....The aftermath of Katrina has produced a debate over poor Americans. There are about 37 million people living below the poverty line right now. The issue was described this way by Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas, a liberal guy but not alone, who writes, "Liberals will say [the authorities] were indifferent to the plight of poor African-Americans. It is true that Katrina laid bare society's massive neglect of its least fortunate."

Massive neglect? Let's take a look at that bit of overstatement. Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office in 1996, the poverty rate was 13.7 percent. Halfway through President Bush's tenure, the rate is 12.7 percent, a full point lower.

In 1996, the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2 percent of the budget and a whopping amount of money. That's why Bill Clinton (search) was called the first black president by some.

However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget, a huge increase over Clinton's spending on poverty entitlements.

....The aftermath of Katrina has produced a debate over poor Americans. There are about 37 million people living below the poverty line right now. The issue was described this way by Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas, a liberal guy but not alone, who writes, "Liberals will say [the authorities] were indifferent to the plight of poor African-Americans. It is true that Katrina laid bare society's massive neglect of its least fortunate."

Massive neglect? Let's take a look at that bit of overstatement. Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office in 1996, the poverty rate was 13.7 percent. Halfway through President Bush's tenure, the rate is 12.7 percent, a full point lower.

In 1996, the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2 percent of the budget and a whopping amount of money. That's why Bill Clinton (search) was called the first black president by some.

However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget, a huge increase over Clinton's spending on poverty entitlements.


Are you kidding me with this ****?

I really honestly dont see how anyone without an agenda can look at Bush's term in office and compare it to Clinton's.

Clinton>>>Bush and its not up for debate.

NO Clinton was not called the first black president becasue of that, Clinton was jokingly called the first black president because of the way he carried himself.

This is simple.

When Clinton took office as the country better off when he left? Yes.

When Bush took office will the country be better off when he leaves? No.

pbds , i am starting to suspect you are not democrat

of course bush hates the poor, we're all liberal democrats

Are you kidding me with this ****?

I really honestly dont see how anyone without an agenda can look at Bush's term in office and compare it to Clinton's.

Clinton>>>Bush and its not up for debate.

NO Clinton was not called the first black president becasue of that, Clinton was jokingly called the first black president because of the way he carried himself.

This is simple.

When Clinton took office as the country better off when he left? Yes.

When Bush took office will the country be better off when he leaves? No.


....How do these comments address the article? Uh they don't. Sit down.

Im not a hardcore democrat at all. Hell I even worked on John McCain campain in High School for Goverment.

But thats just the truth.

Bush did increase money for the poor. There is no way anybody can argue that. 368>>>191. And before anybody says 96 vs 06 dollars. Look at the percentage of the budget.

....How do these comments address the article? Uh they don't. Sit down.


Uh they DO.

Are you or are you not trying to compare something Bush did to something Clinton did?

Uh they DO.

Are you or are you not trying to compare something Bush did to something Clinton did?

...Yes, one individual point that is relevent when people are saying that Bush hates blacks/poor people and is only out for the rich. IE; Aftermath of Katrina. It's very relevent and has almost nothing to do with your comments. It's like the picture of Vitali and Tyson in my sig where you comment that Prime Tyson would whip Vitali when nobody was talking about anything remotely resembling that. Try and keep up now skippy.

...Yes, one individual point that is relevent when people are saying that Bush hates blacks/poor people and is only out for the rich. IE; Aftermath of Katrina. It's very relevent and has almost nothing to do with your comments. It's like the picture of Vitali and Tyson in my sig where you comment that Prime Tyson would whip Vitali when nobody was talking about anything remotely resembling that. Try and keep up now skippy.


Wrong skippy. Because you are trying to compare so anyone wanting to talk about comparing does have a point. Now it wouldn't be relevent had you never mentioned Clinton's name, but you did.

Thats like you saying

PDBS:look at this picture of Vitai and Tyson, man Vitali has so much more power than Tyson.

Poster: Yeah, but Tyson had so much more tools than Vitali and in his prime was better.

PDBS: WTF!! Who's trying to compare the two.

Poster: Well I just asumed you wanted to compare the two since you did make a comparision with your fighter coming out on top in the comparision you made.

Wrong skippy. Because you are trying to compare so anyone wanting to talk about comparing does have a point. Now it wouldn't be relevent had you never mentioned Clinton's name, but you did.

Thats like you saying

PDBS:look at this picture of Vitai and Tyson, man Vitali has so much more power than Tyson.

Poster: Yeah, but Tyson had so much more tools than Vitali and in his prime was better.

PDBS: WTF!! Who's trying to compare the two.

Poster: Well I just asumed you wanted to compare the two since you did make a comparision with your fighter coming out on top in the comparision you made.


....Go find where I said anything about Vitali having alot more power than Tyson. I thought it was amusing that Tyson looks like a little kid next to Vitali. Your jumping to paranoid conclusinons on both issues based on your own insecurities. Have you and Nash been hanging out alot and sharing your views??

....Go find where I said anything about Vitali having alot more power than Tyson. I thought it was amusing that Tyson looks like a little kid next to Vitali. Your jumping to paranoid conclusinons on both issues based on your own insecurities. Have you and Nash been hanging out alot and sharing your views??


Huh? Are you high? Is that it? Did you get high before you came on today?

....The aftermath of Katrina has produced a debate over poor Americans. There are about 37 million people living below the poverty line right now. The issue was described this way by Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas, a liberal guy but not alone, who writes, "Liberals will say [the authorities] were indifferent to the plight of poor African-Americans. It is true that Katrina laid bare society's massive neglect of its least fortunate."

Massive neglect? Let's take a look at that bit of overstatement. Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office in 1996, the poverty rate was 13.7 percent. Halfway through President Bush's tenure, the rate is 12.7 percent, a full point lower.

In 1996, the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2 percent of the budget and a whopping amount of money. That's why Bill Clinton (search) was called the first black president by some.

However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget, a huge increase over Clinton's spending on poverty entitlements.

I find those facts very telling about the Bush administration. However, I don't think it matters to the people you are trying to reach, they've already made up their mind. It doesn't matter if the administration finds a way end poverty all together, they will still hate.

....The aftermath of Katrina has produced a debate over poor Americans. There are about 37 million people living below the poverty line right now. The issue was described this way by Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas, a liberal guy but not alone, who writes, "Liberals will say [the authorities] were indifferent to the plight of poor African-Americans. It is true that Katrina laid bare society's massive neglect of its least fortunate."

Massive neglect? Let's take a look at that bit of overstatement. Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office in 1996, the poverty rate was 13.7 percent. Halfway through President Bush's tenure, the rate is 12.7 percent, a full point lower.

In 1996, the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2 percent of the budget and a whopping amount of money. That's why Bill Clinton (search) was called the first black president by some.

However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget, a huge increase over Clinton's spending on poverty entitlements.

Bush has made many promises of spending such and such an amount. But in very few cases has that amount actually been allocated. 'Budget' with this administration might as well read as 'Mild Suggestion'.

Because who knows if another disaster is going to occur.....or if we suddenly need more money for the war effort. Sure I am speculating, but this has been what has happened so far right?

I find those facts very telling about the Bush administration. However, I don't think it matters to the people you are trying to reach, they've already made up their mind. It doesn't matter if the administration finds a way end poverty all together, they will still hate.

Sure, cutting state worker wages to the affected areas to $9 an hour is going to aid the administration in finding a way to end poverty altogether.

Don't fool yourself into thinking you are any less rigid in your mindset than those your criticise.

of course bush hates the poor, we're all liberal democrats

HUH?????? This is a joke right?

Sure, cutting state worker wages to the affected areas to $9 an hour is really going to end poverty altogether.

Don't fool yourself into thinking you are any less rigid in your mindset than those your criticise.

You realize I was referring to the post of pbds right? because it has nothing to do with anything you said.

You realize I was referring to the post of pbds right? because it has nothing to do with anything you said.

Yes I do. I felt compelled to reply to what you said all the same. I thought what you said about the Bush administration finding a way to end poverty altogether to be .....to quote GW himself "One of those exagerations."

Sure, cutting state worker wages to the affected areas to $9 an hour is really going to end poverty altogether.

Don't fool yourself into thinking you are any less rigid in your mindset than those your criticise.
And where did I say the administration "is" going to end poverty?

I said "It doesn't matter if the administration finds a way end poverty all together, they will still hate."

DON't put words in my mouth!

And where did I say the administration "is" going to end poverty?

I said "It doesn't matter if the administration finds a way end poverty all together, they will still hate."

DON't put words in my mouth!

Okay I will edit my posts.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was paraphrasing. There isn't a huge difference betweent the two statements is there?

Okay I will edit my posts.

LOL...........

"The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were president of the United States, and we’d be a lot better off."
—Bush at the second presidential debate in St. Louis, Oct. 8, 2004.

LOL...........

I am glad it is funny. Especially since I NEVER said you SAID Bush IS finding a way to end poverty.

Now who is putting words in people's mouths?

I am glad it is funny. Especially since I NEVER said you SAID Bush IS finding a way to end poverty.

Now who is putting words in people's mouths?

I said,

"I find those facts very telling about the Bush administration. However, I don't think it matters to the people you are trying to reach, they've already made up their mind. It doesn't matter if the administration finds a way end poverty all together, they will still hate."

You responded with,

Sure, cutting state worker wages to the affected areas to $9 an hour is going to aid the administration in finding a way to end poverty altogether.

You were implying that I said the administration end poverty altogether. When the truth is, I said hypothetically, Even if the administration finds a way end poverty all together, they will still hate. The point was, It doesn't matter what the administration does, you will still hate.

You know what I said and what I meant. You saw it as an opportunity to twist my post to suit your agenda. I don't appreciate your games.

You were implying that I said the administration end poverty altogether. When the truth is, I said hypothetically, Even if the administration finds a way end poverty all together, they will still hate. The point was, It doesn't matter what the administration does, you will still hate.

You know what I said and what I meant. You saw it as an opportunity to twist my post to suit your agenda. I don't appreciate your games.

If I felt you were saying the administration IS trying to end poverty altogether, believe me, I would have written you a much longer post.

I rarely IMPLY anything. You should know that by now. I am pretty blunt. I pointed out why your 'if' was very unlikely.

If I felt you were saying the administration IS trying to end poverty altogether, believe me, I would have written you a much longer post.

I rarely IMPLY anything. You should know that by now. I am pretty blunt. I pointed out why your 'if' was very unlikely.

Oh, I'm sorry. So you were just being a smart ass then. Well that's different. Smart ass away man!

Oh, I'm sorry. So you were just being a smart ass then. Well that's different. Smart ass away man!

Thank you. I was worried we would be pissed at eachother over this. :D

Thank you. I was worried we would be pissed at eachother over this. :D

Nah, no hard feelings. You know my typical reactions as well. We'll save it for another day. :D

Nah, no hard feelings. You know my typical reactions as well. We'll save it for another day. :D

Look forward to it.

Look forward to it.

Me Too.. ... (walks out of the room backwards with one eye on LuKahnLi) ;)

To reply to the original post, the problem with the stats given is that they are both taken in the middle of each term. The thing is that the number of impoverished Americans went down during the second Clinton term (1996-2000) while they started to rise again during the first Bush Term (2001-2004). So while the number is lower at the end of Bush's first term, it's still not as low as it was at the end of the Clinton era.

I was just reading this the other day, so it's fresh in my mind (I'll provide a link to the article if anyone wants it. It's in this week's Newsweek. It's a little too late for me right now to go hunting for it though).

It's hard to examine that era though and make conclusions about this or that president because of the high-tech bubble that messed everything up. It would be like comparing the job done by the Governor of California during the Gold Rush era to the one done by the guy who came right after. It's hard to say who did what and what effect it had on the economy. At least imo.

To reply to the original post, the problem with the stats given is that they are both taken in the middle of each term. The thing is that the number of impoverished Americans went down during the second Clinton term (1996-2000) while they started to rise again during the first Bush Term (2001-2004). So while the number is lower at the end of Bush's first term, it's still not as low as it was at the end of the Clinton era.

I was just reading this the other day, so it's fresh in my mind (I'll provide a link to the article if anyone wants it. It's in this week's Newsweek. It's a little too late for me right now to go hunting for it though).

It's hard to examine that era though and make conclusions about this or that president because of the high-tech bubble that messed everything up. It would be like comparing the job done by the Governor of California during the Gold Rush era to the one done by the guy who came right after. It's hard to say who did what and what effect it had on the economy. At least imo.

And also, you can say you are allocating money for whatever you want. Unless you have a good system of DISTRIBUTING that money, it doesn't do a lick of good.

Misconceptions & myths ...

I did not write this, just thought it was interesting. I found it on the "best of" list on craigslist.com


MYTH 1: The US was founded on Christian principles.

TRUTH:

This is incorrect.
The Constitution never once mentions a deity, because the Founding Fathers wanted to keep their new country "religion-neutral." Our Founding Fathers were an eclectic collection of Atheists, Deists, Christians, Freemasons and Agnostics.

George Washington, the Father of our country, and John Adams (Second President of the USA) CLEARLY stated in the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli: "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion.

G.W. rarely attended church and instead followed a popular 18th century philosophy called Deisma Star Wars-esque philosophy that believed in a cosmic energy or big-ass universal "Force." The dictionary says that Deism is "a system of thought advocating natural religion based on human reason rather than revelation," that had nothing to do with Christian principles.

James Madison, original mastermind of our Constitution, was an Atheist to the core who loved skewering Christianity. In 1785 he wrote, "What have been [Christianitys] fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

Thomas Jefferson, who sat down and authored The Declaration of Independence, rarely missed an opportunity to laugh at Christianity. In a letter to John Adams in 1823, he wrote: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesuswill be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

More ammo: In 1814, Tommy J. wrote about the Bible's Old and New Testaments, "The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful -- evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds.

In fact, it was President Jefferson himself who first wrote (to a Baptist church group in 1802), "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State." Therefore, when Jefferson talked about Natures God, the Creator and divine Providence in the Declaration that he wrote, he was being a hippie and referring to a general cosmic energy-- not the Christian God.

America is not a Christian nation. Period. Our Constitution derived from the post-Christian Enlightenment values of reason and truth...never from the paranoid yammerings of that otherwise compassionate cult leader who ****ing died in the Middle Eastern desert 3000 years ago.

MYTH 2: US Conservatives tend to be patriotic, ethical Americans; liberals tend to hate America and are immoral.

TRUTH:

Liberals aren't the traitors to America. In fact, conservatives who insist on sending American troops into the Iraqi slaughterhouse to watch some blood-n'-guts "towelhead" ass-kickin' are the traitors. Most of them could care less about our troops, no more than Mao or Stalin cared about the safety of their own soldiers. In the neocons' view, these young boys and girls are expendable test dummies. They're dying for virtually nothing, so that the hicks in the Bush Admin can make good on their campaign promises to their buddies from the petroleum and infrastructure-rebuilding industries. By revving up the Arab threat, these MFs can scream "national security" and "freedom" as smokescreens, while getting their hands on a diminishing resource: Middle Eastern fossil fuels, which power everything from your lightbulbs and computer that you leave on all night, to your stupid gas-guzzler pickup truck.

Pro-war conservatives are the traitors to America. With only 29% of the public approving of Bush's policies now, it took a full 5 years for America to finally wake up in bed next to this disgusting fact.

Do liberals hate America? No, in fact they care so much about the USA that they fight so aggressively to make it better. They're not anti-American; they're just anti-stupidity. Do liberals hate American policies? Sometimes, but only the self-destructive ones that threaten human rights, liberty, democracy, justice, inquiry, excellence and reason-- the values that our country was founded upon.

As for conservative moral superiority? Frauds. Think of the child-molesting priests, money-scamming televangelist preachers, Jack Abramoff's friends in the Bush Admin, gay-hating Jesus lovers, the Christians who beat up the professor who opposed intelligent design, human rights violators like Lynndie England and her Abu Ghraib hick officer pals, Tommy "Scandal-icious" Delay, Scooter "Leaky" Libby, the entire K Street Project meant to hire only Republicans, FEMA's Michael "Yer doin' a heckuva job" Brownie, and so on.

Oh and by the way, conservative Red states have a divorce rate 27% higher than the liberal Blue states, the per capita rate of violent crime in Red states is 49 per 100,000 higher than in Blue states, the top 5 states with the highest rates of alcohol abuse are Red states, and the per capita rate of gonorrhea in Red states was 41 per 100,000 higher than in the Blue states. Time to unshelf the antibiotics for our "ethical," "God-fearing" conservative friends with their "traditional family values."

MYTH 3. The US has a liberal media.

TRUTH:

This is a paranoid Republican myth.
Reality check: the US media is a mix of liberal, centrist and conservative voices. Also, the US media is largely owned by 10 corporations who frequently push pro-conservative agendas to the American public. Evidence:

1. Even Republican Pat Buchanan confessed, "For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that." Neo-conservative pundit Bill Kristol also said, "I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

2. A 2005 study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics found that "coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media." Why? Partly because only four major corporate networks control American TV news-- up to 75% of the audience share. The "Big 10" media conglomerates who control the bulk of the entire US media are: AOL Time Warner, Disney, General Electric, News Corporation, Viacom, Vivendi, Sony, Bertelsmann, AT&T and Liberty Media. Yes, we have National Public Radio, but compare its public reach to that of Canada's CBC and the United Kingdom's BBC.

3. Eighty percent of all US newspapers are owned by corporate chains.

4. Liberals are virtually non-existent on talk radio stations nationwide. Rush and Dr. Laura, eat your hearts out.

5. Conservatives are very well accomodated for across FOX News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the New York Post, the American Spectator, the Weekly Standard, the Drudge Report, the National Review, etc. Even so-called "bastions of liberalism," e.g. the NY Times, MSNBC, WashPost and NPR make a concerted effort to be "fair and balanced" by bringing in right-wing views like those of David Brooks, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Charles Krauthammer and Cokie Roberts to have their say in these forums, respectively. This is in stark contrast to FOX News' claims to unbiased objectivity, which were easily demolished by Robert Greenwald in 2004.

6. Contrary to what some paranoid Republicans claim, most journalists are centrists, not liberals. A representative sample of 141 US journalists and bureau chiefs were asked in 1998, "On social issues, how would you characterize your political orientation?" Answers: Left 30%, Center 57%, Right 9%, Other 5% . Next question, same sample: "On economic issues, how would you characterize your political orientation? " Answers: Left 11%, Center 64%, Right 19%, Other 5%. Also, look at the total number of think tank citations in major newspapers, radio and TV transcripts: Conservative TTs: 7792, Centrist TTs: 6361, Liberal TTs: 1152.

7. Eric Alterman summarizes a 1999 research study from the academic journal Communications Research: "Four scholars examined the use of the 'liberal media' argument and discovered a fourfold increase in the number of Americans telling pollsters that they discerned a liberal bias in their news. But a review of the media's actual ideological content, collected and coded over a twelve-year period, offered no corroboration whatever for this view."

MYTH 4. The US doesnt need improvement compared to other countries; it is the greatest country in the world.

TRUTH:
Wrong again. I'll only cite the statistics here.

USA Ranking on Adult Literacy Scale: ..9
(..1 Sweden and ..2 Norway)- OECD

USA Ranking on Healthcare Quality Index: ..37
(..1 France and ..2 Italy)- World Health Organization 2003

USA Ranking of Student Reading Ability: ..12
(..1 Finland and ..2 South Korea)- OECD PISA 2003

USA Ranking of Student Problem Solving Ability: ..26
(..1 South Korea and ..2 Finland)- OECD PISA 2003

USA Ranking on Student Mathematics Ability: .. 24
(..1 Hong Kong and ..2 Finland)- OECD PISA 2003

USA Ranking of Student Science Ability: ..19
(..1 Finland and ..2 Japan)- OECD PISA 2003

USA Ranking on Women's Rights Scale: ..17
(..1 Sweden and ..2 Norway)- World Economic Forum Report

USA Position on Timeline of Gay Rights Progress: .. 6 (1997)
(..1 Sweden 1987 and ..2 Norway 1993)- Vexen

USA Ranking on Life Expectancy: ..29
(..1 Japan and ..2 Hong Kong)- UN Human Development Report 2005

USA Ranking on Journalistic Press Freedom Index: ..32
(..1 Finland, Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands tied)- Reporters Without Borders 2005

USA Ranking on Political Corruption Index: ..17
(..1 Iceland and ..2 Finland)- Transparency International 2005

USA Ranking on Quality of Life Survey: ..13
(..1 Ireland and ..2 Switzerland)- The Economist Magazine ...Wikipedia "Celtic Tiger" if you still have your doubts.

USA Ranking on Environmental Sustainability Index: ..45
(..1 Finland and ..2 Norway)- Yale University ESI 2005

USA Ranking on Overall Currency Strength: ..3 (US Dollar)
(..1 UK pound sterling and ..2 European Union euro)- FTSE 2006....the dollar is now a liability, so many banks worldwide have planned to switch to euro

USA Ranking on Infant Mortality Rate: ..32
(..1 Sweden and ..2 Finland)- Save the Children Report 2006

USA Ranking on Human Development Index (GDP, education, etc.): ..10
(..1 Norway and ..2 Iceland)- UN Human Development Report 2005


So much for those "socialist" Europeans and those "backward" Asians, hm?
We can do better than this.

Miscellany:
*Only 18% of Americans own passports and bother to travel outside of the US.
* 85% of US soldiers in Iraq believe that they are there to get revenge for 9/11.
* New international student enrollment in US grad schools has decreased by 6%, because of xenophobic post-9/11 US visa restrictions, jacked-up tuition fees and better educational opportunities in the EU and Asia. So no, not everyone wants to come here anymore, because it's become a land of incredibly limited opportunity, and we've lowered our educational standards.

MYTH 5: The US government loves to help other countries.

TRUTH:
This is a myth. The US government tends to be motivated by interests, not humanitarian principles.

Denmark gives the most amount of its GDP (1.01%) to developing countries; Norway gives 0.91%; the Netherlands give 0.79% and so on until the end of list, where the USA sits. Yes, America ranks DEAD LAST in foreign aid at a pathetic 0.1% of its GDP, compared to the other 21 nations listed as developed nations. The idea that the US government is a heroic bunch that runs around the world helping the poor and the disempowered is not backed up by the evidence. We have one of the stingiest governments on earth.

Most Americans believe the US spends 24% of its budget on aid to poor countries; the actual amount is well under a quarter of 1%. Our country also ranks ..5 on asylum-seeker acceptance rates (..1 is Denmark and ..2 is Canada).

For you self-congratulatory, redneck-inspired conservative ****wads who will start to say, "B-b-b-but you're anti-American! M-m-m-moonbat! G-g-g-god bless the USA!" I answer, "Go **** yourself. We can do better." Stop blindly believing everything your president tells you. Come back to us only when you start realizing that the $400 billion your president has allocated to his Roman Empire-style military overstretch could be better spent on correcting the sociopolitical and economic problems in the arenas that I've listed above.

For you liberal ****-heels who will start to say, "Yeah! Right on!" I answer, "Grow some ****ing balls." That goes for women and the LGBT community too, and don't call me a sexist either: I'm more than comfortable with being a female, but I believe balls can be useful in situations like these. Instead, stop apologizing for being the "liberal elite," and start championing un-abashed excellence in everything, not mediocrity. Help your reps and senators take back Congress, and stop dithering while the political tides are turning in your favor right now. The conservatives are terrified now; TAKE advantage of that. And don't waste time trying to explain rational things to any homophobic Christians, or hyper-patriotic losers who wave and cheapen our American flag only for a self-esteem buzz, or those testosterone-filled, gullible, culturally-ignorant military recruiter robots who lack even a basic intelligence. THEY CANNOT BE REASONED WITH. They don't understand statistics, elaborate charts, legislative proposals or complicated scientific explanations. Just let them go. Let them go.

In the meantime, stop being SHEEP and get up and do something before some bright and ambitious Chinese, Indian and the European students grow up to be international leaders and make your lazy, self-absorbed kids irrelevant on the world stage.

http://newyork.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/163437715.html

does PBDS really have nothing better to do with his time than post stuff like this?

He should take better care of his family... I hear he makes his kids watch his illegal rooster fights with him. I read that on here.

does PBDS really have nothing better to do with his time than post stuff like this?

He should take better care of his family... I hear he makes his kids watch his illegal rooster fights with him. I read that on here.
So much for putting the past behind you. Hypocrite.

I see PBDS hasn't replied. Maybe he's taken my advice.

Like I said, I'll pray for him.

I see PBDS hasn't replied. Maybe he's taken my advice.

Like I said, I'll pray for him.


.....Does anyone listen to a word this ***gity assed homo says? I mean really.

.....Does anyone listen to a word this ***gity assed homo says? I mean really.

It's started, as I knew it would. A completely unprovoked attack from an old timer who should know better.

You make slurs at me about perversions that are a sin against the Lord, yet I read about you that you do sick things with roosters... so who is in the wrong here?

Like I said, I'll pray for you.

It's started, as I knew it would. A completely unprovoked attack from an old timer who should know better.

You make slurs at me about perversions that are a sin against the Lord, yet I read about you that you do sick things with roosters... so who is in the wrong here?

Like I said, I'll pray for you.

...and I'll pray for you for committing the sin of gossip by spreading rumors about pbds and his roosters. Judge not, lest ye be judged, for with with judgement ye meet, it shall be measured unto you. :cool: