pervert. LMFAO

i have a question" mainly for the ladies, which pic from my profile you like best.

no kidding..has it always done that? check and see if the warranty is still good..if it is send it in.

this one I bought while I was on my senior trip. I paid 300.00 for it. You would think it would work great.

I know, I bought this camera a year ago and paid good money for it , and this it what I get all the time.
Nothing is made as it should be.

13 years of public school and 4 years of college and people r still trying to test my 4.0 knowledge...wow that rhymes

D- all of the above

I see people asking others to rate them , so I figured maybe I should ask too.

Rather be called a cougar than a MILF

THIS HAS BEEN WRITTEN BY A MAN..

This is for all you girls 40 years and over.... and for those who are
turning 40, and for those who are scared of moving into their 40's...AND
for guys who are scared of girls over 40!!!!... This was written by Andy
Rooney from CBS 60 Minutes.

Andy Rooney says:

As I grow in age, I value women who are over 40 most of all. Here are
just a few reasons why:

A woman over 40 will never wake you in the middle of the night to ask,
"What are you thinking?" She doesn't care what you think.

If a woman over 40 doesn't want to watch the game, she doesn't sit
around whining about it. She does something she wants to do. And, it's
usually something more interesting.

A woman over 40 knows herself well enough to be assured in who she is,
what she is, what she wants and from whom. Few women past the age of 40
give a damn what you might think about her or what she's doing.

Women over 40 are dignified. They seldom have a screaming match with you
at the opera or in the middle of an expensive restaurant. Of course, if
you deserve it, they won't hesitate to shoot you, if they think they can
get away with it.

Older women are generous with praise, often undeserved. They know what
it's like to be unappreciated.

A woman over 40 has the self-assurance to introduce you to her women
friends. A younger woman with a man will often ignore even her best
friend because she doesn't trust the guy with other women. Women over 40
couldn't care less if you're attracted to her friends because she knows
her friends won't betray her.

Women get psychic as they age. You never have to confess your sins to a
woman over 40. They Always Know.

A woman over 40 looks good wearing bright red lipstick. This is not true
of younger women.

Once you get past a wrinkle or two, a woman over 40 is far sexier than
her younger counterpart.

Older women are forthright and honest. They'll tell you right off if you
are a Jerk if you are acting like one! You don't ever have to wonder
where you stand with her.

Yes, we praise women over 40 for a multitude of reasons. Unfortunately,
it's not reciprocal. For every stunning, smart, well-coiffed hot woman
of 40+, there is a bald, paunchy relic in yellow pants making a fool of
himself with some 22-year-old waitress

Ladies, I apologize. For all those men who say, "Why buy the cow when
you can get the milk for free". Here's an update for you.

Nowadays 80% of women are against marriage, why? Because women realize
it's not worth buying an entire Pig, just to get a little sausage!

while Bush got charged up with an excuse to go after Sadaam who had put out a contract to whack Bush Sr., he also had the same idea as the one that struck me after he had engaged the military to intervene in Iraq.

That was to call the terrorists and militants and mercenaries to come and get it, and bring it on.

It seemed to me, at the time, to be a wise and unsaid assumption that such a strategy had been in mind from the outset, and judging by Bush's comments to that effect after he felt confident that the US Military could hold its own indefinitely on Iraqi soil with impunity, it appeared to be the case as well.

Well , they came to play and die for their jihad.

I have known expatriated iraqis since the early 80s and know what was going on under Sadaam from their mouths, and I also believe that Bush had no clue of what to expect from the Iraqis when Sadaam was removed from his iroinclad control of those people. They were placed into one nation not by themselves and would more likely , even now, prefer for themselves to be divided into three nations, at the least. But when the British left the region after WW1, it was left as it is. That is a problem.

Thus, the civil war that broke out and the US Military was faced with refereeing that.

That is Bush's incompetence. His advisors dropped that ball badly. He dealt with it, though.

He adapted and improvised and listened to the Military and Mc Cain, more than any other, in due course, even if out of frustration.

Being a internationalist, much like his father, W has shown himself to attempt to bring some nobler good to the confligration, but whether that is wise and just to impose on another nation is for history to decide now.

The fact remains, we have seen the page turned on how terrorism is dealt with as an act of war and no longer as a law enforcement burden within nations.

That change is materially an improvement for the world to digest as an effective means of eradicating the world of sleeper cells harbored by any nation claiming to be not culpable for the actions of a group not bearing the flag of the host nation giving sanctuary.

That is a big deal.

It also makes it harder for romantics to entertain thoughts of a revolution even within this nation, given the ramifications of this paridigm shift in "unflagged" warfare.

what?

That isn't on the mind of Americans?

Sure it is.


This nation is incredibly gifted and we are not altogether gifted in graceful maturity.

but we are working on it.

The answer as to the "definition of Bush Doctrine" is NOT straightforward - it means more than one thing to different people. Palin was right to be cautious about it. Sure she was nervous but not to the point of having severe difficulties in the interview.

As I understand it (after looking it back up again) the term "Bush Doctrine) was initially used to describe the attack on Afghanistan harboring Al Qaeda - that is if you harbor and support terrorists attacking us then we are justified in pursuit of the terrorists and elimination of their support. This was the original definition. Only later did people extend this definition to include the general concept of pre-emptive strike (Iraq) which was cited in the interview as the interviewer's understanding of the term and this IS different from the original policy. Finally, many others appear to think of it as including the spread of democratic values and a policy of unilateral action on the part of the U.S.

In the document "National Security Strategy of the United States" which discussed these issues several additional policies are elaborated.

From the Wiki,

"The Bush Doctrine is summed up in the National Security Strategy released in 2002. In it, Bush lays out eight different points on how his administration would handle foreign policy. They include: champion aspirations for human dignity, strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against the US and its friends, work with others to defuse regional conflicts, prevent the enemies of the US from threatening it, its allies and friends with weapons of mass destruction, ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade, expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy, and develop agendas for cooperative action with the other main centers of global power.[5] Out of the National Security Stategy, four main points are highlighted as the core to the Bush Doctrine: Preemption, Military Primacy, New Multilateralism, and the Spread of Democracy.[8]"

The term "Bush doctine" means up to at least 8 different things to different people and refers to an evolving policy. Palin's response in getting a good definition first before answering looks smart in addition to cautious. So, I give her a pass on this one. Those who attack her on it are going to look like nit-pickers rather than keen observers.



Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, radical Islamic militants, Saddam Hussein, Iran, and Iraq were all well known top threats to the U.S. long before Sept. 11, 2001. The Bush administration badly mishandled several aspects of combating these threats but the threats were always serious and real and all of them had demonstrated a desire, capability and willingness to attack the U.S. directly. That's a fact and such threats were not going to be tolerated post Sept. 11, 2001 although it is fair to argue that W "mis-underestimated" and "over-reacted".

Jefferson didn't altogether cotton to Madison's views



The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" (the Establishment Clause) or that prohibit the free exercise of religion (the Free Exercise Clause), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Although the First Amendment explicitly prohibits only the named rights from being abridged by laws made by the Congress, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as applying more broadly. As the first sentence in the body of the Constitution reserves all legislative authority to the Congress, the courts have held that the First Amendment's terms also extend to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state.

which part? due process? redress for grievances?

What is treason?

A law enforcement issue?

and ac of terrorism is an act of aggression using indiscriminate deadly force in most cases and not anything characterizing a redress of grievances.

Therefore, as such, it is an act of war and not a criminal act of mischief.

As far as spying goes, it has always been done.

Where were you in the sixties?

I was in the mess up to my eyeballs. LOL

I woke up, though.


things are nmessy because the world is more complicated ans sophisticated and evil that can't muster innovation and ingenuity can sure corrupt anything meant for good. You ought to know that.

I don't altogether disagree with you.

Only on the method af addressing the problems we all face.

The system in place is more than adequate but it requires a tremendous amount of time and effort to stay abreast of the history and its influence on the American political landscape.

The whole of the landscape is not ignored or revised by foreign leaders by any means. Treaties, pacts, alliances, contracts, trade agreements, detente, interrnational laws odf commerce, etc, all play on remembering what was said to move forward tomorrow.

Nothing is verbal and clandestine between nations.

Everything is on paper.

It is man's way of doing business.

But in the Arab world, a contract is not ironclad, but only the berginning of negotiations.

You may not understand that, but they do. And they do business that way. Where we call a breach of contract, they say that there is no breach, only the beginning of continual negotiations til the finaL sale is complete. It is customary to change contracts mid contract.

credit card companies do it all the time

Seriously, my point is that the world does not play on the emotional triggers of "American dissent" regarding socio-economic and political discourse and perspectives of our two party system. Unless it is viewed as a sales contract to bind two parties to trade. LOL

I cannot say that I favor partisan factions, but the present realities I find myself contemporary to include their pre-eminent presence upon the landscape of my environment and cannot be ignored as asset and liability in balance when judging my participation in the futurediscourse of our public conversation with civility.

No one can ignore history and reality.

Things are ever more complicated.

A little trust is required when feeling apprehensive of government intrusions.

but if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear.

idealistic? yup.

But fighting terrorism is not a fight we want on our soil.

Reducing ourselves to another civil war may be inevitable, but that is far enough off that i would rather trust the professionals in every discipline with doing their best for America's good.


We all gotta relax and trust that we mean well in this country.

That isn't going to happen any day soon.

Most have not even a basic understanding of present realities and "the way things are".


What has evolved out of well intended beginnings also includes the clever contrivances of intelligent and thoughtful men that could not possibly address the nuances of our day.

less is more.

Transparency is key.

Bush hasn't blundered as much as libs would like to discredit him with.

Avarice and greed have wormed their way into everything, and that is not a partisan problem of factional divisiveness, but one of national shame not being addressed by any.

It will be a grassroots effort to ferret that out.

it will REQUIRE THE CITIZENRY TO VOTE WITH WALLETS.

But that is another issue.

Bush is not a bad man.

he has done a good job.

Mc Cain will do better with his fresh look from the outside.


That's OK.

but nobama?

he is seeking fame, dog.

he wants to be the mr big "IT".

That's all I see in him. He is in this for nobama alone.


I am just being an instigator for a season to stir people to think more about the facs and realities surrounding our political landscape.


I am excited about the prospect of Mc Cain and Palin being creative in their artful usage of the levers of government.

But osamam Nobama is just a tax the rich liberal pandering to the lazy and emotionally distraught.

And I can't really get behind Ron Paul because he has a rather sophomoric viewpoint of the realities of our day. He means well, but he is rather shallow.

The depth of Mc Cain and palin is evident in their "audacity of hope"

They make things happen.

They can handle sneaky snakes and come out on top for the constituency.

This time around, it is not just Arizonans andAlaskans that benefit, but the whole country.

Mc Cain has not been a war monger historically, but he sure called the solution that ccaused the sunnis to curr like lap dogs.

He has my respect for that.

Give him the opportunity.

It isn't pie in the sky voodoo.

just straight talk.

a little trust is needed.

peace, out.

if terrorists harbor themselves with innocent human shields, they are mistaken.

To cry foul over whose heads the innov=cent spilled blood is on only serves to justify that tactic in the minds of the insane and inhumane terrorists that employ that tactic.

The peopl of Afghanistan have to decide whether or not they are going to let these terrorists hide among them out of fear or face their fears and fight back.

Meanwhile, that is their problem.

The US is determined to disallow another 911.

Yup, its ugly, and I don't like it either

but Susskind is wrong.

The wicked must know that they will sit in the gutter silently and impoverished and shamed and stripped of all hope for their ill will and all that it takes to not see that truth is for good men to do nothing.

The Europenas have grown accustomed to coddling islam. They get what they get for that.

America will never reduce itself to such coddling, despite the whining of the looney left.

We never have.

But the whiners that hate our exposed muscle in this country were also silent and affirming of going to war to get the bad guys that flew OUR pplanes into OUR buildings and indiscriminately killed OUR people.

Never forget that the looney left was attacked too and the looney left counted on the conservative leadership to go get the bad guys.

Pure emotioin and it wasn't second guessed by Bush.

But when the looney left second guessed themselves, Bush did not.

Hence, bush haters.


nope.


fear and self loathing, libs, fear and self loathing.


Time to wake up America.

we are in it now, neck deep.

we must finish it.

running away with the US tail between its legs is what will cause more attacks, and taking the fight to the terrorists guarentees otherwise.

hello

Almost Easy by Avenged Sevenfold

I feel insane
Every single time I'm asked to compromise
'Cause I'm afraid and stuck in my ways
And that's the way it stays
So how long did I expect love to outweigh ignorance?
By the look on your face I may have forced the scale to tip

I'm not insane, I'm not insane
I'm not insane, I'm not... not insane

(Mother)
Come back to me it's almost easy
(Said it all)
Come back again it's almost easy

Shame pulses through my heart from the things I've done to you
It's hard to face but the fact remains that this is nothing new
I left you bound and tied with suicidal memories
Selfish beneath the skin but deep inside I'm not insane

I'm not insane, I'm not insane
I'm not insane, I'm not... not insane

(Mother)

Come back to me it's almost easy
(Said it all)
Come back again it's almost easy
(You'll learn your lesson)
Come back to me it's almost easy
(But first you fall)
Come back again it's almost easy

Now that I've lost you it kills me to say
(Hurts to say)
I've tried to hold on as you've slowly slipped away
I'm losing the fight, I've treated you so wrong now let me make it right
(Make it alright)

I'm not insane, I'm not insane
(Ha ha ha ha ha)
I'm not insane, I'm not... Not insane

(Mother)
Come back to me it's almost easy
(Said it all)
Come back again it's almost easy
(You'll learn your lesson)
Come back to me it's almost easy
(But still you fall)
Come back again it's almost easy

Welcome!!

Tei...

Hello and welcome to Mingle2, I hope you have a great time here...
It's soooo much fun!!!! Enjoy the forums...
I hope you find what your searching for…