene was when a little boy--maybe 5 or 6 was speaking in front of everyone--at camp. With a microphone and a stunned look he said that he wasn't really doing a great job as a Christian--that it was hard for him because with Jesus he could not really know him like he knew other people or see him. He was on to something--he was being a skeptic but he soon went back to the--"I need to do more, need to believe more" something to that extent and it freaking killed me. It was pure child abuse. He's 5 or 6 years old......LET him be a kid for a while--for the love of the god those people pray to--let him be a kid. But there is a point--there is a huge point in relation to MorningSong's statement about God revealing Himself. Abra nailed it---so if that is true, MorningSong then why the need to minister so much to kids? Why not let God reveal Himself without guilt ridden Bible Camps. If the argument is that the camps ARE God revealing Himself then I'd counter with a simple--NO--that is GUILT revealing itself--not God. This notion, that kids, kids that are that young should be bawling heads towards the heavens saying again and again, "No more, NO more, NO MORE......is heart-wrenching. Oh, and the "No More" that was in response to no more being fake, no more sin, no more insincerity." Watch the film. It was not put on by a group of atheists. In fact it was made by two women who gave 96% of the film's time to the Christian side and 4% to the opposing view. Seriously. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drew07_2
on
Sun 08/31/08 10:01 PM
|
|
Lily,
It's actually worse than that. It is stating that in addition to allowing into heaven a murderer, someone who destroyed lives and tortured victims, that it is allowing in someone who took the lives of god's own children. The idea that a Ted Bundy can kill multiple creations of god and then hang out in the afterlife with the maker of those victims strains is beyond scary. It would point to an unethical, immoral, and frighteningly sadistic god. Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Barak Obama vs. Sarah Palin
|
|
I think that putting her on the ticket is an insult to women. He thinks that we are that stupid. Hey Winx, Did it ever occur to you that perhaps McCain put Palin on the ticket not to court votes from the Democrats but from his own party? Come on, Winx--the choice was for his party not for the other one. In other words, he doesn't think you are "that stupid" it's just that his choice wasn't about you. By the way, what exactly is it about her that is insulting to women? She would be the first woman Vice President in the history of this republic---how exactly is the second in command to the Executive branch an "insult?" -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Unreal
|
|
I am watching MSNBC coverage of Mr. Obama's acceptance speech for the nomination of the Democratic Party for the Presidency of the United States. A few moments ago a woman named "Pam" stepped up on the stage to talk about what happened to her. This was one profile of a handful of Americans who now support Mr. Obama and were invited to share their reasons. As it turns out, Pam was nothing short of eager. You see, Pam and her husband used to have good jobs, a retirement plan, good health benefits and were even able to save some money. Then eight years ago, all of that changed. Pam's husband suffered some heart related health issues and lost his job and with it many of the benefits. A short time later, Pam herself had bypass surgery and was unable to pay all of the medical bills. And that is why Pam is voting for Mr. Obama. Consider the following an open letter to Pam: Dear Pam, I was sorry to hear of the health problems that plagued you and your husband. You mentioned that everything regarding the stability of your life changed eight years ago when your husband suffered heart related health issues. What I am trying to figure out Pam is whether or not you are blaming President Bush for your husband's health issues? That his health decline began eight years ago is an odd little factoid to be sure but I'm struggling to figure out what you think would have been different had they occurred ten years ago under President Clinton's tenure?? Pam, no one wants you or your husband to suffer from poor health. Still, I'm trying to understand what you think would have been different about your outcomes had a Democrat been in office? Perhaps you'll get back to us on that but in the event that you don't here are a few things you might want to consider. 1. Go easy on the idea that somehow the fact that your husband got sick at the time President Bush came into office is anything other than a coincidence. 2. If you are voting for Mr. Obama because your husband got sick when President Bush was in office then you are truly overestimating the power, job function, and role of the president and possess a staggering lack of deductive reasoning. 3. You stated that you used to be a Republican, but no longer. Wow, you'll be missed, really. I can only leave you with the following suggestion. **Stop looking for someone to blame for every bad deal that befalls your family. Equating your struggles on such a personal level with the person sitting in the White House is not only horrible logic but might be one of the most self-centered, egotistical and vacant comments I've ever heard. Wow, thanks Pam. -Drew Drew, Most of the time your posts are pretty well thought out, but I'm afraid you're talking through your hat on this one. I've been there. Have you? Do you know anything about the HIPAA Act of 1996? It could possibly be the reason I'm still alive. It allowed me to keep the insurance I needed to get the advanced medical care I needed for a congenital condition that often kills people. To be fair, HIPAA of '96 was passed because some Republicans crossed the aisle on this one because they thought it was a better compromise than what Hillary Clinton's commission came up with, but I don't believe it would have been a done deal without the Clintons and some stalwart Democrats not giving in on key provisions. As far as what the Bush Administration did to undermine the prospects for very unlucky people, consider what the Bush Republicans did to bankruptcy law. I any needs the 'compassionate conservatism', it's someone who, through no fault of their own, finds themselves in the godawful state. Hopefully, you'll never have to find out the hard way what a mess certain segments of the health care industry are in or how your insurance company will screw you over every way and chance they get. Oh, and before you try to say I got something for nothing? I've always made health insurance one of my priorities and have done without other things to have been continuously insured since I got out of high school. -Kerry O. Hi Kerry: As I work in a hospital I am very much aware of HIPPA but I'm not entirely sure that is what Pam was talking about when she was on stage a few night ago. First, let me back up for a moment and tell you on a personal level that I am glad, to whatever extent you needed it, you were able to seek and receive medical services when you needed the most. I too have had an occasion to need medical care, and though none of it (at this time) was as severe as Pam's and I presume your own, I am extraordinarily grateful that there was insurance available, that I had a job that provided good insurance and that I was taken care of. That stated, the implication that Pam left the crowd (and here I'll back that up only in that there was applause for her position as it related to voting for Senator Obama due--at least in part--to her health care difficulties) was that according to Pam, everything changed eight years ago--we just don't know what as it relates to Pam. The issue I have with her speech is that she gave no detail, no background, there was simply no context. It came across as, "Before President Bush, our health was fine--after President Bush took office, our benefits were not there.) It's not that it is bad material, it's just that it does not take us anywhere. There was a link she was trying to produce but I was left wondering where I might find the correlation. Part of this is that I have grown weary of President Bush becoming the target for every ill that has befallen the world over the past eight years. I recognize that there are a number of people who hold him responsible for a number of things and those people are well within their rights to do so. But it is difficult to listen to a woman who was working (she did not mention otherwise) in the private sector the year President Bush was elected state that she's voting for Obama---and leave out the link between her medical event and a man being sworn in a great distance away. Had she pointed to a Govt. issue, something that GWB enacted that caused the issue to become more difficult then at least I'd have the chance to evaluate her position. Regarding bankruptcy, I know that the laws have changed but I also know that horribly high medical bills is still a valid and legitimate reason to file--and people still do so--In my position, I see and even read about it. The bottom line here is that Pam failed to give a single reason why she felt that GWB coming into office played even a small role in her health concerns. But that did not stop the crowd from cheering in response. I just don't know if they knew what they were applauding for.) She did not mention why her insurance did not pay or why, if they did, it still left them in dire financial trouble. We just don't know what happened and the "what" is important. If her issues were somehow caused by our current President then I'd sure like to know in what way if for no other reason than it would most likely shed some light on why a lifetime Republican like Pam is suddenly and without much in the way of a stated reason, voting for Mr. Obama. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drew07_2
on
Sat 08/30/08 08:09 PM
|
|
The setting: Somewhere on the plains of Africa
The cast: A baby gazelle, scorching heat, a hungry lioness The plot: Darwin's Theater As the baby Gazelle slowly walks the dessert grass, dry, brittle and gold, he takes care to keep his mother in site. She is teaching him, showing him the ways of the harsh world into which he was born. She keeps her head up, quietly moving, separated from the others which....suddenly, she senses something wrong. It is too quiet, she strains to listen, to detect--but hears nothing. Twenty-five yards away, crouched in the wind swept straw, a lioness as been watching, following, stalking. She'll get one chance to separate the two, one burst of energy to capture a meal. Suddenly she bolts--instantly the gazelle is confused, separated from its mother. Confused and with an I.Q. of 27, it actually runs toward the lion--and then away--but it is too late. The lion has attacked, sunk her teeth into the still living, crying gazelle. Slowly she drags it through the grass, still alive, kicking, convulsing..finally she snaps the neck with one powerful bite. Hey, PETA---what about the gazelle? In my stupid little story above, there is a point. I think that the gazelle deserves a bit more of your time and respect. I think the story above illustrates the plight of the four-legged desert wanderer. As for the real PETA ad. Well, it is fringe ideas like most of the ads PETA comes out with that serve to hurt their cause more than they understand. They have a habit of turning people off by suggesting that a stranger stabbing a man to death in the back of a Greyhound bus is roughly the same thing as pulling in to a Burger King drive-thru. The problem is, unless a person is on drugs or suffering from some sort of weird delusional illness, NO ONE sees that as a balanced and fair-minded approach. The day PETA stops treating everyone but PETA members as genocidal murderers of cows is the day they might--might get some sane people to work with them to reduce animal cruelty. To Mrtap--good on ya for working to rescue dogs. No one would suggest that your efforts are not done for a good cause. Still, unless you move your operation to a nation that eats Springer Spaniel for dinner each day, I think your comparisons miss the mark. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Drewid!! Cutting off spending, excuse me. Who spent our surplus? Why is it that the great people that make up this nation are suffering whenever there is a republican in office. Its called the greedy upper class!!! Bring our troops home. We are talking about a difinitive time line. You need to read the history books and take a class on comprehension.  Cuppy, First of all, my name is Drew. In that you don't know me and considering that this is supposed to be a board where the exchange of ideas trumps talentless antics, I'm not sure why you could not simply address me as Drew? Regardless, the following is what I meant as it pertains to Congressional funding of the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not sure what history book you'd have me read or why you think I struggle with comprehension but here is a small segment of a story along with a link to the original story. "In a 92 to 6 vote, the Senate yesterday approved unrestricted funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that allows continuation of the current military course of action through the end of President Bush's term and beyond. In exchange for that unencumbered freedom to operate in Iraq, Bush agreed to demands by congressional Democrats to create a new higher-education benefit for veterans and their families, and to extend unemployment benefits." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062604076.html?nav=rss_email/components I'll ask again; why did the Senate pass funding 92-6 when according to a great many people ending the conflict and bringing home the troops is the most important issue we face? Sure, there were trades that were made but isn't bringing the troops home priority number one? And if so, why did your Democratic-controlled Senate fund war efforts that last beyond the President's remaining time in office? Finally, a parting suggestion: Before smugly asserting that a person increase their level of education by way of both history books and a comprehension class you might pause long enough to ensure that you don't need a class of your own. For example, a good spelling class might have come in handy, if for no other reason than it might have assisted you in spelling "definitive" correctly shortly before suggesting I become more educated. Later, Drew **Before I sign off, I thought you might appreciate two quotes I found: "The legislative judgment to take the country to war carries with it a duty throughout the conflict to decide that military force remains in the national interest. ... Congress is responsible for monitoring what it has set in motion. In the midst of war, there are no grounds for believing that the President's authority is superior to the collective judgment of its elected representatives. Congress has both the constitutional authority and the responsibility to retain control and re-calibrate national policy whenever necessary." — Louis Fisher, Constitutional Specialist, Library of Congress "Congress possesses substantial constitutional authority to regulate ongoing military operations and even to bring them to an end." — David J. Barron, Harvard Law School |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
f*ck 4 more years of the republican reign. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$I WANT CHANGE$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Bring our troops home........  Democrats could have brought the troops home years ago by cutting off funding for the war. But they didn't so your comment should at least be put in the proper context. How long have the Democrats controlled Congress now? At what point do you start holding them accountable? Just curious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The McCain campaign is DOOMED! I'm going to save your post--it will be fun to repost in late November. :) Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Mccain was asked does he use a pc or mac,and he admited that he needs his wife to help him with all computer systems.Why is he even allowed to run for president?This video appears to be from at least six weeks ago, but no one has really commented on it. Do we want a commander-in-chief who can't use a computer without assistance? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R9wnMVZE_Q Wow, Madison you have a point. I am certain that looking back we should have made that a qualifier and had we, we would have saved ourselves from such awful office holders like, Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Adams, Kennedy etc.... Feeling enlightened, Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
SHE GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
Agreed---I mean, when was the last time a news program opened with: "Today in the city, 3.1 million people were not raped, assaulted, or in a DWI related car accident."
-Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Unreal
Edited by
Drew07_2
on
Fri 08/29/08 12:50 AM
|
|
Lynann, you wrote:
I think most citizens of the United States are much more alike than they are different. I think most of us love our country even when we are disagreeing with each other or the administration in power, I think most of us love our children and our parents and the generations unborn, I think most of us aspire to do better in thought and deed, I think most of us hope to leave a better life to our children than we had ourselves...yet we stand divided red states and blue states accusing each other of being the source of impending ruin while it all falls to pieces around us. Look at what we are doing on these boards. Please...find out what you have in common with those you disagree with and quit buying into the us and them politics of fear. Wow. First, you suddenly took a rather sudden macro view of the similarities between Pam, me, and now, the general electorate. I was commenting on her comments in front of 84,000 people tonight. I have no doubt that all of us do want what is good for our nation but that does not diminish the polarizing approach Pam took tonight on television. She tried (using a massively inappropriate Non-Sequitur) to suggest that President Bush taking office had something to do with her husband becoming ill. The differences I have with Pam are numerous as they relate to tonight--namely that I don't think I could perform the mental gymnastics necessary to attempt to draw a parallel between declining health occurring thousands of miles away from a president just sworn in. Still, I appreciate your response in that now I do understand your point. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Unreal
|
|
I did not suggest that you attacked me but I did question your comparing me to "Pam" from the speech earlier in that you don't know me. I just thought that your doing so was awfully clairvoyant---or something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Unreal
|
|
EEmbers,
Thanks. I just wasn't sure why someone I have never spoken with (at all) was comparing me with someone who else. I am fine with it--political debates are like that at times. Still, I wasn't so much picking on "Pam" who spoke as much as I was the implication that was being put forth--the idea that somehow, in some odd way, President Bush taking office was somehow related to her husband getting sick. Still, there were many oddities about the speech tonight and some good points as well. As for my political outlook--I tend to lean to the right but Libertarian would be closer than conservative or constitutionalist. Thanks for the reply! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Real Obama
|
|
Here is a concept that the Obama campaign might want to warm up to, and fast: Truth is a perfect defense againt slander and liable.
I am listening to the entire program now and Obama's camp was invited to send a representative to answer Kertz's challenges. They refused. Funny because they are quoted as calling Kurtz everything but crack addict. If Kurtz is a liar then why not send someone to make him look bad--that would surely shut up Kurtz, right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Unreal
|
|
Duckie--actually he was--he was born in Hawaii. Had he been born outside of the U.S. he would not be eligible to run for president.
Take care........ Drew |
|
|
|
|
Previous
