Vladimir Putin caused this war, you dumb f***. His loverboy Donald
Ok, whatever you say!
Ukranian President Zelensky spoke with REPUBLICAN senators and told them a couple interesting facts:
1) "Had you started these sanctions a few months ago, this war would have never happened."
2) "Please stop buying their gas, because their gas sales are what's funding
this war."
Biden caused this war.
Vladimir Putin caused this war, you dumb fuck. His loverboy Donald
Vladimir Putin caused this war, you dumb fuck. His loverboy Donald
Ok, whatever you say!
Vladimir Putin caused this war, you dumb fuck. His loverboy Donald
Ok, whatever you say!
It is not whatever I say, but what the world says.
And the world says it is all Putin's fault.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Lee Lofaso <=-
Vladimir Putin caused this war, you dumb fuck. His loverboy Donald
Ok, whatever you say!
DonaldVladimir Putin caused this war, you dumb fuck. His loverboy
Ok, whatever you say!
It is not whatever I say, but what the world says.
And the world says it is all Putin's fault.
All of it though? What about Biden's weak attitude towards everything?
He says "expect less," and he really means that. Follow the pattern:
Vladimir Putin caused this war, you dumb fuck. His loverboy Donald
Ok, whatever you say!
Ukranian President Zelensky spoke with REPUBLICAN senators and told them
a couple interesting facts:
1) "Had you started these sanctions a few months ago, this war would have never happened."
1) "Had you started these sanctions a few months ago, this war would have
never happened."
Think about what you're saying here. Think real, real hard.
You're saying that Biden should have put crushing, unprecedented sanctions on Russia, to include seizure of wealth and property, months *before* Russia even did anything.
1) "Had you started these sanctions a few months ago, this war woul have
never happened."
Think about what you're saying here. Think real, real hard.
You're saying that Biden should have put crushing, unprecedented sanctio Russia, to include seizure of wealth and property, months *before* Russi even did anything.
If he had left some of the softer sanctions in place, it would have been
a start.
1) "Had you started these sanctions a few months ago, this war would never happened."
Think about what you're saying here. Think real, real hard.
You're saying that Biden should have put crushing, unprecedented
sanctions on Russia, to include seizure of wealth and property, months *before* Russia even did anything.
1) "Had you started these sanctions a few months ago, this war w never happened."
Think about what you're saying here. Think real, real hard.
You're saying that Biden should have put crushing, unprecedented sanctions on Russia, to include seizure of wealth and property, month *before* Russia even did anything.
I think you're right, but so is Zelensky. A planned invasion was
obviously about to happen. Biden should/could have provided Putin with a list of changes that would happen if/when he were to invade, instead of scrambling after the start of the civilian slaughter. With that
heads-up, Putin would have had the insight to back off if the sanctions sounded menacing enough.
But in Biden's defense, nobody expected him to be on top of things in the first place. His main focus is to destroy the USA, not to destroy Russia.
But in Biden's defense, nobody expected him to be on top of things in the first place.
Knowing what we knew then, what you would've seen was Biden convincing
the rest of the world to put heavy sanctions on Russia, driving up the cost of everything and especially gasoline, and for what? To prevent an invasion that never happened? You'd be having a heyday skewering Biden
for following your own advice.
Knowing what we knew then, what you would've seen was Biden convincin the rest of the world to put heavy sanctions on Russia, driving up th cost of everything and especially gasoline, and for what? To prevent invasion that never happened? You'd be having a heyday skewering Bide for following your own advice.
Biden didn't care about inflation ahead of the invasion, so why should
he care now?
I see your point about "better to sanction after rather than before,"
but who cares about skewering? Saving lives is better than saving an election.
Biden didn't care about inflation ahead of the invasion, so why shoul he care now?
Who's to say that he didn't care? Inflation isn't something that one can slam the brakes on.
but who cares about skewering? Saving lives is better than saving an election.
We know now that lives would have been saved. We did not know that then.
Knowing what we knew then, what you would've seen was Biden convincing
the rest of the world to put heavy sanctions on Russia, driving up the
cost of everything and especially gasoline, and for what? To prevent an
invasion that never happened? You'd be having a heyday skewering Biden
for following your own advice.
Biden didn't care about inflation ahead of the invasion, so why should he care now?
I see your point about "better to sanction after rather than before," but who cares about skewering? Saving lives is better than saving an election.
Who's to say that he didn't care? Inflation isn't something that one slam the brakes on.
Inflation didn't have to be so bad and he didn't need to waste so much money. I still don't have my pipes replaced.
but who cares about skewering? Saving lives is better than savin election.
We know now that lives would have been saved. We did not know that th
Everyone else except Biden knew, because that wasn't a convenient truth for him.
but who cares about skewering? Saving lives is better than saving an
election.
We know now that lives would have been saved. We did not know that then.
Everyone else except Biden knew, because that wasn't a convenient truth for him.
Inflation didn't have to be so bad and he didn't need to waste so much money. I still don't have my pipes replaced.
I see. So "wasting money" causes inflation?
Inflation didn't have to be so bad and he didn't need to waste so m money. I still don't have my pipes replaced.
I see. So "wasting money" causes inflation?
Depends on what they are spending it on.
Does it, though? It seems like what they're spending it on might contribute to a subjective classification as "wasteful," but spending is spending. What one person considers beneficial spending might be considered wasteful by another.
So are we now saying that Democrat spending causes inflation, while Republican spending* does not?
Inflation didn't have to be so bad and he didn't need to waste so muc money. I still don't have my pipes replaced.
I see. So "wasting money" causes inflation?
Inflation didn't have to be so bad and he didn't need to waste s money. I still don't have my pipes replaced.
I see. So "wasting money" causes inflation?
It's a contributing factor, but my point is that it's careless to waste money and it's especially careless to waste money while prices are
rapidly rising.
It's a contributing factor, but my point is that it's careless to waste money and it's especially careless to waste money while prices are rapidly rising.
I see. And what differentiates "wasting money" from "spending money?"
It's a contributing factor, but my point is that it's careless to w money and it's especially careless to waste money while prices are rapidly rising.
I see. And what differentiates "wasting money" from "spending money?"
What differentiates it is what return on our investment can we, the American people, expect to receive?
Here are two examples:
Spending millions to teach people in a religiously-conservative country, that is not even our country, western-based gender studies is a huge
waste of money. We will never see *any* return on that investment, *ever*.
Spending those same millions to invest in Americans, their jobs and standard of living, or on better American infrastructure, without
tacking on any amendments for millions to teach people in a religiously-conservative country, that is not America, western-based gender studies, is "spending money," and, if they do it right, maybe
even "spending money well."
It's a contributing factor, but my point is that it's careless to was money and it's especially careless to waste money while prices are rapidly rising.
I see. And what differentiates "wasting money" from "spending money?"
It's a contributing factor, but my point is that it's careless t money and it's especially careless to waste money while prices a rapidly rising.
I see. And what differentiates "wasting money" from "spending money?"
There are poor people (not just black either) dying from covid rampantly. Money can fix that, by providing people with a means to quarantine, but instead, let's spend a huge chunk of it on lead pipes that have been functioning since the 1940s.
Businesses need to be retrofitted for this virus and for future Fauci virus variants; that costs money, but, let's just give the money to
single moms who need some alone time; they make better voters than businesses do.
We still don't have an effective vaccine. Money could/should be spent on vaccine research, but instead, let's keep injecting 3G doomsday
receivers, and ignore a herd of elephants in the room, while money that should have been spent on America gets wasted.
Since congressmorons cannot ever pass a good idea without ruining it by tacking a bunch of crap amendments onto it, it is not very often that
they
"spend money well." It has sadly come to the point where it is safe to assume they are "wasting money" whenever they are in session.
* SLMR 2.1a * Dragon riders make good first impressions.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)
On 21 Mar 2022, Mike Powell said the following...
It's a contributing factor, but my point is that it's careless to money and it's especially careless to waste money while prices are
rapidly rising.
I see. And what differentiates "wasting money" from "spending money?"
What differentiates it is what return on our investment can we, the American people, expect to receive?
Here are two examples:
Spending millions to teach people in a religiously-conservative country, that is not even our country, western-based gender studies is a huge waste of money. We will never see *any* return on that investment, *ever*.
That would depend on the type of return you're expecting. Getting ideas to the youth can do wonders for changing a society down the road.
Spending those same millions to invest in Americans, their jobs and standard of living, or on better American infrastructure, without tacking on any amendments for millions to teach people in a religiously-conservative country, that is not America, western-based gender studies, is "spending money," and, if they do it right, maybe even "spending money well."
That depends, too, on whether one thinks that investing in Americans' standard of living is "socialist."
Since congressmorons cannot ever pass a good idea without ruining it by tacking a bunch of crap amendments onto it, it is not very often that they
"spend money well." It has sadly come to the point where it is safe to assume they are "wasting money" whenever they are in session.
Wasn't it Twain who said that nobody was safe when Congress was in session?
Spending millions to teach people in a religiously-conservative cou that is not even our country, western-based gender studies is a hug waste of money. We will never see *any* return on that investment, *ever*.
That would depend on the type of return you're expecting. Getting ideas the youth can do wonders for changing a society down the road.
But not for our country. With our tax dollars, I am expecting a return
on our investment for our country. I suspect Aaron is, too. The most-likely return on investment you are going to see out of the example above in a religiously-conservative, non-western country is getting some youths shunned or, worse, killed for going against what is acceptable in their society. You might see that as an acceptable risk for your investment, but that is a bad return on my investment (and a wrong thing to encourage).
Spending those same millions to invest in Americans, their jobs and standard of living, or on better American infrastructure, without tacking on any amendments for millions to teach people in a religiously-conservative country, that is not America, western-base gender studies, is "spending money," and, if they do it right, mayb even "spending money well."
That depends, too, on whether one thinks that investing in Americans' standard of living is "socialist."
If the policies lead to new jobs, in the United States, that increase the standard of living for our citizens, then that is a good return on investment and hardly socialist. Now, investing the money to pay or encourage people who don't pay taxes to not work... yes, that would be somewhere on the socialist spectrum, just like it would be on the
"bad investment" or "money wasting" spectrum, so that would not be the type of spending I would be talking about or encouraging.
Lead poisoning is no laughing matter.
Supporting single moms is investing in the future of America. Businesses need to be self-sufficient or fail. You know, free market and all.
We do have an effective vaccine. We do not have a 100% effective vaccine. Less than 100% effectiveness does not mean 0% effectiveness.
Lead poisoning is no laughing matter.
When you say it like that, it sounds hiliarious, because lead poisoning happens when kids inhale lead dust particles; not from drinking water
from lead pipes. New York State is planning to spend $7 million dollars (of NYS funds) over the next 2 years on water infrastructure. So I'm
extra curious about where Joe's money funnel is draining out to.
Supporting single moms is investing in the future of America. Busines need to be self-sufficient or fail. You know, free market and all.
We're training people (like they're monkeys) to EARN less so that way
they can be eligible to GET more. That's an investment in votes, and an investment in laziness. Lazy people will vote for stuff that allows them to keep being lazy.
We do have an effective vaccine. We do not have a 100% effective vacc Less than 100% effectiveness does not mean 0% effectiveness.
The vaccine is a great tool for the immune system, but we need something that actually vaccinates people against the virus. HIV has been around
for at least 70 years, and vaccines for it are still experimental, unreliable, and ineffective.
Spending millions to teach people in a religiously-conservative co
that is not even our country, western-based gender studies is a hu
waste of money. We will never see *any* return on that investment
*ever*.
That would depend on the type of return you're expecting. Getting ideas
the youth can do wonders for changing a society down the road.
But not for our country. With our tax dollars, I am expecting a return on our investment for our country. I suspect Aaron is, too. The most-likely return on investment you are going to see out of the example above in a religiously-conservative, non-western country is getting some youths shunned or, worse, killed for going against what is acceptable in their society. You might see that as an acceptable risk for your investment, but that is a bad return on my investment (and a wrong thing to encourage).
Making like-minded allies is an excellent investment.
If the policies lead to new jobs, in the United States, that increase the
standard of living for our citizens, then that is a good return on investment and hardly socialist. Now, investing the money to pay or encourage people who don't pay taxes to not work... yes, that would be somewhere on the socialist spectrum, just like it would be on the
"bad investment" or "money wasting" spectrum, so that would not be the type of spending I would be talking about or encouraging.
Investing the money in policies that lead to new jobs *is* socialism (by the standard conservative definition); it's just that it's not the little guy getting free stuff.
Making like-minded allies is an excellent investment.
Programs and policies like those will only do so in fantasy land. Such real-world investments in predominantly muslim, religiously-conservative countries are very high risk, low reward, and are not likely to make them our allies. It is much more likely to provide additional examples of
"low western moral values" for them to rally against us around.
Investing the money in policies that lead to new jobs *is* socialism (by standard conservative definition); it's just that it's not the little gu getting free stuff.
Maybe by Jeff's standard conservative definition, where wasting tax money is the only good thing to do with it.
Programs and policies like those will only do so in fantasy land. Such real-world investments in predominantly muslim, religiously-conservative countries are very high risk, low reward, and are not likely to make them
our allies. It is much more likely to provide additional examples of "low western moral values" for them to rally against us around.
Not necessarily. Impressing our values on youth can reap dividends in the future.
Nope, sorry. Government investment in *anything* is "socialism," by the conservative definition.
(of NYS funds) over the next 2 years on water infrastructure. So I'm extra curious about where Joe's money funnel is draining out to.
Here in Texas, we also use local funds to maintain our water systems.
challenges in that regard and need assistance. The majority of people receiving public assistance actually do have jobs. But when those jobs
the difference. Also, assistance for single mothers is as much for the children as it is for the moms. Or are you not pro-life, just pro-birth?
the difference. Also, assistance for single mothers is as much for the children as it is for the moms. Or are you not pro-life, just pro-birth?
Not necessarily. Impressing our values on youth can reap dividends in th future.
An interesting point here. On the one hand, it is ok to impress our values on some, like youths in a religiously-conservative land, but yet people who believe that is ok are very usually not at all ok with trying to impress western values on, say, a quasi-communist dictatorship in a country with a "rich and ancient culture."
Nope, sorry. Government investment in *anything* is "socialism," by the conservative definition.
By conservative definition according to you and, I am sure, according to some very far-right individuals. Most of the people I meet who think that, and some do, are not far-right or conservative. They call themselves "libertarian" but, in reality, come across more as quasi-anarchists in the sense that they also believe there should be no police and no laws at all.
(of NYS funds) over the next 2 years on water infrastructure. So extra curious about where Joe's money funnel is draining out to.
Here in Texas, we also use local funds to maintain our water systems.
But this isn't maintenance; they're replacing supply pipes throughout the entire cities, but not with federal funds, so that makes me wonder where did the money (Infrastructure bill) really go (without the BS?) The bill was supposed to "provide clean drinking water" but now I see cities
doing the work with their own funds. Why could that be? Maybe because
Joe has those funds "at work" somewhere else!
challenges in that regard and need assistance. The majority of people receiving public assistance actually do have jobs. But when those job
There's no majority; that's just generalization. A federal government sponsored babysitting program isn't something that people need; they need responsibility. If you have kids, you can't work evenings, and it's
you're own fault; so get a daytime job or an overnight job, instead of having the taxpayers pay for your babysitter bill because you want to
work during the hours that your kids are home from school.
the difference. Also, assistance for single mothers is as much for th children as it is for the moms. Or are you not pro-life, just pro-bir
"Nice try" but you ain't Chuck Berry!
the difference. Also, assistance for single mothers is as much for the children as it is for the moms. Or are you not pro-life, just pro-birt
That is one thing I have not understood about some people who are very rabid pro-life. They usually don't want any tax money going towards upkeep for those children, either. IMHO, you cannot have it both ways.
That is one thing I have not understood about some people who are ver rabid pro-life. They usually don't want any tax money going towards upkeep for those children, either. IMHO, you cannot have it both way
I know, right?
I can only speculate that they think that these children are a necessary burden on their parents as punishment for the perceived moral failing
that brought the children into this world in the first place. As if the children themselves are nothing but expendible pawns in some game of morality chess.
That is one thing I have not understood about some people who ar rabid pro-life. They usually don't want any tax money going tow upkeep for those children, either. IMHO, you cannot have it bot
I know, right?
I can only speculate that they think that these children are a necess burden on their parents as punishment for the perceived moral failing that brought the children into this world in the first place. As if t children themselves are nothing but expendible pawns in some game of morality chess.
For some reason, the phrase "baby factory" comes to mind. A "baby
factory" is a woman who has a child for the specific purpose of
increasing their allotment of social assistance and/or Family Allowance.
As I've mentioned, I am very much pro-choice. But, having a child just
to get a few extra dollars on their monthly 'welfare cheque' is a pretty poor choice. There are certainly better reasons to create another human life.
For some reason, the phrase "baby factory" comes to mind. A "baby factory" is a woman who has a child for the specific purpose of increasing their allotment of social assistance and/or Family Allowan
As I've mentioned, I am very much pro-choice. But, having a child jus to get a few extra dollars on their monthly 'welfare cheque' is a pre poor choice. There are certainly better reasons to create another hum life.
So would you bother to prove that any of these parents receiving assistance are "baby factories," or would you cut aid for everyone
because some of them *might* be. And then, what would you have become of the children?
So would you bother to prove that any of these parents receiving assistance are "baby factories," or would you cut aid for everyone because some of them *might* be. And then, what would you have become the children?
You're getting the wrong idea, Jeff. Don't be so confrontational. I'm not saying *anyone* should be denied social assistance. I *am*, however, saying that some people probably shouldn't breed. After all, we want to remove stupid from the gene pool, not add more to it...
Which reminds me, I sure hope you're not a father! (o_-)
You're getting the wrong idea, Jeff. Don't be so confrontational. I'm saying *anyone* should be denied social assistance. I *am*, however, saying that some people probably shouldn't breed. After all, we want remove stupid from the gene pool, not add more to it...
Eventually we're going to have to confront the issue of overpopulation, and it's not going to be pretty.
Which reminds me, I sure hope you're not a father! (o_-)
I am. My wife and I only had one child, for a net population decrease on our part, and were not a "baby factory." I'm not going to say anything more due to my second-favorite H.L. Mencken quote:
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and
to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
the difference. Also, assistance for single mothers is as much for th
children as it is for the moms. Or are you not pro-life, just pro-bir
That is one thing I have not understood about some people who are very rabid pro-life. They usually don't want any tax money going towards upkeep for those children, either. IMHO, you cannot have it both ways.
I know, right?
I can only speculate that they think that these children are a necessary burden on their parents as punishment for the perceived moral failing that brought the children into this world in the first place. As if the children themselves are nothing but expendible pawns in some game of morality chess.
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
That is one thing I have not understood about some people who are v rabid pro-life. They usually don't want any tax money going toward upkeep for those children, either. IMHO, you cannot have it both w
I know, right?
I can only speculate that they think that these children are a necessary burden on their parents as punishment for the perceived moral failing th brought the children into this world in the first place. As if the child themselves are nothing but expendible pawns in some game of morality che
If you want them to be forced to have the kids, because that is what is right, then you should also know that being charitable is right and you should be willing to help care for them.
I agree that some of them see it as punishment and think it is good. Oddly, I feel like they have probably experienced similar moral failings but have been lucky in the results.
I agree that some of them see it as punishment and think it is good. Oddly, I feel like they have probably experienced similar moral failings but have been lucky in the results.
Interesting. I had not considered that.
I agree that some of them see it as punishment and think it is good Oddly, I feel like they have probably experienced similar moral fai but have been lucky in the results.
Interesting. I had not considered that.
No one is perfect, right? :)
work, but will be providing states with funds to accomplish the work. So the federal funds get converted to state funds, which are then used to
pay for the work. It's possible that the state funds are further distributed downstream to county and/or city funds.
work, but will be providing states with funds to accomplish the work. the federal funds get converted to state funds, which are then used t pay for the work. It's possible that the state funds are further distributed downstream to county and/or city funds.
That makes sense, but looking back, it seems like a ripoff to all the people who (like me) live in a city with lead suppy lines, who were expecting Joe's bill to give us new pipes, only to find out that our
city won't be part of the project at all. If I want to find out where
the money went and why it didn't go to a city that needs it, I have to
ask a reptilian governor where the money went. That's a lousy deal for
me.
I agree that some of them see it as punishment and think it is goo
Oddly, I feel like they have probably experienced similar moral fa
but have been lucky in the results.
Interesting. I had not considered that.
No one is perfect, right? :)
Nope, none of us. I hadn't considered it in terms of the pro-lifers, but it is true that an amazing number of rabidly anti-gay religious leaders and politicians turn out to be gay themselves.
Nope, none of us. I hadn't considered it in terms of the pro-lifers, but is true that an amazing number of rabidly anti-gay religious leaders and politicians turn out to be gay themselves.
I would suspect there could be some things going on with rabid
pro-lifers, not the ones that simply believe that abortion is wrong but the ones that actually show up at clinics to curse at women, that follow similar lines.
city won't be part of the project at all. If I want to find out where the money went and why it didn't go to a city that needs it, I have t ask a reptilian governor where the money went. That's a lousy deal fo me.
It could be that the city funds being used to replace the lines had their origins with the federal government. That's not such a lousy deal for
you; it's a shame you're so afraid of your governor, though.
Here, our governor is using the power of the state to put some of the
most vulnerable families at risk, just to score political points with conservatives.
city won't be part of the project at all. If I want to find out the money went and why it didn't go to a city that needs it, I h ask a reptilian governor where the money went. That's a lousy de me.
It could be that the city funds being used to replace the lines had t origins with the federal government. That's not such a lousy deal for you; it's a shame you're so afraid of your governor, though.
It's still lousy for me. I don't live in Elmira, I live in Binghamton.
New pipes were just a pipe dream for us.
Here, our governor is using the power of the state to put some of the most vulnerable families at risk, just to score political points with conservatives.
What are you referring to? Gov Abbott's already got all the political points with conservatives that he needs. The only Republicans in need of political points are the fake RINO ones.
much for ththe difference. Also, assistance for single mothers is as
pro-birchildren as it is for the moms. Or are you not pro-life, just
That is one thing I have not understood about some people who are
very
rabid pro-life. They usually don't want any tax money going towards
upkeep for those children, either. IMHO, you cannot have it both
ways.
I know, right?
I can only speculate that they think that these children are a necessary
burden on their parents as punishment for the perceived moral failing that
brought the children into this world in the first place. As if the
children
themselves are nothing but expendible pawns in some game of morality
chess.
If you want them to be forced to have the kids, because that is what is right, then you should also know that being charitable is right and you should be willing to help care for them.
I agree that some of them see it as punishment and think it is good. Oddly, I feel like they have probably experienced similar moral failings but have been lucky in the results.
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to
the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his
children smart."
That is a pretty good one! :)
I would suspect there could be some things going on with rabid pro-lifers, not the ones that simply believe that abortion is wrong but the ones that actually show up at clinics to curse at women, that follow similar lines.
It's interesting that you would say that because in the news today was a story about one Lauren Handy, one of five anti-abortion activists charged with clinic access obstruction and engaging in a conspiracy against individuals' civil rights. Police raided the home where Ms. Handy lives after receiving a tip that the house contained biohazardous material. During the raid, police found five fetuses in the home. ccording to Hndy, she expected the raid to occur "sooner or later" and feared that "people will freak out when they hear."
On 31 Mar 2022, Mike Powell said the following...
Nope, none of us. I hadn't considered it in terms of the pro-lifers, but is true that an amazing number of rabidly anti-gay religious leaders and politicians turn out to be gay themselves.
I would suspect there could be some things going on with rabid pro-lifers, not the ones that simply believe that abortion is wrong but the ones that actually show up at clinics to curse at women, that follow similar lines.
It's interesting that you would say that because in the news today was a story about one Lauren Handy, one of five anti-abortion activists charged with clinic access obstruction and engaging in a conspiracy against individuals' civil rights. Police raided the home where Ms. Handy lives after receiving a tip that the house contained biohazardous material. During the raid, police found five fetuses in the home. ccording to Hndy, she expected
the raid to occur "sooner or later" and feared that "people will freak out when they hear."
There are a number of candidates challenging Abbott in the primaries,
and all are trying to be the most conservative.
It's interesting that you would say that because in the news today was a story about one Lauren Handy, one of five anti-abortion activists charge with clinic access obstruction and engaging in a conspiracy against individuals' civil rights. Police raided the home where Ms. Handy lives receiving a tip that the house contained biohazardous material. During t raid, police found five fetuses in the home. ccording to Hndy, she expec the raid to occur "sooner or later" and feared that "people will freak o when they hear."
Hmmmm.... sounds like Ms. Handy had an experiment going, if they are not her's. I wonder why she was expecting a raid?
There are a number of candidates challenging Abbott in the primaries, and all are trying to be the most conservative.
Abbott seems extreme enough. I don't think anyone will out-do him in conservativism. Anyone who tries is probably an undercover Democrat.
There are a number of candidates challenging Abbott in the primaries,
and all are trying to be the most conservative.
Abbott seems extreme enough. I don't think anyone will out-do him in conservativism. Anyone who tries is probably an undercover Democrat.
Abbott seems extreme enough. I don't think anyone will out-do him in conservativism. Anyone who tries is probably an undercover Democrat.
Allen West, for example?
| Sysop: | Xerxes |
|---|---|
| Location: | Azle, Texas |
| Users: | 119 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 101:13:41 |
| Calls: | 3,018 |
| Calls today: | 0 |
| Files: | 155 |
| U/L today: |
0 files (0K bytes) |
| D/L today: |
0 files (0K bytes) |
| Messages: | 293,593 |
| Posted today: | 0 |