DrinknChickn

Douglasville, GA

#10522 May 11, 2013
Ok Bill. You can stop watching that video now.

Really Bill - you're on the 4th time already.

http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy229/rc1/...
DrinknChickn

Douglasville, GA

#10523 May 11, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>She seems like one of them freaky librarians.
Aggie?
OMTE

Fitzgerald, GA

#10524 May 11, 2013
DrinknChickn wrote:
Ok Bill. You can stop watching that video now.
Really Bill - you're on the 4th time already.
http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy229/rc1/...
I better quit watching it too.
OMTE

Fitzgerald, GA

#10525 May 11, 2013
DrinknChickn wrote:
<quoted text>
Aggie?
Yeah.
Stophating

Alma, GA

#10526 May 11, 2013
Who won the US Senate seat for Georgia in 2010?
OMTE

Fitzgerald, GA

#10527 May 11, 2013
Stophating wrote:
Who won the US Senate seat for Georgia in 2010?
Are you a blonde chick???

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#10528 May 11, 2013
DrinknChickn wrote:
Here's a chance to do some interesting science.
<quoted text>
In front of Aggies Nose --->>>>
Fact ----->>>> ABC News reported that the CIA's first drafts did say the attack appeared to be "spontaneously inspired" by the protests at the embassy in Cairo."
Will she acknowledge it?
And I will repeat (sorry, Bill)- and just how does that explain the next 12 revisions?

ABC Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/...

Will you acknowledge that? Doubt it - too full of truth and facts.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#10529 May 11, 2013
Ugh, nevermind - you on the Left keep living in your own little dream world where everything was all sweetness and light until the big bad guy in California made a mean video about that prophet of love and got all those poor little people so mad and upset they just had to go kill some people.

Post away, I'm done with this, we'll just wait to see what shoe falls next week.
DrinknChickn

Douglasville, GA

#10530 May 11, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I will repeat (sorry, Bill)- and just how does that explain the next 12 revisions?
ABC Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference
When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/...
Will you acknowledge that? Doubt it - too full of truth and facts.
So what? They worked on the wording of their presentation. That isn't a big deal.

I'd be much more concerned if a POTUS wasn't careful about what he chose to present and how he chose to word it.

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x62/DFW_ph...
formerresident

Decatur, GA

#10531 May 11, 2013
The first draft? You folks have created a royal mess, that takes volumes and volumes of education, but the core fundamental is that Americans have rights to live free of government harm, and trust our paper, and experts, what we watch and what we are told when we purchase brand new, and own our homes free of debt, having paid them off.

The rest... good luck to all of us! The spirit of the law. Money is good, but not worth it if liberty, freedom, and human rights disappear, in the process.

You may think it only about money, shareholders, but it is not. Our country is more then that. I hope.
Stophating

Alma, GA

#10532 May 11, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>Are you a blonde chick???
Who did you support for U.S. Senate Georgia 3 years ago?
Informed Opinion

North Fort Myers, FL

#10533 May 11, 2013
Let's see.

We are bombing a sovereign nation.

That sovereign nation seems to object to being bombed.

Now, this is interesting - if our CIA can bomb them - can they're CIA also bomb us ?

If our CIA can kidnap, torture and assassinate their citizens in their country - can their CIA kidnap, torture and assassinate our citizens in our country ?

Understanding we are "exceptional" and always "right", if one is intellectually honest and rational, what are the answers to those questions ?

Pakistan's highest court rules U.S. drone strikes illegal
NATASHA LENNARD | May 09, 2013 04:46 PM

The highest court in Pakistan ruled Thursday that U.S. drone strikes are illegal.

The Peshawar High Court advised the Pakistani government to move a resolution against the attacks in the United Nations, the U.K.'s Independent newspaper reported.

The ruling bolsters recent claims made by U.N. human rights expert Ben Emmerson Q.C., following a visit to Pakistan, that authorities in the country gave no consent, tacit or otherwise, for the CIA strikes to be carried out in its tribal regions.

... The high court's decision Thursday declared that the drone strikes court must be declared a war crime as they killed innocent people.

In March of this year, the Pakistani government said that "at least 400" have been killed by drone strikes in the country. The British Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates a similar figure.

The Independent reported on Thursday's Peshawar High Court ruling, which human rights advocates are celebrating as a landmark:

Chief Justice Dost Muhammad Khan, who headed a two-judge bench that heard the petitions, ruled the drone strikes were illegal, inhumane and a violation of the U.N. charter on human rights.

The court said the strikes must be declared a War Crime as they killed innocent people.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#10534 May 11, 2013
DrinknChickn wrote:
<quoted text>
Everybody take a shot! He said "clueless and uneducated"!
Alright, finally, a decent post from this poster. I'll buy the first round (OK, maybe 2) if everyone meets up. Say when and where...
Informed Opinion

North Fort Myers, FL

#10535 May 11, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>If you have a complaint with the number of unnecessary tests that doctors order, blame the trial lawyers. Doctors admit to ordering many tests that they do not feel are warranted out of fear of lawsuits. If something comes up that a NON- indicated test could have shown - it doesn't matter that there was no reason to order the test, the trial lawyer will argue that "if only Dr X had ordered this test" and the jury will buy it.
What a load of crap.

Because every state has protected doctors with highly biased legislation, most attorneys won't come within a mile of a malpractice claim.

That's why over 90,000 Americans a year die from preventable medical negligence.

Hopefully, you'll never have to learn that when someone you love is damaged or killed through medical negligence. If it happens, your attitude will change - it always does.

By the way- medical malpractice insurance costs account for less than 1% of health care costs - yep- less than 1%.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#10536 May 11, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of crap.
... most attorneys won't come within a mile of a malpractice claim.
...
Complete and utter BS, uttered (posted) by someone that doesn't know what they're talking about. Not surprised.

Been there and done that...
Informed Opinion

North Fort Myers, FL

#10537 May 11, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
Below is a very interesting article discussing the Super-Majority requirements in the U.S. Senate. It was written by Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley.

It's well worth a read in the interest of general knowledge.

By Jeff Merkley,November 04, 2011

My colleague Sen. Ron Johnson recently argued on these pages that a supermajority voting requirement in the Senate is part of our Founding Fathers’ constitutional design and that recent efforts to change it are driving the “bankrupting of America”[“A simple majority is not enough,” op-ed, Oct. 23].

I take a different view.

At no time did our Founders envision that the Senate would require a supermajority to pass legislation. Indeed, the Constitution requires a supermajority only for very limited purposes, including the ratification of treaties and the override of a presidential veto.

Nor did the early Senate adopt any supermajority requirements by rule. Senators extended the courtesy of extensive debate as a basic principle of deliberation, but they passed all legislation by simple majorities.

While some were tempted to talk a bill to death by not agreeing to a final vote, this temptation was moderated by working relations — historically, the Senate had many fewer members than it does today — a deep commitment to the principle of majority rule, and the prospect that if individuals were to abuse the process, the Senate could respond by adopting a rule change with a simple majority.

Many Founders saw the possibility of a supermajority requirement for passing bills as destructive, inappropriately subjugating the wisdom of the many to the wisdom of the few. Alexander Hamilton observed in the Federalist papers that a supermajority requirement has a “tendency to embarrass the operations of government” and would generate “tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.” This characterization matches how many Americans perceive the Senate today.

ARTICLE CONTINUED AT: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-11-04...
What with the distribution of senators by state, the use if a supermajority allows a very small Right Wing Wacko minority, to stop all action in the senate.

I expect that from the RWWs.

What is annoying is Harry Reid and the majority, roll over every time a RWW senator even claims he' "filibuster" legislation.

I think it's a great game. RWW Senate Republicans claim they'll filibuster almost every bill proposed, and Senate Democrats pretend they are powerless to overcome the filibuster.

Kind if like the AFC and the NFC pretending anything matters but the NFL making money.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#10538 May 11, 2013
Although, that being said, I guess one would have to define what "most attorneys" means...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#10539 May 11, 2013
Here's a question, so many of you have such a problem with the salaries that successful business entrepreneurs earn. It doesn't seem to matter that most of them started from scratch and risked their own money to start a business that succeeded (when so many of them fail and lose everything they invested) and so they were able to expand and hire more employees - thus enabling those people to earn a living and support their families. Those employees would then advance through the company, achieving higher earnings as they went. Expand, hire more people and on and on.

Physicians go through many years of schooling before they ever see a decent paycheck. Four years of college, followed by four years of medical school followed by 3-6 years of residency and possibly 1-2 more years of fellowship training. So they are anywhere from 12 -16 years of training before getting their first "real" job and they are facing the joy of paying back college and medical school loans as well. And different specialties earn very different salaries.

So while you are complaining about the businessman and the physician, where is your anger at the Hollywood elite who demand millions to work a few months on a film - thus driving up the costs of movie tickets. Try taking a family of 5 to the movies and letting the kids get something as basic as a drink and popcorn and maybe split some candy. It could easily set them back $70-$80 dollars - just to go to a movie. Let's look at what some actors pulled in from May 2011- May 2012 - that's one year, folks.
Tom Cruise -$75 million
Leonardo DiCaprio and Adam Sandler -$37 million
Kristen Stewart -$34.5 million

And then we have our professional athletes who demand multimillion dollar a year contracts - what do you think that does to the price of a sports ticket. Anybody tried to take that same family of 5 to a game recently? I went on the Braves website and a seat in the nose bleed section of Right Field cost a lovely $47 - that's for ONE ticket.

But somehow when the Left is harping on about how unfair it is that presidents of companies or some doctors make what are admittedly some very nice incomes, no one is talking about the actors who make multimillions for pretending and athletes who make multimillions for playing a children's game.

Anybody else see selective outrage at work??
danger zone

Decatur, GA

#10540 May 11, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
Spooky!
I made a post awhile ago revealing the location of the 2013
B*i*l*d*e*r*b*u*r*g Group Meeting.
It was yanked off of here in minutes. That's just creepy.


Interesting. The Bohemian Grove is a California camp where powerful politicians & elite gather most every summer. I've read several articles about it. They're able to go there & let loose without being exposed. Gated and guarded.
Informed Opinion

North Fort Myers, FL

#10541 May 11, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
Are all of you familiar with teh B*i*l*d*e*r*b*e*r*g Group?

They're meeting j%u%n%e Sixth through Eighth this year at W%a%t%f%o%r%d UK at the lovely G%r%o%v%e Hotel which as a beautiful place.

My lights flickered while I was writing this. No kidding.

I'm turning my router off. If you never hear from me again - well - your loss.:) You can't have my stuff.
Great post.

Bilderberg,
Trilateral Commission,
Council of Foreign Relations,
North American Union,

Anytime the richest and most powerful people in the world meet secretly,
I am sure they have only the best interests of the working man at heart.

Yea - right.

What's depressing is that no political or financial power opposes them, the media actually works to maintain the secrecy, and we continue to vote their members into office.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jesup Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Savanna curtis security at walmart Dec 11 Justice 1
Looking for male CKC German Shepherd to breed w... Dec 10 redheadredneck1990 1
Buy Georgia White Dirt (Jan '13) Dec 6 Dirt lady 8
Anyone want a free dog? (Jan '12) Dec 1 slim 5
Halloween! Nov '14 Iceman1 2
Muslim Compound near Odum? (May '07) Nov '14 flygril 68
bill lane Nov '14 curious 3
Jesup Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Jesup People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Jesup News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Jesup

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:40 am PST

NBC Sports 6:40AM
Bortles: We showed the country who we are
NBC Sports 8:37 AM
Julio Jones not seen practicing on Friday
Bleacher Report 9:09 AM
Breaking Down Saints' Game Plan vs. Falcons
NFL10:25 AM
Injury roundup: Julio Jones questionable against Saints
NBC Sports 1:39 PM
Young Jaguars piecing together key building blocks - NBC Sports