100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Taking Back This Country
|
|
An Indian is possibly the second or third (human) inhabitant of North America. an inhabitant could apply to a dead body floating to the shore so ironic how you guys avoid answering questions just like the politicians you're always in here complaining about all those that came after the Indians would be classified as illegal aliens |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Taking Back This Country
|
|
Whats an Indian? Whats a country before someone draws a map and gives it a name? If you had 100 million people living on a single continent and none of them calling themselves other than human what then? You guys could sit here and revisit ancient history with specifics, or you could just keep generalizing vague terms with little meaning over large spans of time and about groups of humans with little actual differences. The thing is neither is really going to prove anything. Bushidobillyclub....oh so now you don't know what an Indian is?..you never watched a second of American Television with Indians... you went thought the entire school system never learning what an Indian was.... you never pick up or read a book that mention anything about Indians, you have the entire wealth of man's knowledge (supposedly) on The Internet at your fingertips but yet you're confused to or never heard of an Indian and you guys wondering what's wrong with America ....apparently it's the public school system |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Taking Back This Country
|
|
How can we take back what we had? The Indians are probably asking themselves that same question The folks before the indians are asking the same thing. what folks might that be?...the dinosaurs perhaps? ..are dinosaurs folks?... instead of Jurassic park...you would have named it Folks Park willing2...perhaps you should think... before you post Excuse me? Where do you get the idea indians were the first people to inhabit North America? From yer 4th grade history class?  you're also welcome to name "the folks" you believed lived in Pre-North America before the Indians did if you can't...then as I stated...you should think ...before you post... Here. You do yer homework. Google (1st north american inhabitants). If, I am right, you need not post on this topic or other topics you know little about. willing2...are you "willing2"(no pun intended) post your own thoughts and stop letting the government of google control you so use your own thoughts (if possible) and name the folks you claimed lived here before the Indians |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
what women wants
|
|
What u think,what women wants?? closet space WORD ^ this is the only worthwhile answer on here if a guy values the woman he is with, make sure she has her own closet, the guy should "never ever" place anything of his in her closet, doing so is the equivalent of trying to steal the food from a wolf's mouth if you can, give or build her "a walk in closet" lined with full length mirrors if you don't like the woman you are with....place cable television and a toilet in the walk in closet and you won't see her for months Personally; I never minded sharing my closet with a guy. I just put the extra clothes in a bin under the bed. I also don't have a lot of shoes so there is room for his as well. However if I needed or wanted a bigger closet; I would build it myself. Guess I am not your typical woman.  perhaps being about to accomplish the feats you named is a requirement for women in the military...not sure there is much room for a walk in closet on a Nuclear Vessal This is true about the Nuclear Vessel. We had high school lockers in our old ships and had to store 6 months of clothing. I used the little bars on the inside of the doors of the locker; ran some bungy cord through them ; rolled up my clothing, and put it behind the bungy cord. I had lots of clothes for the trip. So, who needs a walk in closet; just need to use a bit of imagination? ok MacGyver...oops I meant Navygirl..efficient use of space is a requirement on a ship, but do you still opt for that same type of efficency of space off the ship .. LOL. Yeah; I guess I did use a little of the MacGyver skills for being efficient. If I had to share my closet space with someone that I was living with; I would be reasonable and share the space. I have seasonal and extra clothing packed away in my basement; I use the space saver clothing hangars; have a spare closet that I keep clothing that I don't use on a daily basis, and even have invested in portable closets to keep my uniforms you have clothing packed away in the basement, you have a spare closet that you keep clothing in that you don't wear on a daily basis, you have also invested in portable closets..... ...er...Navygirl..er.. are you sure women don't want closet space? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Taking Back This Country
|
|
How can we take back what we had? The Indians are probably asking themselves that same question The folks before the indians are asking the same thing. what folks might that be?...the dinosaurs perhaps? ..are dinosaurs folks?... instead of Jurassic park...you would have named it Folks Park willing2...perhaps you should think... before you post Excuse me? Where do you get the idea indians were the first people to inhabit North America? From yer 4th grade history class? I'm surprise you didn't say that illegal aliens were the first folks to "inhabit" pre-North America you're also welcome to name "the folks" you believed lived in Pre-North America before the Indians did if you can't...then as I stated...you should think ...before you post... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Taking Back This Country
|
|
How can we take back what we had? The Indians are probably asking themselves that same question The folks before the indians are asking the same thing. what folks might that be?...the dinosaurs perhaps? ..are dinosaurs folks?... instead of Jurassic park...you would have named it Folks Park willing2...perhaps you should think... before you post |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Taking Back This Country
|
|
How can we take back what we had? The Indians are probably asking themselves that same question |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You see, this statement right here. You are trying to attack me based on something that has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. I am sorry if I upset you, no offense was intended, but lets try to stay on topic here. This comment was utterly pointless. my point was that you were abusing your self by using the term "overwhelming majority"....you might as well just said "more than a whole bunch" ...how would you know what an "overwhelming majority of parents agreed on" unless you're "Canank the Magnificient" and can read their minds I asked what you what you believed...but yet you tried to avoid answering the question by including what the "overwhelming Majority" of parent believed as an attempt to give truth to your answer so...er...why you trying to pull stuff like that on me?...How Rude Right here, i was merely responding to your wondering "how i seemed to know what parents are thinking" (which is another desperate attempt at an attack at my credibility). Based on crime reports there was no drop or rise in violence correlating with new laws prohibiting kids from bringing guns to school. (Remember i couldn't seem to find any before 1990?) Therefore, it was either the children who were already doing the right thing, or the parents. Unless you have a counter to that. all you are doing perhaps without realizing it, is attmepting to prove that the children are smarter than Adults when it comes to guns and that's why the children choose not to have them I believe i mentioned earlier where this argument also has little to do with the topic area because kids do not have the same rights adults making this inapplicable in reality. It not only falls under the critical thinking fallacy of straw-man (i think that's what its called), but also falls under another fallacy (or fallacy category) of oversimplification. Therefore this question cannot be answered honestly as either answer literally puts words in my mouth that i disagree with. The question is a trap. things happen to children the same as they happen to Adults but yet you are in here stating that children do not have the same 2nd amendment rights to protect themselves it appears that you guys are more on Obama's side on the gun control issue then you realize ...or willing to admit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You keep bringing the founding fathers into this. look at where we as a nation came from... Or doesn't that matter... no, I was answering "Drivinmenutz" questions about Jefferson, you {AndyBgood) and I had already made an agreement to leave the past out of the debates....everytime you guys talk about civil rights you hide behind quotes from Thomas Jefferson a guy that had slaves....oh the hypocrisy Likewise Mental Health is an issue and a symptom of the problem we face as a nation. under the Mental Health act, the government will be able to take away everyone guns, mental health is subjective... you guys are being played by the NRA, the NRA agrees with the stance when it comes to guns and Mental health Illegal Immigration is the REAL problem besides out of control spending. Guns don't leverage votes, people do and you flood America with new Voters what do you get? Poor people looking for more hand outs and promises of order they could not get in their own nation. All they do is trade us from one form of corruption to another. And to give voting rights to Illegal Immigrants? We are talking something worst than the flood gates of hell opening up in Kansas! America always had illegal aliens, it is what makes America the greatest country on the planet ...now people are only complaining because they had to pay migrant workers money instead of getting free slave labor Please, what is the big picture as you see it Lewis Pharrakahn like Angst aimed at white America? he do the same against the Jews...but of course I will never hear you complain about that Liberal Vitriol spewed at Republicans exclusively? I think the voters did that Or maybe the NRA is to blame for everything I suppose? NRA is only selling it's Products to make a fortune and using you to help them ...it's called Capitialism OBAMA CARE SOLD US OUT IN WAYS I DOUBT YOU MIGHT SEE! It is BLATANTLY forcing something on us with no checks or balances to mitigate the costs of health care. there are lots of people out there with mental health issues which even you yourself claim is a problem in America...Obamacare gives them a way to get help What is so wrong with adopting Germany's model for Insurance and health care? in that case what is wrong with adopting Canada's or Mexico's health care system... I can't WAIT for your one line replies. why thank you AndyBgood ..my pleasure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the REAL evil we need to face more than gun control. Gun Control is BAIT! Mental Health is the bait |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now with that in mind NOT ALL the founding fathers were Hypocrites.... any and all of the founding fathers that drafted the Bill of Rights and didn't give those same rights to slaves and/or others...were hypocrites but then again you think England is so innocent? not sure why you keep bringing ENGLAND into it ..it was the founding fathers...not the foundng Kings and Queens |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slavery was legal in SOME states BEFORE they joined the Union eg. PRE Revolutionary War of America. But it was already illegal in other states before the Colonies became the United States of America. slavery were still legal due to the inactions of the founding fathers, Jefferson having babies with his slaves gives an whole new meaning to the definition of "Founding Father" but anyway AndyBgood ...remember you said that you were leaving the past alone and looking for solutions for today ....but yet here you are again ....I guess your word is about as good as the word of those politicians that you're constantly complaining about |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We will get back to the nuke and law enforcement arguments. Right now I would like to focus on the assumption that gun control has a direct correlation to gun violence... "Drivinmenutz"...that would be a useless argument ....because it's obvious that before there were guns..there were no gun violence .... and it's obvious that if you take away all the guns there would be no gun violence but since the 2nd amendment gives the citizens the right to bear arms and commit gun violence... therefore you have to place in laws and restrictions the same that you would do with anything else that presents a clear and present danger to society and it's citizens one such restriction is that children are not allowed to bring guns to school.... now all you have to do is say that you don't believe that such a law have any direct effect on curbing gun violence please say you don't believe...please Yes, before guns there was no "gun" violence as the technology wasn't invented yet. Yes, if you take ALL the guns away "gun" violence will most likely cease as well... So how would one take all the guns away? the 2nd amendment forbids taking guns....but it doesn't forbid placing laws with the intent to protect society from their irresponsible usage I guess that depends on the law being issued... So how would these new laws "protect society from the irresponsible"? "Drivemenutz"...I've already presented a question to you that you didn't answer ...but anyway ...let's try that question again THE QUESTION; one such restriction is that children are not allowed to bring guns to school....do you believe such a law would curb gun violence? Unfortunately it just isn't that simple. But i suppose i will "bite the bullet" on this one. It was interesting to me that I couldn't seem to find any laws that were passed on this issue until 1990. Admittedly I only searched the topic for about 15 minutes so i may have to revisit the issue. Anyhow the law passed in 1990 allowed for the declaration of "gun free" zones. Another passed in 1994 prohibited "juveniles" from possessing and/or selling handguns. Perhaps there were school "rules" established prohibiting weapons. All the information i seem to come up with shows that school homicides (couldn't seem to single-out "gun" homicides from the rest) directly coincided with the rest of the country which fell dramatically starting in 1993. As a matter of fact it continued to call until about mid 2012. (Interestingly it still remains less then 50% of what it was in the 90's) So to answer your question, i believe that such a law would do little to curb gun violence in schools or anywhere. It would appear that people were already following this "rule", as parents can all agree that letting your 8 year old take off to school with a loaded gun is wrong. Perhaps this was the point you were trying to make? "Drivinmenutz"..perhaps if I make the question simplier.... 1:you either believe that children without restrictions should exercise their 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school or 2: you believe that restriction should be put in place that take away children 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school whichever one you pick...explain why you believe it would or wouldn't curb gun violence This question cannot be answered with completely honest opinion, as it has been oversimplified (there are more moving parts than allowed to address.) But hey, i will play along as i believe you ultimately have a point. Option 2. Because children have not yet fully matured. Also, many have not yet received the proper instruction on how to handle a firearm. This could lead to accidental shootings. This is why we have gun safes and don't leave loaded guns lying around when 5-year-olds are running around. This what you were looking for? now that you have choose option two.....is that perhaps an indication that you believe that taking away the children's 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school would also curb gun violence? I believe this straw man has been beaten to death. I gave reasons and answered questions, both on the honest level, and the level in which you seemed to have trapped me. If what you are saying is that some, certain restrictions can/should be allowed to preserve the safety of the masses then I would agree. Truth of the matter is that question is way too oversimplified to be applied to the argument. Children do not have the same rights as adults, nor have they ever. If this were the case children would be deciding on which medical treatments he/she receives, or be allowed to live on his/her own at any age. They would be allowed to purchase anything adults can including alcohol and cigarettes. Parents would be prosecuted for illegal detaining when trying to ground their child. And oh yeah, children would be allowed to vote. The scenario in question is merely an example of guardianship, NOT individual rights. Parents make rules and put restrictions on children so they can be introduced, and tested, one by one, therefore teaching said child responsibility. This is why prior to any laws being made, rules against weapons in class were enforced. Unfortunately these factors render this example completely null and void. I'm still trying to figure out how you yourself know what "all parents" agree on...especially when "all parents" can't even agree that they are "all parents" which is why I had to phrase the question in such a way to assure that I would get your own persoanl opinion and not a "google cut and paste" version when given 2 questions you chose option 2....which means that you are for gun restriction...with the belief that it will curb gun violence I believe that the overwhelming majority of parents agree not to let their kids tote around loaded firearms everywhere they go. If they did not agree on this said rule, then perhaps it was the kids themselves just decided it was not a good idea to stash a gun in his/her backpack. Either way, it apparently worked the same with laws as it did without laws. Again the issue i had is in the phrase "gun violence", for it technically isn't what i would be afraid of in a school with armed kids. It would be accidents and misuse. Perhaps there would be more violence if kids had guns. I don't really know. Again, I do find it difficult to give my opinion on such matters without first educating myself on it. After looking over the information at hand i can then proceed to formulate a cause/effect hypothesis thereby giving an " educated opinion". An uneducated opinion would fall under the category of "knee jerk reaction" would it not? It appears we had a temporary breakdown in our communication nonetheless. "the overwhelming majority of parents"??? ...wouldn't just the term "majority" been sufficent ..I guess if you add "overwhelming" it magically becomes true first you claim that kids weren't mature enough to exercise their 2nd amendment right to carry guns to school, now you claim that perhaps children made the decision themselves not to carry loaded guns to school...see how you are jumping back and forth but anyway I didn't ask you what you believe what the "overwhelming majority" of parents believe or what the kids believed...I wanted to know what you "believed" you first choose option 2.....so are you going to stick with option two or not OPTION 2: do you believe that restrictions should be put in place that take away children 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school as a way to curb gun violence? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you ain't scared of Google Images too are you? Convenience is a bYTCH now, ain't it? Google is fast and convenient but if it makes you happy I can go to Lycos or ASKJEEVES or some OTHER search engine... my point was...why run to anything, try thinking for yourself instead of being manipulated by The Internet God you're in here paranoid that the government is going to take away your guns, or how the government is going to control you....the fact that you can only express yourself with "google cut and paste" is and indication the government has already assimulated you into it's ranks the government don't need to take away your guns...they just need you to google Finally a civil answer, sort of. I do think for myself. College text books are dripping with mistakes too. I do think for myself. Why do you think I hate Banking so much. it is an evil scam and the Federal Reserve is part of it. Obama likewise is a huge scam. But I do see this as part of the gradual erosion of ALL our rights. What I fear is this is turned into a shooting war. US Americans against our own Military becasue NWO has blinded our military leaders with promises of power in the NWO. Well, for our Generals in command think of it this way. What we have now we are all supposed to be equals. Under NWO you are just their Number one BOY and that means you are the Number One SLAVE. The internet is about information but even that can be corrupted and censored. Ya know everything I have been taught so far is turning out to be a lie. So please tell me again how I am a servant to other's thinking? AndyBgood...you "google cut and paste" the thoughts of others from other websites but yet don't understand how that makes you their servant?.......er......ok.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those who turn swords into Plowshares will plow for those who do not! -Thomas Jefferson to bad Thomas Jefferson didn't give his slaves that option you're here praising Thomos Jefferson who was to his slaves part of a tyrannical government that use guns to deny others their Rights ... but yet at the same time you're here cursing those in today's government that you believe is trying to do the same thing to you that Thomas Jefferson done to his slaves sort of ironic Indeed, the Irony is apparent. However the words he speaks are no less true... He was quite wise, and America has matured since then, recognizing the error in it's ways. President Lincoln was responsible for a movement that ultimately freed the slaves. He was a large supporter of Jefferson. Also ironic... if you speak for the rights of one group of people while in the same breath denying the same for another group,... that is not being wise, that is being clueless if Lincoln was truly a supporter of Jefferson he would have opted to have sex and make babies with slaves not Free them No, that is being hypocritical, which, no historian would disagree in this. However you will notice that slave ownership was a social norm at the time. Jefferson actually wrote a couple emancipations towards freeing slaves, but these were highly criticized by the locals, whom he was trying to win over. I would say he prioritized by first severing the ties to a far-off power and preaching freedom. Lincoln understood the ultimate goal, and fortunately didn't shun Jefferson's teachings just because the man was one of many who still owned slaves. We should all be wise enough to take the good (which was Thomas Jefferson's teachings on equality and freedom) and look past (while still acknowledging) the negative aspects of character. It is a critical thinking fallacy, after all, to focus on attacking an individual's character when only a certain principle was brought into question. sorry but Jefferson preaching about equality while owning and making babies with slaves makes him a hypocrite.... it's the same as politicians of today preaching against illegals aliens while at the same time employing them as housemaids etc and using them as slave labor. so if you are willing to look pass the hyprocrisy of Jefferson, then you should have no complaints about anything any politician or the government does today Unfortunately this mindset involves little logic. Because someone did something you disagree with does not mean that everything he/she says is untrue. that Jefferson preach equality and freedom while spawning slave babies is not a disagreement...it's hyprocrisy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We will get back to the nuke and law enforcement arguments. Right now I would like to focus on the assumption that gun control has a direct correlation to gun violence... "Drivinmenutz"...that would be a useless argument ....because it's obvious that before there were guns..there were no gun violence .... and it's obvious that if you take away all the guns there would be no gun violence but since the 2nd amendment gives the citizens the right to bear arms and commit gun violence... therefore you have to place in laws and restrictions the same that you would do with anything else that presents a clear and present danger to society and it's citizens one such restriction is that children are not allowed to bring guns to school.... now all you have to do is say that you don't believe that such a law have any direct effect on curbing gun violence please say you don't believe...please Yes, before guns there was no "gun" violence as the technology wasn't invented yet. Yes, if you take ALL the guns away "gun" violence will most likely cease as well... So how would one take all the guns away? the 2nd amendment forbids taking guns....but it doesn't forbid placing laws with the intent to protect society from their irresponsible usage I guess that depends on the law being issued... So how would these new laws "protect society from the irresponsible"? "Drivemenutz"...I've already presented a question to you that you didn't answer ...but anyway ...let's try that question again THE QUESTION; one such restriction is that children are not allowed to bring guns to school....do you believe such a law would curb gun violence? Unfortunately it just isn't that simple. But i suppose i will "bite the bullet" on this one. It was interesting to me that I couldn't seem to find any laws that were passed on this issue until 1990. Admittedly I only searched the topic for about 15 minutes so i may have to revisit the issue. Anyhow the law passed in 1990 allowed for the declaration of "gun free" zones. Another passed in 1994 prohibited "juveniles" from possessing and/or selling handguns. Perhaps there were school "rules" established prohibiting weapons. All the information i seem to come up with shows that school homicides (couldn't seem to single-out "gun" homicides from the rest) directly coincided with the rest of the country which fell dramatically starting in 1993. As a matter of fact it continued to call until about mid 2012. (Interestingly it still remains less then 50% of what it was in the 90's) So to answer your question, i believe that such a law would do little to curb gun violence in schools or anywhere. It would appear that people were already following this "rule", as parents can all agree that letting your 8 year old take off to school with a loaded gun is wrong. Perhaps this was the point you were trying to make? "Drivinmenutz"..perhaps if I make the question simplier.... 1:you either believe that children without restrictions should exercise their 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school or 2: you believe that restriction should be put in place that take away children 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school whichever one you pick...explain why you believe it would or wouldn't curb gun violence This question cannot be answered with completely honest opinion, as it has been oversimplified (there are more moving parts than allowed to address.) But hey, i will play along as i believe you ultimately have a point. Option 2. Because children have not yet fully matured. Also, many have not yet received the proper instruction on how to handle a firearm. This could lead to accidental shootings. This is why we have gun safes and don't leave loaded guns lying around when 5-year-olds are running around. This what you were looking for? now that you have choose option two.....is that perhaps an indication that you believe that taking away the children's 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school would also curb gun violence? I believe this straw man has been beaten to death. I gave reasons and answered questions, both on the honest level, and the level in which you seemed to have trapped me. If what you are saying is that some, certain restrictions can/should be allowed to preserve the safety of the masses then I would agree. Truth of the matter is that question is way too oversimplified to be applied to the argument. Children do not have the same rights as adults, nor have they ever. If this were the case children would be deciding on which medical treatments he/she receives, or be allowed to live on his/her own at any age. They would be allowed to purchase anything adults can including alcohol and cigarettes. Parents would be prosecuted for illegal detaining when trying to ground their child. And oh yeah, children would be allowed to vote. The scenario in question is merely an example of guardianship, NOT individual rights. Parents make rules and put restrictions on children so they can be introduced, and tested, one by one, therefore teaching said child responsibility. This is why prior to any laws being made, rules against weapons in class were enforced. Unfortunately these factors render this example completely null and void. I'm still trying to figure out how you yourself know what "all parents" agree on...especially when "all parents" can't even agree that they are "all parents" which is why I had to phrase the question in such a way to assure that I would get your own persoanl opinion and not a "google cut and paste" version when given 2 questions you chose option 2....which means that you are for gun restriction...with the belief that it will curb gun violence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those who turn swords into Plowshares will plow for those who do not! -Thomas Jefferson to bad Thomas Jefferson didn't give his slaves that option you're here praising Thomos Jefferson who was to his slaves part of a tyrannical government that use guns to deny others their Rights ... but yet at the same time you're here cursing those in today's government that you believe is trying to do the same thing to you that Thomas Jefferson done to his slaves sort of ironic Indeed, the Irony is apparent. However the words he speaks are no less true... He was quite wise, and America has matured since then, recognizing the error in it's ways. President Lincoln was responsible for a movement that ultimately freed the slaves. He was a large supporter of Jefferson. Also ironic... if you speak for the rights of one group of people while in the same breath denying the same for another group,... that is not being wise, that is being clueless if Lincoln was truly a supporter of Jefferson he would have opted to have sex and make babies with slaves not Free them No, that is being hypocritical, which, no historian would disagree in this. However you will notice that slave ownership was a social norm at the time. Jefferson actually wrote a couple emancipations towards freeing slaves, but these were highly criticized by the locals, whom he was trying to win over. I would say he prioritized by first severing the ties to a far-off power and preaching freedom. Lincoln understood the ultimate goal, and fortunately didn't shun Jefferson's teachings just because the man was one of many who still owned slaves. We should all be wise enough to take the good (which was Thomas Jefferson's teachings on equality and freedom) and look past (while still acknowledging) the negative aspects of character. It is a critical thinking fallacy, after all, to focus on attacking an individual's character when only a certain principle was brought into question. sorry but Jefferson preaching about equality while owning and making babies with slaves makes him a hypocrite.... it's the same as politicians of today preaching against illegals aliens while at the same time employing them as housemaids etc and using them as slave labor. so if you are willing to look pass the hyprocrisy of Jefferson, then you should have no complaints about anything any politician or the government does today |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
what women wants
|
|
What u think,what women wants?? closet space WORD ^ this is the only worthwhile answer on here if a guy values the woman he is with, make sure she has her own closet, the guy should "never ever" place anything of his in her closet, doing so is the equivalent of trying to steal the food from a wolf's mouth if you can, give or build her "a walk in closet" lined with full length mirrors if you don't like the woman you are with....place cable television and a toilet in the walk in closet and you won't see her for months Personally; I never minded sharing my closet with a guy. I just put the extra clothes in a bin under the bed. I also don't have a lot of shoes so there is room for his as well. However if I needed or wanted a bigger closet; I would build it myself. Guess I am not your typical woman. perhaps being about to accomplish the feats you named is a requirement for women in the military...not sure there is much room for a walk in closet on a Nuclear Vessal This is true about the Nuclear Vessel. We had high school lockers in our old ships and had to store 6 months of clothing. I used the little bars on the inside of the doors of the locker; ran some bungy cord through them ; rolled up my clothing, and put it behind the bungy cord. I had lots of clothes for the trip. So, who needs a walk in closet; just need to use a bit of imagination? ok MacGyver...oops I meant Navygirl..efficient use of space is a requirement on a ship, but do you still opt for that same type of efficency of space off the ship .. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you ain't scared of Google Images too are you? Convenience is a bYTCH now, ain't it? Google is fast and convenient but if it makes you happy I can go to Lycos or ASKJEEVES or some OTHER search engine... my point was...why run to anything, try thinking for yourself instead of being manipulated by The Internet God you're in here paranoid that the government is going to take away your guns, or how the government is going to control you....the fact that you can only express yourself with "google cut and paste" is and indication the government has already assimulated you into it's ranks the government don't need to take away your guns...they just need you to google |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The oppressed have a LONG history of becoming the oppressors! And yet here YOU are still clinging to the past. Some of us are trying to look ahead and not get stuck in the mire of such fallacious belief! cool AndyBgood...perhaps that is an indication that you will no longer "google cut and paste" quotes from Thomas Jefferson...or "google cut and paste" useless stuff about The Roman Army, or "google cut and paste" black and white photos from the 1940s showing The Civil Defense Neighborhood Watch Militia that didn't excercise their 2nd amendment rights and choose not to carry guns remember...as you stated...look ahead Cut and paste? PLEASE! I can't cut and paste from a college text book unless it is online! wouldn't the fact that I mention that you "google cut and paste" is referring to doing it online?...."google" should have been the hint but it is easy enough to find a lot online isn't it? Gee, and I manage to back up my claims and this is all you can offer? to "google cut and paste" is not backing up your claims...but it may be an indication that you can't think for yourself or perhaps incapable of placing what you read into your own thoughts, also the author that you "google cut and paste" from can't be asked any questions......that's why I choose not to "google cut and paste" or hide behind them No but presenting information to back what I am saying is not just "Cutting and pasting." It is trying to SHOW you what information I am getting. if you can't come up with your own thoughts and therefore have to "google cut and paste" no problem I understand, under ObamaCare that can be taken care of...for Free...won't even have to spend any of your ammo allowance And if what I present is not fact then I usually qualify it as opinion or hypothesis. But faxs iz faxs, (note the play phonetically on the word IS and Facts! wow AndyBgood....first time you didn't try to blame it on spell check Then again the humor may be too high brow for you! If you HAVE a sense of humor). History is fact but it is likewise written and twisted by the winners. But here we go again with a BIG man trying to boost his ego in a place he has no ammunition at all. You think too much of the wrong things. And I am accused of thinking too much of the wrong things. I scare you so much you got to attack me like this? Pretty weak my man... U Loosing respect here... loosing respect from who?...I bet everyone on that list "google cut and paste" their thoughts from other websites I just figure it would be more fun debating forum people instead of debating google clones ....but alas I guess it's better than doing crossword puzzles |
|
|
|
|
Previous
