DeathscytheX

I liked the 4 month payroll tax holiday idea better.

Get your lazy ass up, and get to class on time! X'D Girls are always one step ahead... always..

The Law is whack like that. Like I said, you can say it, and people can see it. But unless the cops come and snatch your crops, you cannot get into any legal trouble for it. You want him to go to jail, when the average person wouldn't for the same exact situation. Where is the balance view on that? No proof he brought it, No proof he distributed it. Just a picture and an admission to using. I could walk into the police station with a picture of me with a bong and say that I smoked pot, and the worse that would happen to me is they'd kick me out.

The reason I brought up the French loss at the relay is because that is the topic I remember you started downing on the US during the Olympics. I know I don't have to cheer for my team to be patriotic. Its my country, why would I cheer for anyone else? I support them because in America, people are Olympic athletes because they choose to be, not because they were forced to be, like some other nations. Hell, people cheated because they chose to cheat, not because they were forced to cheat like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. It didn't even cross my mind that someone cheated to break a new record or win a medal regardless what nation they were from. I don't believe Team China might have used girls that were under the age limit in gymnastics. Innocent until Proven Guilty. Thats how I roll.

Meh, You can't put much into anything a girl does. They'll always keep you guessing and you'll never figure them out. Just say hello to her. See what you get from that.

Obviously I was talking about the pot.

------------------------------

Phelps admitted and apologized for it and the picture to prove it to the public. They have a good case I'm sure if he is charged. You can claim that he was just posing for the picture if you like but the fact is he smoked pot and told the entire world that he did. Can the average Joe has that kind of luxury? No way.

--------------------------

So they were using "sarcasm" that pot was a stimulant drug? Lol. I'll go along with that as silly as that sound. They said strider said it so.

That's exactly what I've said. You are the only one with the problem with what I've actually said. I don't mind them disagreeing w/me but them twisting my words wasn't gonna cut it.

-------------------------

LOL I was gonna ask you about the samething. I don't understand your love for Phelps, including other people here. If he was an average Joe, no one would care, except I hate people who drink and drive without thinking consequences like ending up killing someone and then commit more crimes as "minor" as smoking pot with college students. Will you still defend that average Joe? Why the star-struck? What did he do for you personally and what does the US beating France has anything to do with me? Is it surprising for me that many American atheletes cheat and concluding that Phelps might have or did cheat because of his resume of DUI and smoking pot? It's only logical to be suspicious and thinking so. What is illogical is your thinking that "he will never be positive (for drugs)" just because he is famous. He deserves to go to jail for the slap on the wrist for his DUI charge for one and smoking pot and getting caught. People like you and me go to jail for this without mercy.

Talk about "twisting words" I really don't have much love for Phelps. He was a person of the moment. I cheered for anyone that performed for the USA. I actually support my country unlike many people that live here. It seems unheard of these days.

Yes that's exactly what they were using sarcasm to do. I never twisted your words, you have a disconnected association. Getting high and cheating in a sport are two different things. Its basically the same as me accusing the 103 lbs guy of juicing because he has a joint in his mouth, or accusing A-Rod of being a pot head because he did roids. Have people done them both? Probably. But you have no proof he has done such. They are two differen't drugs, one which has no physical addiction. Druggies do other drugs to find new highs, none of these people do HGH for a high, because it won't give them one. If Phelps used HGH it would have little to do with him smoking weed.

I guess its impossible for anyone do win 8 gold medals without cheating. Public preception had been marred by this. If anyone does good they are obviously cheating. I didn't give half the props to Phelps that you gave in negativity to the US. Yes American athletes have cheated. So have other nations, and they all still do it just as much. It would be pretty naive to disagree.

Maybe you misunderstand the justice system. I'm not defending him, I'm just stating reality. A picture of anyone smoking pot is not a case. 4,000 pictures of someone smoking pot is not a case. Why? You can't prove its actually pot. Why do you think people post pictures of themselves all over the net with their bongs. The only thing a picture gives you is maybe a warrant to search his place. You can't arrest someone because there is a picture of them smoking pot, just like you don't get arrested for failing a pee test for a job. You can say you smoked pot... you cant be arrested for that either. Why? Because you have to possess it or be caught in the act of selling it. On top of that, small possession rarely warrants jail time. Unless you are a drug trafficer, you'll get probation, community service, and might have to attend some classes upon your first offense. I'm not talking about Phelps, I'm talking about normal every day people. The law varies by state, but for a first offense they are pretty much the same.

Lastly, They said nothing. Eppy typoed Strider's name, and then corrected it after I poked fun at him about it. If you still don't believe me that's fine. I have no intentions of twisting your words my friend.

EDIT: On a personal note. I drink, and have almost had a DUI. I've never smoked any type of plant or substance in my life, nor will I ever. Along with HGH and Weed. Alcohol is something entirely different. It doesn't lead to anything else but maybe Alcoholism and Consumption... It also prevents heart disease and stroke. X'D Despite what people may believe, Drinking does not lead to smoking, and vice versa.

the law is the law, we cant decide what ones we follow and not and not expect a recoil.

pot is illegal, reguardless of peoples personal view on it.

im with slippers. kellogs should drop his ass.

i would not buy my kid something thats spokesman / mascot what ever isnt a perfect role model to the n'th degree

Kellogs dropped him before this topic was ever created....

They didn't go to jail because they used. They went to jail because they lied under oath. You can't go to jail for using HGH because it isn't illegal outside of competitive sports. If you're talking about the weed, he has to be caught with possession, a picture isn't enough even for the common joe blow.

No one is saying you said Pot was a stimulant, its the fact that you are saying just because he smokes pot, he obviously uses performance enhancing drugs. I will quote it for you if you wish.

I really don't understand your bitterness towards Phelps which you have displayed since the US beat the French in the relay. Bringing up the Chinese death penalty is a bit extreme non the less. If Phelps is using a new simulate its unlikely he will be punished, the new "upgrade" won't be on the list of banned substances, meaning by the book he didn't cheat. All they will be able to do is add it to the list. That's why Mark McGuire never got in trouble, HGH wasn't illegal when he broke the home run record.

Seriously, that's why I mentioned Marion Jones, who used STEROIDS that took years to detect. I guess you guys don't even know who she is. 5 other American Olympians were caught in 2008 and stripped of their 2004 medals and I guess that's just a myth too. Show me where I said pot is a performance drug, please. It doesn't take YEARS to get caught. If Phelps don't have self control, he'll take anything to either enjoy or win to cheat and I'm sure he has. Why not allow alcohol to Olympians while they compete so they can relax from the stress since it doesn't help the performance either.

Anyway, never come between pot users and their celebrities I'd say. Pfft.

Just because a dude smoked pot doesn't mean he juiced up on roids. Everyone is picking at you because of you terrible association of the two. When Marion Jones did it, testing was not what it was today, and HGH was relatively unknown. This is when the Baseball fiasco was happening as well.

Testing is highly advanced today, and it does not take years to find out. It days a day if that long. Every simmer was tested every day and before every EVENT. He isn't some clever smuggler that stuffed roids in his shoe like a terrorits. He never tested positive and he never will. bank on it.

If you are so concerned about the fairness of the Olympics we might as well force everyone to give their medals back from 1950 to the earily 80s, because they were all using steroids, especially in the 70s.

weed....helps you perform Olympic level sports eh strider?...but yeah its blown way out of proportion...media is jsut having a dry spell

huh?

LOL. Man you're over analyzing everything. Relax. Don't make an annoyed face. Grin, hell throw in a playful wink and just go back to what you were looking at, whether it is a paper on the table, or the instructor talking. See how she reacts to that. If she's not interested things will probably go about as usual, if she is, she may come and talk to you if you keep it up.

Making an annoyed face is gonna give her the impression you're disgusted with her.

Phelps is like: Like Louie Armstrong played the trumpet, I'll hit that bong and break ya off something soooon, first I gotta get my props, cops come and try to snatch my crops!

If you are worried about smelling

Axe is man's best friend. These silver cans are more subtle than the original scents, but Bergamont is really the only fragrance worth a damn out of the 3.

Touch, Vice, and Dark Temptation are good original fragrances too. I've gotten complements from using them several times.

Sometimes my friend, you just gotta look dumb for a girl. LOL

If she sits in front of you and makes an effort to turn around to look your way, just look back at her. Don't look away. Give her a grin or something. Don't stare her down or anything, just a small grin and go back to whatever you were focusing on. Looking away is a signal that you were watching her and now you are caught! You have to take command of the situation and look her dead in the eye. Make her be the one that looks away. DOMINANCE is the key good sir. Non-verbal communication is subtly a huge factor in attraction.

7. Whiskey works better. Especially Southern Comfort 100 proof.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=52578

X'D

You may be thinking too much. Just talk to her. Maybe she is trying to get your attention, maybe its nothing.

Girls play mind games, you cant really put much into anything they do. On the same note, very few women are aggressive if they are interested in someone. I assume you find her attractive and are somewhat infatuated with her? At the very least just say hey to her when you see her. If you haven't spoken to each other that's the best way to start things up.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/022009/02042009/443686?rss=local

--A bill to double the tax on cigarettes failed in a Senate committee yesterday, leaving budget-writers scrambling to make up another $147 million hole in their state budget.

The Senate Finance Committee voted 8-8 on the bill, and under the rules, a tie vote means a bill fails to pass. All the Republicans and one Democrat--Sen. Roscoe Reynolds--voted against the bill, while all the Democrats except Reynolds voted for it.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Janet Howell, D-Fairfax, would have increased the tax on cigarettes from 30 cents a pack to 60 cents a pack.

It was part of a proposal from Gov. Tim Kaine, who wanted to raise the cigarette tax to help mitigate budget cuts to Medicaid.

Kaine had said that expenditures for smoking-related illnesses cost Medicaid far more than cigarette taxes brought in, and that raising the tax would help limit cuts to Medicaid in a year when nearly every state service and program is being cut to help cover a $3 billion budget shortfall.

Lawmakers in both houses are due to present their own versions of the state budget this Sunday. The House had already rejected Kaine's cigarette tax proposal. But senators have only a few days to rewrite the health care portion of the budget without the tax money.

"We just made a horrible situation worse," said Sen. Edd Houck, D-Spotsylvania, after the vote.

Houck is one of the senators who are writing that portion of the budget.

"This creates a terrible hole in funding for the health safety net. This is a major setback," he added. "It's tragic that the tobacco interests superseded the interests of health."

In the next few days Houck and other budget writers will have to find other cuts to make up the roughly $150 million the cigarette tax increase would have brought.

"We're going to have to get the sharp knife out and start cutting more, which is really difficult," Houck said. "It's going to be very difficult to find that amount of money anywhere else in the budget."

Houck said it was clear to him that those senators who voted against the bill are "beholden to the tobacco industry." Several tobacco lobbyists spoke against the bill.

The Republicans who voted against the bill gave different reasons during debate before the vote.

Several of them objected to a recently-added provision in Howell's bill that directed some of the cigarette tax money toward mental health services and facilities. She said she wasn't sure how they would keep those services without the tobacco tax money--a linkage that Republicans disliked.

"I'd like to be able to support mental health without having to support a tobacco tax," said Sen. Ken Stolle, R-Virginia Beach. "It really makes me feel uncomfortable to have people come up and testify in front of the committee on mental health issues to support a cigarette tax because we cleverly tie mental health services into the cigarette tax package. Let's just vote it up or down on the merits of the cig tax."

Sen. Tommy Norment, R-Williamsburg, said the bill had "taken a metamorphosis originally the public advocacy on the tobacco tax was to backfill some Medicare reimbursements."

Sen. John Watkins, R-Chesterfield, also took issue with the idea of taxing one cause of poor health without taxing others

"There's probably some legitimacy with that correlation, but it's not limited to this one product line by any means. Have we added anything recently to alcohol, to beer and wine, to distilled spirits?" Watkins asked. "Because certainly there's a corollary affect that goes on there in terms of health care. How about fast food? Maybe we ought to have a tax on fast food so that could be tied to health care."

Sen. Dick Saslaw, D-Fairfax, who voted for the bill, countered that he's not affected by someone else's Big Mac the way he is by secondhand smoke.

Supporters of the bill said the money is critical to help keep funding health care in the current recession. Howell and Houck both said health care jobs could be lost if Medicaid must endure further cuts.

"If we do not pass this bill we will put at imminent risk about 11,000 health care jobs," Howell said. "Disbanding our health care system should not be an option."

Before the committee voted, Houck characterized the tax bill as a vote for jobs.

"This vote is about jobs, jobs in the health care industry. And we simply cannot protect the jobs without this funding," Houck said. "And the jobs equal services to the clients. You don't get health care without health care workers."

http://www.space.com/news/090204-obama-space-weapons-response.html

WASHINGTON - U.S. President Barack Obama's recent pledge to seek a ban on space weapons drew a mixed reaction from experts in the field, with some saying the president might be better off pursuing something more modest and less complex, such as a set of international rules governing space operations.

Arms control advocates nonetheless applauded the statement as a welcome departure from the space policy stance of former President George W. Bush, who rejected the notion of banning or limiting space weapons via treaty arrangements.

"The Bush administration rejected space diplomacy," said Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a think tank here. "We refused to negotiate on any subject that could limit U.S. military options. We have a shift from an administration that was very dismissive of multilateral negotiations [as a whole], to an administration that is open to that possibility if it improves U.S. national security."

Soon after Obama was sworn in Jan. 20, the official White House Web site was updated with a set of policy guidelines including one on restoring U.S. leadership in space. Under the heading "Ensure Freedom of Space," the statement said the White House would seek a ban on weapons that "interfere with military and commercial satellites"; assess possible threats to U.S. space assets and the best military and diplomatic means for countering them; and seek to assure U.S. access to space-based capabilities, in part by "accelerating programs to harden U.S. satellites against attack."

Obama's campaign in 2008 outlined similar goals, saying an Obama administration would oppose putting weapons in space, seek rules of behavior for spacefaring nations and reduce the vulnerability of U.S. space capabilities.

The Bush administration generally opposed international accords that might tie the nation's hands in space. The National Space Policy issued by the Bush White House in 2006 states in part that the "United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space."

Meanwhile, the Pentagon during the past few years carried out or planned a number of experiments that critics charged were thinly veiled tests of space-based weapons. Early last year, with then-President Bush's approval, the Pentagon downed a wayward U.S. spy satellite using a sea-based missile interceptor.

Experts generally agreed that Obama's statement signals a new direction in space diplomacy, but some said it does not carry much meaning in the absence of key details, beginning with a good definition of the term space weapon. Coming up with such a definition is complicated by the fact that any number of conventional military and even commercial capabilities can be used to disrupt or damage satellites.

"Obama is delivering on his promise of more cooperation," said retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. James Armor, former head of the Pentagon's National Security Space Office. "I like the idea of working together more with our allies, but verification of [a ban on space weapons] is very difficult. If you can't verify something, it makes it difficult to build a treaty."

Armor said Obama's statement could have implications for counterspace operations, which is military parlance for the ability to either disrupt or protect space capabilities. "My sense is this may make it a little harder to do counterspace programs, but we weren't doing much of any offensive counterspace," he said. "Most of the Air Force's efforts are in space situational awareness and defensive counterspace."

Theresa Hitchens, director of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research and a longtime opponent of weapons in space, applauded the White House statement but said that given the difficulty of coming up with an acceptable definition of space weaponry, a better approach would be to seek a ban on certain behaviors.

"I would say this is good starting language," Hitchens said in an interview. "... The problem is most space technologies have multiple uses, so the approach that should be taken needs to look at actions rather than capabilities. For example, a number of nations use lasers to track satellites, but lasers could also be used to attack satellites in space. So we should focus on outcomes rather than trying to ban certain classes of technology."

John Sheldon, a fellow at the George C. Marshall Institute here, said arms control agreements are fundamentally flawed and likely to break down at the exact moment they are needed. He said the United States would do more to protect space security by taking the lead in pressing for informal rules of operation like those used by commercial satellite operators around the world.

"We need to agree on a set of normative practices that will turn into a customary law like we now have on the high seas," Sheldon said. "Most countries obey the law of the sea based only on centuries of customary practice."

With all these rich senators not paying their taxes, I wouldn't be surprised. The sad thing is, Bush gave these rich fucks big tax cuts, and they don't even pay their taxes. Even with the cuts, they are so rich they still have to pay more taxes than all of America. No wonder we're so much in debt, maybe the fed wouldn't have to print so much if people paid their taxes.

According to all the conspiracy theorists that correctly predicted the September stock market collapse also predicted the complete collapse of the US financial system for this Friday. I guess we'll find out eh?

Baroness indeed!

79tMMFja-Fw&e

They were pretty young. This is suppose to be their very first mission. I think the original series stated something about a five year mission in the intro. It could be that mission or it could be something they did before hand.

Ymachw0ORFk

zNTj_WPDqYM