Ohhhh...okay. Please forgive me then...I've been here a little longer than a week, but I didn't know that about you.
All is understood now - thanks for the explanation! I'm laughing at myself now! hahahaa
take care,
jay
back2dafront
JoinedPosts by back2dafront
-
18
A Political Consideration For You
by Francois ini'm sure you've heard tom daschel, al gore, richard gephardt and other prominent democrats wheezing and moaning about talk radio.
you can bet your boots that within the next 12 to 14 months, the democrat party is going to attempt to reinact some form of the old "fairness doctrine" which said that if you allowed one political point of view to be aired on your radio or tv station, that you had to provide equal time for the expression of the opposing point of view.
i was employed in the radio/tv bidness during the years of the "fairness doctrine" and i can tell you the objective was never fairness.
-
-
-
18
A Political Consideration For You
by Francois ini'm sure you've heard tom daschel, al gore, richard gephardt and other prominent democrats wheezing and moaning about talk radio.
you can bet your boots that within the next 12 to 14 months, the democrat party is going to attempt to reinact some form of the old "fairness doctrine" which said that if you allowed one political point of view to be aired on your radio or tv station, that you had to provide equal time for the expression of the opposing point of view.
i was employed in the radio/tv bidness during the years of the "fairness doctrine" and i can tell you the objective was never fairness.
-
-
back2dafront
Animal, you've totally lost me now.
First of all, nobody should have their own definition of the word "fact."
All I've seen here is pro-Republican remarks without any FACTS to back them up. And as usual, nobody has anything to say to justify Bush's lack of concern with the environment. Zilch. They just accept it, just like Witnesses accept everything the Borg says. Snap out of it for Christ sake.
FACTS have been presented in order to show all that if ones concern is for our freedom, then they should NOT be supporting the Republican party, and still yet there hans't been any EVIDENCE shown to refute that.
What your comments have to do with any of this I'm still trying to figure out. What revelance your "bikers list" has is beyooooond me. Was that comment a threat, a joke, or what?
-
48
Who is coloured?
by Defender inthis was written by a black guy in texas .
when i born, i black.
when i grow up, i black.
-
-
back2dafront
I couldn't have said it any better myself.
Check this out - I have an Orange convertible mustang - white top, white racing wheels. My friend, who is white, has driven it around town a few times and has gotten pulled over by cops to COMPLIMENT him on how nice it is. I, on the other hand, get pulled over and handed tickets for speeding or failed tail lights. The last ticket i was speeding in the slow lane (70 in 55) while about 10 other cars were passing me in the faster lanes, and that is NO exaggeration. I took it to court and lost, of course. Cop says he only saw me, which was an outright lie and he KNEW it. I called him on it and the Judge stepped in and backed him up and said he believes the cop, who is the trained "professional." Some justice. One day in traffic court was all I needed to show me what sort of Justice system is in place. There isn't one. Just another way to milk more money out of us.
I'm the last person to start a black/white issue, but I just don't think criminal behavior is characteristic of black people or latin people in general. Like i said earlier, it seems to me that it would be better stated as a reality of blacks and hispanics in America due to the culture/path in life they are born into and/or choose to take. And those who choose education are normally the ones that stay out of trouble.
That's my 2 cents worth.
-
48
Who is coloured?
by Defender inthis was written by a black guy in texas .
when i born, i black.
when i grow up, i black.
-
-
back2dafront
Well, to me a "characteristic" of someone implies a quality of their nature, or their persona. The way I see it, those are stats on latinos and blacks in America, but not characteristics of blacks and latinos. If they are true characteristics of them, then those stats would more than likely hold true across the whole world, but I really don't think that's the case. To use those stats as characteristics is implying that blacks and latinos are more or less criminals, and I just can't buy into that.
Maybe I'm being niave or something.....
??
-
48
Who is coloured?
by Defender inthis was written by a black guy in texas .
when i born, i black.
when i grow up, i black.
-
-
back2dafront
Lucy,
Your post took a different angle than expected.
So are you saying blacks and latinos are typically more violent than whites? Stats are stats and they do prove a point, but I'm not sure that going to jail is "characteristic" of black and latino cultures. It may be a harsh reality, but I also think they are victim to their surroundings and circumstances. I think you'd find an alarming co-relation to uneducation and poor living conditions in all the stats you provided.
Need I remind you the worse violent atrocities ever done to humankind were by the hand of the white man.
-
-
-
back2dafront
I don't know of anywhere that has "a lot of work" in the USA right now. Good jobs are scarce my friend - good luck.
All I can say is that California has a beautiful coast line. If you can do any kind of work you may be able to find something here, but it's really competitive.
-
18
A Political Consideration For You
by Francois ini'm sure you've heard tom daschel, al gore, richard gephardt and other prominent democrats wheezing and moaning about talk radio.
you can bet your boots that within the next 12 to 14 months, the democrat party is going to attempt to reinact some form of the old "fairness doctrine" which said that if you allowed one political point of view to be aired on your radio or tv station, that you had to provide equal time for the expression of the opposing point of view.
i was employed in the radio/tv bidness during the years of the "fairness doctrine" and i can tell you the objective was never fairness.
-
-
back2dafront
Pretty typical response.
C'mon Animal, surely you got something better than that.
-
15
Osama's Newest Letter (MUST READ)
by SYN infull text: bin laden's 'letter to america'
online document: the full text of osama bin laden's "letter to the american people", reported in today's observer.
the letter first appeared on the internet in arabic and has since been translated and circulated by islamists in britain.. .
-
-
back2dafront
All I can say is
ALL HELL IS ABOUT TO BREAK LOOSE
I agree w/ Perry - seeing future events unfold is plain as day. Number one, USA will never take his words of advice and get out of Israel and leave them alone. Never will that happen. So...you heard the man - they're coming back. They attacked Israeli interests in Africa a few days ago - nearly took down a jet packed w/ people, now they're coming back to NYC and DC. The terror warnings have been abundant recently, just like the pre-9/11 days. Any day now and it's going to be 9/11 all over again.
And if the government thwarts it (which I pray they do) I really think it'll only be temporary. These fanatics are very intent on bringing this country down - if they succeed or not remains to be determined, but the threat is going to be there for a very long time until this is all somehow resolved.
This is all so sad - I have mixed emotions on it all. Part of me understands why he stated a few of the things he did, but I think he's going about it all the wrong way. But then I ask myself, "what better option is there?" What should he or anyone in "command" out there do differently to address the injustices in their country?
That part about American tax dollars funding the military. UGH. I just read the other day that the Airforce has these brand new B2 bombers now that are invisible to radar and can fly sorties from Minnesota to Afghanistan and BACK. One plane has 2-3 the firepower and capabilites of B52. The Airforce has about 20 of these things and one costs 1.3 BILLION dollars. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like these new planes are overkill. We can already take out all of Europe w/ nuclear submarines - is it REALLY neccessary to spend 20+ billion dollars on better bombers? (As if the B52's don't get the job done) Evidently so - I guess that's why my name ain't Powell.
I foresee a large scale attack on these Islamic extremists looming on the horizon. All it will take to set if off is one more attack on USA soil....
scary times. It is very sickening how much religion plays into all of this.
-
24
Have you ever been in a car accident?
by back2dafront injust curious how many people have been the driver in a car/motorcycle accident.
i've been driving for 12 years now and have up and down the east coast numerous times, across country and up and down the west coast numerous times.
plus my commute to work for the past 2 years is 95 miles round trip.
-
-
back2dafront
ROFL!!!!
I never knew accidents could be amusing!
-
1
Is Bush REALLY trying to save money?
by back2dafront inhttp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021127/pl_nm/environment_forest_dc_7
bush administration to ease forest management rules .
wed nov 27, 4:17 pm et
-
-
back2dafront
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021127/pl_nm/environment_forest_dc_7 Bush Administration to Ease Forest Management Rules
Wed Nov 27, 4:17 PM ET Add Politics to My Yahoo! By Christopher Doering
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration on Wednesday unveiled a plan to give local forest managers greater control over recreational and commercial activities in U.S. forests, a policy opponents said skirts environmental rules designed to protect fish and wildlife habitat.
In a proposal that has triggered a new round of skirmishes between President Bush ( news - web sites) and green groups over how to manage U.S. forest land, the administration said increasing the power of local foresters would "cut out red tape" and reduce court appeals that have muddled forest policy.
Environmental groups said the plan drastically reduces research scientists' input and public comments in crafting forest policy, all to the benefit of a Bush-friendly timber industry.
The controversial rules alter a 2000 plan by the Clinton administration, which directed the U.S. Forest Service to manage some 200 million acres of forest land with "ecological sustainability" as the top priority.
Under the Bush plan, the administration said environmental protection in 155 national forests would be judged equally with social uses and economic concerns, such as logging, on a case-by-case basis.
"This new planning rule will give managers access to the tools they need to prevent problems before they happen and to respond to them quickly," said Sally Collins, associate chief with the Forest Service. "It's time to bring national forest planning into the 21 century."
In a 90-page Forest Service document, the agency said the new rules will exempt forest managers from preparing time-consuming environmental impact statements (EIS) when they revise forest plans.
The agency said it would consider undertaking an in-depth environmental study once it has determined whether the land would be used for hiking, camping, logging, oil drilling or other activities.
"In many cases, an EIS for a forest plan is not providing useful information for the public," said Fred Norbury, Forest Service director of ecosystem management.
The Forest Service estimated it can take as many as seven years to complete a forest plan. The Bush administration has long complained that federal environmental rules and court appeals, dubbed by Forest Service chief Dale Bosworth as "analysis paralysis," make it nearly impossible to approve projects necessary to manage forests.
The administration said the new plan could save some $300 million of the estimated $1 billion needed to revise more than 100 forest plans.
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS FIGHT BACK
Environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers wasted little time blasting the Republican administration for a plan they argued will boost logging at the expense of protecting the environment.
Senate and House Democrats said in a joint letter to Bosworth that the rule "weakens the minimum standards" necessary to manage forests and protect fish and wildlife. The new regulations, they argue, also would strip away a provision that requires the Forest Service to monitor and maintain sensitive species that live in forests.
"The minimum protections of the current rules are gone...and are replaced only by discretionary tasks which Forest Service personnel may freely choose to ignore," 15 Democratic lawmakers wrote in a letter.
Green groups worry such a plan would be the latest in a series of rollbacks in forest protection. Earlier this year, the president proposed easing environmental reviews to allow the removal of trees and underbrush as a way to prevent wildfires.
"This administration hears only one voice, that of its friends in the timber industry who want to saw down our national forests without worrying about the needs of wildlife, the environment or the public," said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife.
Among the earliest decisions made by the Bush administration was a decision to halt a Clinton-era rule that would prohibit road building and lumber removal on 60 million acres of U.S. forest land.
The forest management rule will be subjected to a 90-day public comment period before it goes into effect.
ALSO, read this:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20021130/pl_nm/environment_democrats_dc&e=4
My question is this: Is Bush really looking out for the best interests of this country? What is the reason for degressing in environmental issues??Just trying to understand the Republican way of reasoning. The way I see it, there can be no misunderstanding whatsoever as to the serious nature of current environmental issues. Not taking any additional steps to make things better is one thing, taking steps BACKWARDS....??? I don't get it.
