 |
 | JOTD - Woman out shopping |  | _Damian S_ | 8hrs 14mins ago |
|
|
A woman was in town on a shopping trip. She found the most perfect shoes in the first shop,and a beautiful dress in the second. In the third everything had just been reduced 50 percent, when her mobile phone rang.
It was a female doctor notifying her that her husband had just been in a terrible car accident and was in a critical condition and was in the ICU.
The woman told the doctor to tell her husband that she'd be there as soon as possible...
When she hung up she realised she was leaving what was shaping up to be her best day ever shopping in these boutiques, so she decided to just look in two or three more before heading to the hospital.
Anyhow, she ended up shopping the rest of the morning, finishing her trip with a cup of coffee and a beautiful chocolate cake compliments of the last shop. She was jubilant.
Then she remembered her husband. Feeling guilty, she dashed to the hospital. She saw the doctor in the corridor and asked about her husband's condition. The lady doctor glared at her and shouted, 'You went ahead and finished your shopping trip didn't you! I hope you're proud of yourself! While you were out for the past four hours enjoying yourself shopping, your husband has been languishing in the Intensive Care Unit! It's just as well you went ahead and finished, because it's likely be the last shopping trip you will ever make! For the rest of his life he will require round the clock care. And he will now be your responsibility!'
The woman felt so guilty she broke down and cried.
The lady doctor then laughed and said, 'I'm just pulling your leg. He's dead. Show me what you bought.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I like that one. Its twisted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | Umm... All hail king Barry? | | BoneSoft | 10hrs 15mins ago |
|
|
H. J. Res. 5: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second amendment[^], thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
You've got to be f@#kin kidding me... What the hell is happening?  We're taking our ques from Hugo now? Why has the news not reported anything about this one?
More talk on fairness Doctrine[^], census control, giant big fat "stimulus" bill to pay for God knows what, and now this. What's next?
Rep. José Serrano is a notorious Castro, Chavez, and other commies supporter. Apparently this guy does this every session starting in 1999 and refiles every time Congress enters a new session.
Put on the table by a complete nut bag, but with a Congress full of nut bags, nothing would surprise me.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BoneSoft wrote: H. J. Res. 5: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second amendment[^], thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
You've got to be f@#kin kidding me... What the hell is happening? Confused We're taking our ques from Hugo now? Why has the news not reported anything about this one?
Do you spend all day long hiding under your bed cowering in fear? The fact that someone, somewhere is proposing something you don't like means that the world is going to hell? I guess, on that basis, it goes to hell every week and has been doing so for thousands of years.
Get some perspective.
Some points:
1. Any amendment to the Constitution is difficult to achieve and there is no reason to predict that this one will succeed.
2. The US did not have Presidential term limits up until the 22nd amendment was ratified in 1951. Does that mean the US was a dictatorship up until 1951?
Like I said, get some perspective.
John Carson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Carson wrote: 2. The US did not have Presidential term limits up until the 22nd amendment was ratified in 1951. Does that mean the US was a dictatorship up until 1951?
No, but we were clearly vunerable as FDR proved, which was the motivation for the original amendment. All previous presidents had voluntariy followed Washington's example - turn down the crown, and go back home after two terms.
Oh, and btw, f*** your perspective.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stan Shannon wrote: No, but we were clearly vunerable as FDR proved, which was the motivation for the original amendment.
Vulnerable to someone having a third term? Yes. But that is not the same thing as vulnerable to becoming a dictatorship. FDR only got a third term because the voters elected him.
John Carson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Carson wrote: But that is not the same thing as vulnerable to becoming a dictatorship.
Tell that to the Weimar Republic.
John Carson wrote: FDR only got a third term because the voters elected him.
Apparently, after yesterday's change in term limits, the same will soon be said of Hugo Chavez.
Hasn't been long since they changed the term limits in Russia, either, alowing Vlad the Impaler Putin to seek another third term. You may remember that the former secret policeman at first declared that his would be a "dictatorship of the law," but has now decreed that it is a 'managed democracy."
Jon
Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oakman wrote: Tell that to the Weimar Republic.
Clearly the US today is a carbon copy.
Oakman wrote: Apparently, after yesterday's change in term limits, the same will soon be said of Hugo Chavez.
And the US is apparently a carbon copy of Venezuela too.
In other alarming news, New York has abolished term limits for mayor. Clearly a dictatorship is on the way there too.
Even more alarming is the fact that 13 States in the US currently have no term limits of any sort for Governor and thus have been dictatorships for some time, including Texas I'm sorry to say.
John Carson
modified on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oakman wrote: Tell that to the Weimar Republic.
Oh come on! The UK has no limitaiton on the number of terms a PM can serve. In fact, limiting it is actually UN democratic since it FORBIDS people voting for who they want.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Carson wrote: But that is not the same thing as vulnerable to becoming a dictatorship.
Anyone who can stay in power as long as he likes by buying off groups of voters is a dictator, democracy or no democracy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stan Shannon wrote: Anyone who can stay in power as long as he likes by buying off groups of voters is a dictator, democracy or no democracy.
What does that have to do with an absence of term limits? There is competition for office. If one candidate for president can "buy off groups of voters", then so can rivals for the position. Noone can "stay in power as long as he likes" merely because of the absence of term limits.
John Carson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Carson wrote: Noone can "stay in power as long as he likes" merely because of the absence of term limits.
Not merely. It takes extra effort - controlling the census, flooding a society with emigrants who you are certain will vote for you once naturalized. You know, things like that...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stan Shannon wrote: Not merely. It takes extra effort - controlling the census, flooding a society with emigrants who you are certain will vote for you once naturalized. You know, things like that...
Even taking this at face value, what does it have to do with term limits? Would a succession of Democratic presidents be hugely different from one president that kept getting re-elected? And would not the Democratic party itself likely choose to change its nominee after a few terms?
I think the census thing is way overblown.
The migrant thing is more politically significant; changing demography is producing a shift in US politics (though migrants are not "certain" to vote Democrat). However, it is paranoia to regard it as a Democratic plot. There are powerful economic forces behind the migration flow and business is among its strongest supporters. The Republicans under Bush did nothing effective to change the situation.
John Carson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, did you mistake my agitation for fear? I'm not affraid, I'm angry. No matter what comes this way, the only thing I fear is whether or not my child will have a country to live in, or at least some safe place to live free. How old are you? How much stake do you have left in this world? I don't normally begrudge any foreigners opinion of my country and it's comings and goings. But I'm developing a healthy distaste for your constant dismissal of the concern many of us have for what's being done to our country. Maybe you should get some perspective and take a more passive role in these discussions.
John Carson wrote: The fact that someone, somewhere is proposing something you don't like means that the world is going to hell?
Someone somewhere? A member of Congress whose able to put anything on the table for a vote is hardly someone somewhere. And did I say it was going to hell? It is, but as usual you're getting ahead of yourself.
John Carson wrote: 1. Any amendment to the Constitution is difficult to achieve and there is no reason to predict that this one will succeed.
2. The US did not have Presidential term limits up until the 22nd amendment was ratified in 1951. Does that mean the US was a dictatorship up until 1951?
Thanks for the history lesson, but it's not needed. If ever this kind of play had a chance of coming to pass, it's now. I don't know that they'll try to seize on it, as I said, this idiot does this every session. But they've been stacking everything else toward a perpetual majority play, why wouldn't they add this to their plan? You assume, as usual, that I'm jumping up and down with my hair on fire. Think of this more as a warning, to reserve the right to say I told ya so.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BoneSoft wrote: Someone somewhere? A member of Congress whose able to put anything on the table for a vote is hardly someone somewhere.
1 person out of 435 members of the House of Representatives. Why, that is practically a majority!! And getting a 2/3 majority in both houses plus three quarters of the states to agree to the proposal is going to be a piece of cake.
BoneSoft wrote: But they've been stacking everything else toward a perpetual majority play, why wouldn't they add this to their plan?
The question is based on a false premise. They have done nothing else toward a perpetual majority.
And, like I said, abolishing term limits only means that Presidents have a chance to be re-elected. Term limits are no big deal either way. (It is a pity George Bush didn't have the chance to run for a third term; that would have been fun to watch.)
John Carson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Carson wrote: 1 person out of 435 members of the House of Representatives. Why, that is practically a majority!!
I know, you think you're cute. I don't want to get in the way of that, but the fact that it can come up for vote is scarey even if it is shot down every time. We'll see how many votes it gets this time.
John Carson wrote: The question is based on a false premise. They have done nothing else toward a perpetual majority.
Yeah, nothing except talking about fairness doctrine (or similar measure) and census control.
John Carson wrote: It is a pity George Bush didn't have the chance to run for a third term;
It sure is. He'd have been a much stronger candidate than McCain. At the very least it would have been much tighter than Obama's 52% (or was it 54%, I forget) "mandate".
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BoneSoft wrote: I know, you think you're cute. I don't want to get in the way of that, but the fact that it can come up for vote is scarey even if it is shot down every time.
What happened to: "Ah, did you mistake my agitation for fear?" I see that my original reaction to your remarks was entirely appropriate.
BoneSoft wrote: Yeah, nothing except talking about fairness doctrine (or similar measure) and census control.
Minor ripples in a pond. I can't see the fairness doctrine happening but it is worth noting that Nixon and Reagan were both elected with it in place.
BoneSoft wrote: He'd have been a much stronger candidate than McCain. At the very least it would have been much tighter than Obama's 52% (or was it 54%, I forget) "mandate".
It would have been a massacre.
John Carson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Carson wrote: my ... reaction ... was entirely appropriate.
To date, that's never been the case. Scary for the country. Don't waste your time, I'm pretty sure I don't have enough nits that require your picking.
John Carson wrote: I can't see the fairness doctrine happening
Nope and it won't. But they're already thinking up work arounds, like "localization", which will be just about as effective. And it doesn't even really matter if it works or not. They are trying to find ways to censor free speach to silence the opposition, pure and simple. And that can't be excused or tolerated in this country. Especially on that scale by a major party.
John Carson wrote: It would have been a massacre.
Nah, I'm sure Barry could have taken at least 40%.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Margaret Thatcher Ruled for 11 years and three terms, and NEVER lost a vote, not one, ever!
------------------------------------
"Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."
Dr Samuel Johnson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: Dear Margaret Thatcher Ruled for 11 years and three terms, and NEVER lost a vote, not one, ever!
Not sure what point you are making.
John Carson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And, remember, the white house has just given itself control of the census. They can now create all the voting blocks they like with a little creative book keeping. No term limits, and manufactured majorities, overt surpression of free speech. But, hey, at least we are free of that Bush guy - he was wire tapping our phones you know...
Wow. This working out better than even I expected.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me about it. I expected him to enact a bunch of socialist programs that would take generations to fix, but I didn't expect it to be a roller coaster ride quite like this. It's barely been a month and he's already got funding for everything.
And on top of all that... Bush spent all his time dealing with the external, to the detriment of domestic issues. I'm wondering if Uhbama is going to be the opposite. And the outside world is coming unhindged.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BoneSoft wrote: More talk on fairness Doctrine
Gotta ask, since i haven't paid much attention... what's the big hullabaloo over this? I mean, apart from the heavy hand of Gov't intruding into the broadcast market angle, since the FCC already does that (obscenity fines, etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
News 
Question 
Answer 
Rant 
Admin