Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
My point being DON'T have three kids you can't afford. In all honesty you probably couldn't even afford the first one, sometimes you have to use common sense!
But I am done talking about it. It just makes me mad, and I am trying to work today!
There are so many reasons these people have kids. Your arguement that they should know better, that they should use birth control, hints at the root of the problem. Many of them dont know any better.
^ How is it fair to me to take care of someone else's children?
I made a choice to do better in life, they made a choice to bring a kid into poverty.
So if you're poor, you should be singled out and not allowed to experience love, not allowed to bear children, not allowed to have a family?
I know you're not saying all that, but you really need to examine your blanket statements on the matter. It's much more complicated than that. Any day either one of us could end up with our hands out on the street.
Guess what?? I know alot about them. I lived in the middle east for close to two years. and you're right - the majority of them are innocent people just not necessarily the ones that are currently being held in prison.
Thats exactly my point. So you lived in the "middle east" for close to two years. That means you know these people? Where did you live? Because the blanket term "middle east" is next to meaningless when describing the people of even one country much less multiple countries. That is no different than someone saying "I lived in America for close to two years and the people there are _______, ______." See what I am saying? Look at the differences between people in the US just on this tiny website. To even think that you could get a grasp of what people in the US are like from one section is ludicrous. Just like to try and claim you know what the entire Muslim nation is like by living in one country for two years is, hell if you lived there for two hundred years it would be nearly impossible.
Let's see - I live in Tehran, Iran. I watched my father get on a bullet proof bus every day carrying a gun. The only people in my house allowed to answer to door were either myself or my mother - because they would not shoot a child or a woman yet they would not hesitate to shoot one of my teenager brothers or my father. I had a guard (a local) that was hired to follow me whereever I went. We were one of the last American families to get our furniture out of the country.
After we left, friends stayed in our villa hunkered down in the basement as armed men stormed over the neighborhood and over the roofs to get to the Shah's police compound.
When we left - we left with a procession of 3 cars to the airport - a chase car in the front and in the back with armed guards while we were in the middle car.
I can remember being chased while in the car with my parents and having to hunker down on the floor board while my mother hunkered down on the passenger side floor board with a gun in her hand as my father took evasive action to get away.
Yeah - I would say I have been there and done that as far as terrorists go.
I don't classify all Arabs or Muslims in that way. We have friends in the States that cannot return to thier country because they will be killed.
I never claimed to know the entire Muslim nation and would not attempt to. There are good and bad in every society - I just happen to think that the majority of the people being detained are being detained for valid reasons and that they pose a threat to the security of the United States - that is my opinion based on MY life experiences.
I never claimed to know the entire Muslim nation and would not attempt to. There are good and bad in every society - I just happen to think that the majority of the people being detained are being detained for valid reasons and that they pose a threat to the security of the United States - that is my opinion based on MY life experiences.
This is kind of like saying, "I was robbed once. So if someone is accused of robbery, they probably did it."
Are we talking Middle Easterners or Muslims? Because Iran is not the Middle East, nor are all Middle Easterners Muslims.
But I don't see how this has any bearing on the discussion we were having earlier. The fact is that the majority of prisoners who are being detained at Guantanamo have not had any charges brought against them. We have no more right to detain them simply because we think they might be guilty of something than we do our own citizens.
But Sass - we routinely detain our own citizens when we "think" they might be guilty of something. Right or wrong - it happens. I was a criminal defense paralegal for many many years before coming to work for the VA. I cannot tell you how many people they detain for months and months before presenting to a grand jury for an indictment and knowing - in alot of those cases - that there is not enough evidence to indict. And that is how we treat our citizens!
with regards to the "weapons of mass destruction" phrase being changed, what was it changed to? i believe that due to the fact that no wmds were found, they just dropped the whole phrase all together. it wasnt that they changed it to something else. that is what i am talking about--sugar-coating something so you can please the world. that never happened with wmds
dude - I said that the word was scrapped, not changed.
So many of your arguments are lost because you haven't fully read the other person's post or haven't proofed your own. I know I never have - and probably never will - agree with your political views, but someone out there might if you just think about what you're posting a little bit.
i do apologize. i did read your whole comment, and i guess in the heat of the moment i overreacted. yes, you did say the term was scraped.
as for not proofing my own posts, i almost always think about what i am about to say before i say it. my karma dropping is indication that people disagree, and therefore, my posts must make sense (whether you agree with the post or not)
Maybe - I would think that we should be more focused on cleaning up the justice system as it pertains to our citizens. But my viewpoint comes from the extremely crooked "good 'ol boy" system we have in Mississippi.
But according to some people - my opinions - based on MY life experiences - don't count or are not very valid.
Well, yeah, I agree that our system should be cleaned up as well
But still, that shouldn't be used as an excuse for treating another country's citizens poorly.
And aren't these generally two completely different systems? Money and staff are coming out of two different pots. (please correct me if I'm wrong here!)
I would think it's like how you treat guests better than your immediate family
pretty good analogy except for the fact that guests and immediate family wouldn't be invited over if it was possible that they wanted to harm/kill you.
not saying all the people in Guantanamo want to harm/kill anyone. justmeg has a good point.
Well that's just it...the vast majority have not had charges brought against them, so who's to say why they're there or whether it's just? The point is that there are a great number of detainees who have been held for YEARS and still no charges have been brought against them.
to itrain: true, and if they did announce over the dinner table that they wanted to kill you, you should ask them to leave (or, you know, call the police )
US citizen's must be arraigned within 72 hours (or slightly longer in extreme cases) to see if there is enough evidence to present to a Grand Jury and so a request for bail can be heard. If this is not done US citizens have the right to sue for illegal detainment.
There are cases where people have been held an inordinate amount of time without a court hearing and very rarely without legal council but they have legal recourse. And this is the exeption to the rule for citizens.
For "enemy combatants", this is the rule. And a rule this very conservative Supreme court has even said is wrong. We hold people we know are innocent and create a situation where they can likely never be free again as no country wants them. And for no apparent reason as the only convictions have come through normal criminal prosecutions.
Maybe - I would think that we should be more focused on cleaning up the justice system as it pertains to our citizens. But my viewpoint comes from the extremely crooked "good 'ol boy" system we have in Mississippi.
Valid point. I think Mississippi DOC along with Louisiana has more federal violations and then any other states as far as state prison go. When I worked in the Indiana DOC there was a chaplin who was telling about a Mississippi prison he was working at where a guy was held many years past his out date and no one noticed. The guy was very low functioning and had no clue when it came up they just released the guy in the middle of the night. You working in that office probably exposed you to stories that most people wouldnt think would happen in this country..
Maybe - I would think that we should be more focused on cleaning up the justice system as it pertains to our citizens. But my viewpoint comes from the extremely crooked "good 'ol boy" system we have in Mississippi.
Valid point. I think Mississippi DOC along with Louisiana has more federal violations and then any other states as far as state prison go. When I worked in the Indiana DOC there was a chaplin who was telling about a Mississippi prison he was working at where a guy was held many years past his out date and no one noticed. The guy was very low functioning and had no clue when it came up they just released the guy in the middle of the night. You working in that office probably exposed you to stories that most people wouldnt think would happen in this country..
Oh my - you cannot even imagine. Our Gov is just now signing a bill that allows for restitution if you are wrongfully imprisoned.
See, I wonder if it's more that the tax laws are just waaaay too confusing. Sure, many just didn't pay or purposely did them incorrectly, but I believe Sebelius (sp?) that she was just confused.
My mom worked for the IRS back in the 60's/70's and she has a hard time interpreting all the new laws that come out every year.
* Education: Industrial College of the Armed Forces, MS (2002); George Washington University, LLM (1994); Harvard University, JD (1986); U.S. Air Force Academy, BS (1980) * From: Washington, DC * Ethnicity: Black
A retired Air Force colonel, Gunn was most recently an attorney who represents military members and veterans in private practice.
* Office of Military Commission for Military Tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, chief defense counsel * U.S. Air Force, colonel in the Judge Advocate Generals Corps * Boys & Girls Club of Greater Washington, president and chief executive officer
Isnt Shinsniski a disabled vet himself...or maybe he was active duty and disabled. I think he had a foot amputated.
He is a Vietnam veteran who was maimed
From Wikipedia
Eric Ken Shinseki (born November 28, 1942) is a retired U.S. Army four-star general who is currently serving as the 7th United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs. His final U.S. Army post was as the 34th Chief of Staff of the Army (1999-2003). He is a veteran of combat in Vietnam, having been left with a maimed foot. During his tenure as Army Chief of Staff, Shinseki initiated an innovative but controversial plan to make the Army more strategically deployable and mobile in urban terrain by creating Stryker Interim-Force Brigade Combat Teams. He conceived a long term strategic plan for the Army dubbed Objective Force, which included a program he designed, Future Combat Systems.
Shinseki publicly clashed with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during the planning of the war in Iraq over how many troops the U.S. would need to keep in Iraq for the postwar occupation of that country. As Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki testified to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for postwar Iraq. This was an estimate far higher than the figure being proposed by Secretary Rumsfeld in his invasion plan, and it was rejected in strong language by both Rumsfeld and his Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, who was another chief planner of the invasion and occupation.[2] From then on, Shinseki's influence on the Joint Chiefs of Staff reportedly waned.[3] The end of his term of Army Chief of Staff came in June 2003, just three months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and at that time General Shinseki retired from the Army after 38 years of military service.
When the insurgency took hold in postwar Iraq, Shinseki's comments and their public rejection by the civilian leadership were often cited by those who felt the Bush administration deployed too few troops to Iraq.[4] On November 15, 2006, in testimony before Congress, CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid said that General Shinseki had been correct that more troops were needed.