Stixx3969
-
Posts
102 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Stixx3969
-
-
Once again, your actions and Matt's actions leading up to the Paszkiewicz issue speak for themselves. You have a history of getting into these Constitutional pissing matches because things aren't the way you want them to be.
At least someone is standing up for OUR constitution! It's obvious that our current administration is not up to the task of guarding our constitution so maybe it has to start at the local level.
-
Let me try to understand your proposal. You want me to play nice while the Kool-aid drinking, Loony Left Defeatocrats continue to make their Rectum Remarks without playing nice themselves ?? I'll get back to you on that.
I never said "play nice". It was merely a challange to see if you were capable of offering even one post with substance and an intelligent comment.
I guess I was wrong. You can't do it.
-
You're the liar. You're just as fanatical about your beliefs as any of the Christian "fundies" that you fear so much.
One shouldn't be surprised. When to pendulum swings too far one way you can be sure that it will swing back just as far in the opposite direction.
-
Bush continues to protect us. Yesterday he signed a bill which expands the NSA's ability to track phone calls and E-mails that originate outside of the U.S. without first getting a warrant. Nancy Pelosi, our patriotic Speaker of the House doesn't like the bill and has vowed to change it. I suppose she prefers that we don't bother terrorists that are trying to communicate with their cells in the U.S.
I think they need to investigate Pelosi, she may be part of a sleeper cell.
That's BS and you know it! They can still monitor anything they need to and have up to three days to obtain a warrant after the fact. They just don't want to bother with a pesky little warrant. Warrants are just a hassle. Who needs to mess with anything so trivial? I guess preserving our civil rights is just a needless hassle too?
-
Guest wrote:
What an incredibly ignorant and bigoted statement.
There are lots of secular charities.
For example;
-Doctors Without Borders
-the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Humane Society)
-the World Wildlife Fund
-UNESCO
-The Fred Hollows Foundation - http://www.hollows.org/
(This Foundation has worked in 29 countries and has restored sight to more than a million people
Even after he was diagnosed with cancer Fred continued with his work. He died 11 years ago. Fred was very outspoken on his atheist beliefs. His widow, Gabi Hollows took over the Foundation after his death.)-The public welfare system,
-Local hospitals
-National medical research centres
-Oxfam International
-UNICEF
-The National Cancer Council
-The Cancer research foundation
-The Red Cross
-Amnesty International
-Mama's Kitchen - http://www.mamaskitchen.org/
-United Way
-United Nations Children's Fund
-The Nature Conservancy
-MercyCorps
-America’s Second Harvest–(The Nation’s Food Bank Network feeds America's hungry through a nationwide network of member food banks and engages our country in the fight to end hunger.)
-Good Gifts - www.goodgifts.org
-The annual 'Blue Peter Appeal'
-CanTeen (the Australian organisation for children living with cancer)
-Make a Wish Foundation (Make-A-Wish Australia, is bringing joy to the lives of young people living with a life-threatening illness. )
-Barnardos Australia (caring for Australia's children)
-Scope (caring for those with disabilities)
This is just a sample of some non-religious charity groups. There are many more.
With the immense wealth that many churches possess, and the fact that their wealth is NOT TAXED, it is not surprising that religious organisations can afford to throw the poor and destitute a few scraps from their tables. Imagine how much more could be achieved if they had to pay taxes which could then be used to run far more impressive charitable programs than most of them currently run.
I was reading some statistics somewhere, which reported that the average church donates only a tiny portion of their income to charitable works.
According to some estimates, annual giving to U.S. protestant churches is $93 billion.
Holy cash cow! $93,000,000,000.00!
Unfortunately most of this money gets spent on administration costs and church building projects. How much of this money is spent on charitable works? Only a tiny fraction it seems.
So in the US, instead of building mega churches for a couple of years perhaps you could spend that money on stopping poverty, making sure that everyone in the world has enough food to eat. Perhaps you could do some real good around the world; maybe you could even try and be a bit more like Jesus.
Amen, Brother. You have managed to point out one of my biggest problems with organized religion. Hypocrisy.
-
You're both idiots.
The immaculate conception refers to Mary being conceived by her parents without original sin. In this way Mary was born without original sin. It has nothing directly to do with how Mary conceived Jesus.
If you can't even get your fairy tales right, how are we suppose to take you seriously on other subjects?
Excuse me for not being an expert on the bible, which is the greatest fairy tale of them all.
-
So, you think that all people come a site called "Kearny on the Web" to hear about the religious injustices that were performed on you and your family throughout the years? That is your own personal thing. Most of the posts here by you and your fellow band of cohorts have nothing to do with the town of Kearny. I do suggest that you take it to a site that does promote that kind of belief. As to being inconvenience, it does take time reading though all the garbage posted by you to get to what is happening in the Town of Kearny so that discredits your theory.
You are correct in that this is not Pleasantville, but it was you and your media circus that made it not be that way anymore. I did however take a long walk up the Avenue last night and was actually still proud to call this my town. And if this official that you are attacking can keep making me proud, then all the power to him.
You must be so proud of yourself calling your son "horrid". Those are not my words, but your exact quote. Even in jest I would never talk that way about my family. I am sure he has made such an impression on you like he has the rest of the people in Kearny.
Do you really think that you should be promoting your alcoholic vices out of here?
Yes, you are correct. Internet censorship and the reenactment of prohibition, that'll fix every thing.
-
While between finding out why I was tire and in pain all the time and getting disability, my ex was given the money we had put in his retirement ( Thrift Savings Plan) of which %50 was to go to me by federal and state law.
Unable to work, I spent 6 months living off my share of the retirement fund, so my dis and I could have a roof over our heads and food on the table. Thankfully the sliding scale health clinic felt that since it was money I receive due to my divorce, it wasn't income and only charge me for tests.
Today, I don't dare marry anyone, who can't afford to cover all of my medical expenses. If they are cover by medical insurance, I would have to go without much of the care I now get, due to the fact that Maryland hasn't cut out aptient coverage for mental illness to the point that I can't see a doctor once a month and get treated for my depression. I have better chance at winning the Lottery then being able to get off disability and become self supportive again.
I see that things here haven't change much, by the way. Enjoy flaming my mistakes in grammar and spelling. I may even come back to read them something in the next month, if I find myself bored again.
On the contrary. I hope that everything works out for you and your health gets better.
-
What is it with Darwiniacs that they cling to this rediculous notion that the uniqueness of fingerprints, irises, DNA, etc. is simply a result of chance. Every human that's ever lived on earth (4 billion ?) has had fingerprints, irises, DNA, etc. that were different from any other human that ever existed. The magnatude of this defies comprehension. Yet "Evolutionary Scientists" (Atheist Darwiniacs with a title) love to come up with theories explaining this while ignoring the truth (God
did it).
Just remember that as ridiculous as it all may sound to you, many people find the theories of Christianity to be just as much if not more ridiculous. Meanwhile neither can conclusively "prove" anything. So, Relax, it'll be ok.
-
I am ashamed. I'm ashamed of the defeatocrats who have encouraged and abetted the terrorists by criticizing our country, our military and our president.
I am sad. I'm sad for all our military who have died or been wounded because of the encouragement and terrorist morale boosting comments that have been made by the defeatocrats against our country, our president, our military strategies and policies and our president.
One can only imagine, if the defeatocrats had been in charge during WWII, when we lost over 3,000 dead during the invasion of Iwo Jima, or Okinawa where we lost an additional 3,000 dead, would we have cut and run and said "Roosevelt lied, our troops died" ??
Comparing WWII to Iraq is apples and oranges.
-
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”
Benedict also said the human race must listen to “the voice of the Earth” or risk destroying its very existence.
The pope is wrapping up a three-week private holiday in the majestic mountains of northern Italy, where residents are alarmed by the prospect of climate change that can alter their way of life.
“We all see that today man can destroy the foundation of his existence, his Earth,” he said in a closed door meeting with 400 priests on Tuesday. A full transcript of the two-hour event was issued on Wednesday.
“We cannot simply do what we want with this Earth of ours, with what has been entrusted to us,” said the pope, who has been spending his time reading and walking in the scenic landscape bordering Austria.
Our Earth is talking to us
World religions have shown a growing interest in the environment, particularly the ramifications of climate change.
The pope, leader of some 1.1 billion Roman Catholics worldwide, said: “We must respect the interior laws of creation, of this Earth, to learn these laws and obey them if we want to survive.”
“This obedience to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness ... than the desires of the moment. Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive,” he said.
Last April, the Vatican sponsored a scientific conference on climate change to underscore the role that religious leaders around the world could play in reminding people that willfully damaging the environment is sinful.
Unlike our wingnut members, I'll source my story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/
I gotta say, I respect the man for saying this. He's going to offend a lot of the hardliners.
Holy Crap! A rational response to evoltution by a Christain! There is hope!
-
I wonder if the Surgeon General warned the LoonyLeft about the dilusional effects of Kool-aid ??
Lemming.
-
My apologies. I wasn't aware of your charity work.
I should have called you "Saint" Dick!
Oops! Unintentional dual post.
-
I was aware of that.
I did separate the comment in response to the one thing from the response to the other, it seems to me.
The problem is that you are overgeneralizing.
It is illegal for medical providers to charge private pay patients less than what they charge insurance (though they're allowed to write off unpaid bills--which they must frequently do). It should be easy to figure out why that is.
Who is most likely to pay out of pocket? Rich people can underwrite their own risk. It's foolish for a rich person to purchase insurance unless he knows something the insurance company doesn't know (like he's ill with something so expensive he can't afford to pay for it out-of-pocket).
What does Willam suggest? Charging rich private-pay patients more than what poor private-pay patients are charged?
Is that supposed to be fair?
Despite a construction boom not seen in 50 years, hospitals reported an average 5.2 percent profit margin in 2004--the highest in six years--and 2005 margins are expected to be even higher, USA Today reported. According to the American Hospital Association, 25 percent of hospitals are in the red, down from about one-third in recent years.
http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care-soc...e/864653-1.html
If the profits are astronomical, then why is the profit margin so pedestrian?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=7...qkCAgl-5m0s7ZrQ
(show long-term average for businesses about 9%)
Yeah, basically.
The US has much better healthcare than people commonly believe. It costs more the same reason a lexus costs more, and the rest of it is because of government and legal tinkering.
In a thread a few weeks ago, Paul LaClair expressed his satisfaction over forcing patients to pay for tests they probably do not need except to provide liability protection for doctors. That's you paying more for medical care because lawyers like Paul want to make sure that 1 in 10,000 case doesn't get misdiagnosed. When the next level of diagnostic test is developed they'll sue again to make sure people get test, also, spreading out the risk of another 1 in 10,000 case.
It's a good deal for the 1 in 10,000. The other 9,999, not so much.
On the plus side (depending on how you look at it), it does improve the market for diagnostic tests.
It's not the lobbyists that bother me so much as the politicians who engage in tit-for-tat deals, like Duke Cunningham (R, Calif.).
There are many interest groups in the United States. Pooling resources to gain a hearing isn't inherently wrong. You and I could form a special interest group tomorrow and hire a lobbyist (albeit not a very good one!). That's not a bad thing.
I glad that your surgery went ok and that you only owed an amount that you were able to payback in a timley fashion. Unfortunately thousands and thousands of people in this, the wealthiest country in the world are not so lucky. Screw'em right?
No, not "screw 'em." Just realize that health care for US nationals isn't necessarily the wisest thing to make priority #1.
If you remove troops from Iraq to save money on surgeries, you're saying "screw 'em" to those Iraqis who are trying to establish a democracy--and many of whom are in need of medical care they couldn't obtain even if they had $40,000.
The free market is the best way to establish heath care priorities, not management by the federal government. You pay for the care you're able to afford (even if it means borrowing). If you're connected to the family or the community, then maybe they'll help you--voluntarily. Joe Smith in Oregon doesn't owe you dialysis treatments. But chances are somebody is willing to help you out voluntarily.
People of limited means really don't deserve the same level of healthcare as those with of us who are better off, right?
Right, same as if I go to the car dealership with $100 and the other guy goes there with $75,000 the other guy is likely to come away with the better car. I have no right to expect the dealership to give me a $60,000 car for $100.
But of course health care is different from car sales. It is morally right, we believe, to assist others who are suffering. I say that it should be primarily up to individuals who receives their charity. Nationalized healthcare enables Person B to decide that person C should be forced to offer charity to person A.
That turns the idea of charity on its head.
Let'em eat cake so to speak.
You'd give the baker as a slave to the hungry man.
Although I find it disturbing that you would equate the access to affordable healthcare to the luxury of owning a Mercedes, you are in fact correct.
A straw man? For me?
You shouldn't have!
The Mercedes comment was in response to your comment about the nurse with lousy health insurance. She wanted to upgrade from an Hyundai Excel (or whatever she's got) to something better.
It wasn't about accessing "affordable" healthcare. The nurse in question was able to afford healthcare, via insurance.
Healthcare in this country is a luxury. It is understandable in a capitalist society to deny those with inferior means an expensive luxury car so it stands to reason that we deny and end to pain and suffering of a fellow human being for the same reasons.
That doesn't follow, since capitalist societies are not necessarily devoid of compassion. Though it would be interesting to see you argue otherwise.
Where your surgery is concerned Bryan, you were lucky. Unfortunately you don't even have the balls to even admit it. Maybe you should walk a mile in someone elses shoes.
Maybe you should have a clue about the large amount of charity work I've done in my time. But I doubt it. Why don't you call me a dick again?
That sir, is why you are a dick.
Wow. What would you call me without the many hours of charity work I've done voluntarily and at my own expense?
I realize that may not be a serious critique by your standards, but I feel it is more than appropriate.
But you're not smug or anything.
My apologies. I wasn't aware of your charity work.
I should have called you "Saint" Dick!
-
So, Stixx3969 and Keith-Marshall, MO are one in the same.
Yes I am the same, it depends on if I'm posting from work or home.
-
I was aware of that.
I did separate the comment in response to the one thing from the response to the other, it seems to me.
The problem is that you are overgeneralizing.
It is illegal for medical providers to charge private pay patients less than what they charge insurance (though they're allowed to write off unpaid bills--which they must frequently do). It should be easy to figure out why that is.
Who is most likely to pay out of pocket? Rich people can underwrite their own risk. It's foolish for a rich person to purchase insurance unless he knows something the insurance company doesn't know (like he's ill with something so expensive he can't afford to pay for it out-of-pocket).
What does Willam suggest? Charging rich private-pay patients more than what poor private-pay patients are charged?
Is that supposed to be fair?
Despite a construction boom not seen in 50 years, hospitals reported an average 5.2 percent profit margin in 2004--the highest in six years--and 2005 margins are expected to be even higher, USA Today reported. According to the American Hospital Association, 25 percent of hospitals are in the red, down from about one-third in recent years.
http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care-soc...e/864653-1.html
If the profits are astronomical, then why is the profit margin so pedestrian?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=7...qkCAgl-5m0s7ZrQ
(show long-term average for businesses about 9%)
Yeah, basically.
The US has much better healthcare than people commonly believe. It costs more the same reason a lexus costs more, and the rest of it is because of government and legal tinkering.
In a thread a few weeks ago, Paul LaClair expressed his satisfaction over forcing patients to pay for tests they probably do not need except to provide liability protection for doctors. That's you paying more for medical care because lawyers like Paul want to make sure that 1 in 10,000 case doesn't get misdiagnosed. When the next level of diagnostic test is developed they'll sue again to make sure people get test, also, spreading out the risk of another 1 in 10,000 case.
It's a good deal for the 1 in 10,000. The other 9,999, not so much.
On the plus side (depending on how you look at it), it does improve the market for diagnostic tests.
It's not the lobbyists that bother me so much as the politicians who engage in tit-for-tat deals, like Duke Cunningham (R, Calif.).
There are many interest groups in the United States. Pooling resources to gain a hearing isn't inherently wrong. You and I could form a special interest group tomorrow and hire a lobbyist (albeit not a very good one!). That's not a bad thing.
I glad that your surgery went ok and that you only owed an amount that you were able to payback in a timley fashion. Unfortunately thousands and thousands of people in this, the wealthiest country in the world are not so lucky. Screw'em right?
No, not "screw 'em." Just realize that health care for US nationals isn't necessarily the wisest thing to make priority #1.
If you remove troops from Iraq to save money on surgeries, you're saying "screw 'em" to those Iraqis who are trying to establish a democracy--and many of whom are in need of medical care they couldn't obtain even if they had $40,000.
The free market is the best way to establish heath care priorities, not management by the federal government. You pay for the care you're able to afford (even if it means borrowing). If you're connected to the family or the community, then maybe they'll help you--voluntarily. Joe Smith in Oregon doesn't owe you dialysis treatments. But chances are somebody is willing to help you out voluntarily.
People of limited means really don't deserve the same level of healthcare as those with of us who are better off, right?
Right, same as if I go to the car dealership with $100 and the other guy goes there with $75,000 the other guy is likely to come away with the better car. I have no right to expect the dealership to give me a $60,000 car for $100.
But of course health care is different from car sales. It is morally right, we believe, to assist others who are suffering. I say that it should be primarily up to individuals who receives their charity. Nationalized healthcare enables Person B to decide that person C should be forced to offer charity to person A.
That turns the idea of charity on its head.
Let'em eat cake so to speak.
You'd give the baker as a slave to the hungry man.
Although I find it disturbing that you would equate the access to affordable healthcare to the luxury of owning a Mercedes, you are in fact correct.
A straw man? For me?
You shouldn't have!
The Mercedes comment was in response to your comment about the nurse with lousy health insurance. She wanted to upgrade from an Hyundai Excel (or whatever she's got) to something better.
It wasn't about accessing "affordable" healthcare. The nurse in question was able to afford healthcare, via insurance.
Healthcare in this country is a luxury. It is understandable in a capitalist society to deny those with inferior means an expensive luxury car so it stands to reason that we deny and end to pain and suffering of a fellow human being for the same reasons.
That doesn't follow, since capitalist societies are not necessarily devoid of compassion. Though it would be interesting to see you argue otherwise.
Where your surgery is concerned Bryan, you were lucky. Unfortunately you don't even have the balls to even admit it. Maybe you should walk a mile in someone elses shoes.
Maybe you should have a clue about the large amount of charity work I've done in my time. But I doubt it. Why don't you call me a dick again?
That sir, is why you are a dick.
Wow. What would you call me without the many hours of charity work I've done voluntarily and at my own expense?
I realize that may not be a serious critique by your standards, but I feel it is more than appropriate.
But you're not smug or anything.
What I said about my friend the nurse was that she had insurance that didn't cover diddly squat. She couldn't upgrade even if she wanted to because, like most of us she can't afford anymore insurance. Again that was part of my intial point, I just don't have the energy to argue every point with you right now. BTW the way I love the way you worked the war in there, that was classy.
I've been involed in charity work myself (Toys for Tots) but until now I never felt the need to mention it to anyone let alone boast about it on some anonymous message board.
Now that I'm aware of all your charity work I'm sorry for saying that you were just a dick. From now on I shall address thee as "Saint Dick".
-
To be fair, I think there are some good minds among the Democratic presidential candidates--but it's true enough that their policy suggestions are mostly things that Americans have rejected. Hillary Clinton is still pushing for the single-payer health plan in the U.S. Why somebody who is (on good authority) intellectually acute would advocate that (other than for the political power it provides over masses dependent on the government for health care) is beyond me.
Barack Obama is certainly bright, but his inexperience shows pretty much every time he makes a policy statement.
All that said, with the possible exceptions of Edwards and Kucinich, every Democratic candidate is step up from John F. Kerry. Their policy ideas stink, and they're incoherent on their Iraq ideas, but the brains are there (at least in theory), and the experience in some cases (Dodd, Richards, Biden).
What would you consider a true "progressive" policy, BTW?
Obama may be inexperienced as you've said, but then again we've seen where "experience" had gotten us haven't we?
-
Bryan,
I have one quick question. Do you feel that someone who is without religion is by default immoral?
-
It does? Did I miss something? The link you gave seems like one of a music forum.
Yes,it is a musician based website but the message board is divided into several different topics.
Three of those being:
General Discussion
Politics-Civilized Discussion
and
Politics for Mean Boys.
I just thought some folks here might be interested. I certainly wasn't trying to be "rude" as Bryan put it.
Let's be honest, the mods. @ KOTW are busy and sometimes it takes a while for messages to post. Especailly when you consider the length of some of the posts. Posting is instant on this site and I just thought that some folks might enjoy an alternative to fill the void.
-
Shocking isn't it !! Just goes to show that Strife and Paul do have lucid moments.
BTW..... I applaud Bush for commuting Libby's prison sentence. The man broke no laws and commited no crimes, nor did he "out" anyone. It was a mean-spirited attempt by the defeatocrats to hurt Bush by putting Libby in jail.
Spoken like a true lemming.............
-
Ok, you got me on that one, Clinton was not CONVUCTED. However he DID commit adultry in the White House, he DID lie to congress and the american public under oath, he DID refuse to take Bin Laden from the Sudanese, he DID fail to uncover any terrorist plots in 8 years, he DID prevent the CIA from exchanging intelligence with the FBI and other agencies. He DID cause 9/11 by his refusal to take any action against credible threats during his term in office. But hey, nobody's perfect.
Here we go again. Why does what a previous adminstration did have any bearing on what the current adminstration does? Why does every thing about Bush and Co. have to pass some sort of Clinton litmus test? Two wrongs don't make a right.
Clinton has been gone for 7 years. Let it go and pay attention to the current situation.
BTW why didn't the Bush administation take seriously the warning from the Clinton administration about Bin Laden's possible use of aircraft to attack the USA?
-
Absolutely right. All Libby is "guilty" of is lying. Sort of like another lie I remember, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". (For that lie, the rapist is now the darling of the defeatocratic party, go figure).
No one is defending the Clinton admistration, but it seems that Bush apologists blame everything on the them. That doesn't make the actions of this administration right and it's the most childish response I can imagine.
No one said what Clinton did was right. "Clinton did it so why can't we"?
If that's the way you feel maybe you should go back to the playground and let the grown-ups talk.
The point is, at that level of government it's all bullshit. Republican or Democrat it doesn't matter who is in charge which is the point I was trying to make when I wrote the thread.
BTW, did you even watch the documentary? I doesn't matter wheter you liked it or agreed with it, but it would have been nice to see some "educated" commentary on this thread.
For all of your support for GW, do you really think that he loses a minute of sleep over you the citizen? Did Clinton? Bush Sr.?
This government is broken no matter who is in charge and you should be ashamed of yourself for wearing blinders simply because your guy won. I use the term "won" very loosely.
We need campaign finance reform and we need it now.
-
Actually, no one who wants to see it has to rent it if they have broadband--the full movie can be found on Google Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...duration%3Along
Just passing that along.
Also--still in the process of watching it, but already I've seen a few things (like misquotes including one that took Clinton out of context when he was talking about gun rights and made it look like he was talking about rights in general) that have made this a very "grain of salt" movie for me already...considering this blatant error is less than 15 minutes in, I'm really going to have a hard time taking other stuff in here at face value.
EDIT: The tax protesters' arguments don't seem to hold water. The following source argued (quite compellingly, too, if I do say so myself) against every claim I saw in the documentary:
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Per...s/IncomeTax.htm
You are quite right to take it with a grain of salt, but then, every bit of info we get about the govt. no matter the source should be taken with a grain of salt. I watched the video, I am the orginal poster. If only a fraction of the video is true then it is still reason enough for outrage. That is my point.
-
And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why you should never drink Kool-Aid. If this post doesn't scream paranoia and complete loss of reality, then nothing ever will.
I saw in another post where you said you were educated? Yet all you ever come up with for an arguement is "Kool-Aid Drinker"
You may be educated. Unfortunately there are alot of "educated idiots" in the world.
Even after he was diagnosed with cancer Fred continued with his work. He died 11 years ago. Fred was very outspoken on his atheist beliefs. His widow, Gabi Hollows took over the Foundation after his death.)
Have it your way
in Kearny
Posted
I would like to hear from all of those who are angry with Matt for blowing the whistle on Mr. P.
If you had your way how would you like to have seen that particular situation unfold?