100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
The White House, Not DeVos, Wanted to Slash Special Olympics Budget "Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has been taking heat this week for cutting funding from the Special Olympics in its budget proposal this year, but a department official familiar with the process who spoke with CNN said it was the White House Office of Management and Budget that insisted on revoking funding, not DeVos. DeVos, though, was the one who had to appear before Congress and defend the decision by the government to cut the $18 million in funding for the event, only to have President Donald Trump restore it two days later". http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/white-house-not-devos-cut-special-olympics-815711/ I kinda figured this. This rep has no reason to do any budget cuts of any kind without the word from higher up. And if that is necessary....then it's necessary. And before you say a word there are ways to fund that without educational funds that need to offer other solutions such as hands on blue color programs that will benefits disabled children in the long run. Plus acclimates disabled children going into adulthood allowing them to benefit society rather than becoming a strain upon society further increasing the deficit. Before you spew any hate at me. I am speaking as a parent of a severely epileptic adult child complicated by the Autism Spectrum. I also know the he is intelligent but has trouble connecting the dots. But when he does wow he blows my kind. We hat is special Olympics compared to a life. How long does life last? How long does Special Olympics last. Can they not fo fund raisers bake sales spaghetti dinners and car washes for it. I did all of that for two weeks in Sea Camp for my son. I also took him out of school for three hours each week for occupational speech therapy privately for as long as is was necessary. He is definitely spoiled by hospitals but amazing none the less. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Seakolony
on
Sun 03/31/19 08:18 PM
|
|
Hello, I once had a discussion about this but should a 7 year old really have a Cell phone or something like it? To me I could see a 12+ year old being a bit more mature enough to be using one, but a 7 year old? I say No as that just makes my skin crawl for some reason, as you never know what they could be doing on it, also it is a poor substitute for being a babysitter. Those kinds of parents just make me cringe like crazy. They could be ripping their parents or single parent off of their Credit Card, talking to strangers for example or some other thing that is generally frowned upon. Your Thoughts? I merely am just discussing this as I am curious as to the general consensus. In today's world yes. You can track the phone most would not expect a child to have a cell phone. Something happens whole playing with friends. Gives them an option to dial 911. If your child disappears you can track the child. But you should definitely set limits through parental controls. Honestly before cellphone I gave my daughter a long range walkie talkies for when she went to her friends house. That way if anything happened or made her feel weird she could contact me. Bo us I could call her home for dinner. I think in this day and age with the dangers, it just might be a really good idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ancient sunken ships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am exhausted truth. I put out fires at work. I got back to work Lance the kitchen manager was pissed. Came and talked to me about crap going on while I was on my break. I told him I would handle it. I had take out bite squad. Hostess helped clean tables and picked up a table someone forgot about and didn't get their drinks. They said their drink order had been taken but no drinks brought. So I took a order pad and started taking their order. The table was happy and left me a 24 dollar tip. They loved everything. It was awesome. So I cleaned up and got out. Maybe you should pay me as management, instead of a drunk as front of the house manager.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kelp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Itsy bitsy water molecules
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Seakolony
on
Sat 03/30/19 08:17 PM
|
|
pedophiles on the brain, what is happening at Mingle2? smh Biden other of the DNC party have deflected his attention towards their wives and children. I grew up in DE...that man ehhhh gives me the willies its creepy that men pay attention to their wives and children? sad. No to other people's wives and children.....he makes them uncomfortable and touches them in ways that show intimacy.....it's called sexual harassment in the workplace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pedophiles on the brain, what is happening at Mingle2? smh Biden other of the DNC party have deflected his attention towards their wives and children. I grew up in DE...that man ehhhh gives me the willies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freedom  No, wait, hang on Liberty No, man I got this, just a minute McDonald's Oh yeah that's right they can't walk through the drive through...torutuos that suppressing them from the drive thru. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Marijuana Farming
|
|
What's a back 40? I think he talk about 40 acres of farmland...back 40 south 40 etc |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dirt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AP FACT CHECK: Trump twists facts of a migrant girl's death "WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is misrepresenting the circumstances of a 7-year-old migrant girl's death as he seeks to steer any potential blame for it away from his administration. Trump, after mockingly painting asylum seekers as a "con job" in a rally the previous night, asserted on Friday that Jakelin Caal Moquin was given no water by her father during their trek to a remote border area and that the dad acknowledged blame for his daughter's death on Dec. 8. Those assertions are not supported by the record". http://news.yahoo.com/ap-fact-check-trump-misrepresents-migrant-childs-death-022818632.html Trump: Pulitzers awarded to NYT, Washington Post should be revoked for 'fake' Russia coverage "WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump called for the Pulitzer Board to revoke the prizes awarded to The New York Times and The Washington Post for coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 election and the links between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign". http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/29/president-trump-pulitzer-new-york-times-washington-post/3316086002/ You might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians. You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK. You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t. You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t. You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK. You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK. You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent. You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designates secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI. You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion. Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way. And I will tell you one more thing, I don’t think it’s OK that during a presidential campaign Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin’s help to consummate a real estate deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune – according to the special counsel, hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t think it’s OK to conceal it from the public. I don’t think it’s OK that he advocated a new and more favorable policy towards the Russians even as he was seeking the Russians’ help, the Kremlin’s help to make money. I don’t think it’s OK that his attorney lied to our committee. There is a different word for that than collusion, and it’s called ‘compromise. http://www.11alive.com/article/news/adam-schiff-fires-back-at-calls-by-trump-republicans-to-resign/507-d0d20421-1484-407d-bac9-4ca940b69fa3 There have been PLENTY of criminal cases in the history of the US where the prosecutors decided not to proceed with a case against a suspect simply because the amount of evidence they have isn't enough to get a conviction. That is to say, if NEW strong evidence were to come up linking Trump with Russia during the election, a case against him could proceed. Mueller's report doesn't give Trump immunity from future investigations - this collusion case can be reopened. First of all Biden is a lecherous pedophile....no way....nuh uh.....not sure about the other candidates yet but we will see what both parties have to offer.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bricks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Seakolony
on
Sat 03/30/19 07:11 PM
|
|
Plus, people seem to forget how much Catholics were feared and hated back in the early 1900's....they thought they were going to turn this into a nation of "papists"... So we should blame every Christian for the deeds of the Roman Catholic Church and their assaults over a century ago or even centuries ago. The invasion of the pilgrims seeking freedom of religion. It's just time to start sharing prayer time with other religions in order to not allow any religion to look or feel persecuted in this country and show we can accept one another in tolerance and acceptance. Show change and quit living in the past of centuries old hatred. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zooplankton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Razor sharp shark teeth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are a couple of political viewpoints expressed in these forums that I have a difficult time comprehending. Supposedly Russia stole a large batch of DNC Emails and gave them to Wikileaks to publish. There has never been any accusations that those stolen Emails weren't real and the information they contained not accurate. While they really shouldn't have been stolen and released by ANYONE, the contents did paint an accurate picture of a corrupt political organization. What is the difference who stole them? Supposedly Russian operatives purchased many ads on Facebook and other social media platforms and used those to influence the 2016 elections. Numerous other groups did also and did so in 2018 and will again in 2020 and use the same methods that Russia used. Why are we outraged at Russia for using misleading or fake stories to influence our elections but not as equally outraged at other organizations doing the same things in a similar manner? Is it not as destructive to our election process no matter who does it? Should we not hold everyone to a similar standard of honesty? Should I not know the political affiliation of anyone purchasing advertising including on social media? Should I not know the political affiliation with any journalist publishing an "opinion or analysis" piece? We now have a political process in America that is very corrupt. The truth about any candidate is never shared nor their actual beliefs. We get fed what the pollsters think we want to get fed that will influence our vote. We really don't know who is hiding in the wings behind the parties, all the political organizations, the news organizations or any other political operative. It has become who can twist some fact about their opponent in the most negative way or dig up some dirt from 40 years ago. Honesty in politics is dead and we are worse off as a country because of it. OMG you actually think FB ads influence people.....wow.....especially after fb in the news and congressional hearings. Most people clue others in to fake ads on fb. FB did not cause people to like Trump more. People justed hated Hillary more than they hated Trump and felt a good business mind was needed to establish some sensical method of bringing expenses into a manageable basis going into the future. No Company stays in business with higher expenses than income. We can't have all these programs without an increase in taxes. Or we need to lose programs but something's got to give. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having an agenda and achieving said agenda are two different things
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pufferfish
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
