ld88's Blog

Why do bicyclists act like they own the road? Have you ever successfully passed a bike rider ( by having to veer into oncoming traffic ) only to find yourself at a stoplight watching that same rider go through the red light just so you have to pass them again?

Yesterday, on my way home from work, I actually had a cyclist riding her bike in the middle of a lane going less than five miles an hour. I honked my horn and she motioned for me to go around her! Not only is it virtually impossible on Broadway during rush hour but, I was going to make a left turn at the next light. The light was red and while waiting for it to change, she pulled up next to me and said she had every right to ride her bike in the lane. I told her she didn't have a right to block traffic. She told me to go back to driving school and I told her to go back to bicycle school as I drove off, flipping her the bird!

Who was in the right? Do we now have to drive two miles an hour because they want to take over the roads? Should we treat them as other drivers? If so, how can they run red lights on a regular basis? I don't get it!?!?!?!?!

 

 

Does it bother anyone else that Denver is going through some sort of "beautification" for the DNC convention? It seems to me that everything that's being done to improve our city should have been done before now and it should have been done for the people of Denver! Why is it that our local government all of a sudden has the money to make everything pretty for visitors but when we ask about such things they tell us it's not monetarily feasible? If they're still 40 million (or so) short of donations for this monstrosity that's going to be here in August, who's paying for all of this?

It amazes me how many people put the same blog on so many Fox web sites. I love to visit other sites ( FoxNY, FOXBoston, FoxLA) and see what people are talking about in different parts of the country and I get so irritated when I see the same blog on all four sites! Do these bloggers not have anything else to do? Or how about those that insist on writing a book? I bet you can't find one person that's sat down and actually read an entire blog that includes links, pictures, commentary, etc.... (SNORE!!!!!) I browse, I sometimes respond (though there's certainly not much to respond to these days) and I move on. FreedomFree has got to be on something illegal and SteveinCanton needs a job. Come on you guys! I thought these were for discussions, opinions and insite; NOT FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL ENTERTAINMENT! Are you really THAT important? Do you really need to write THAT much in one blog?

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I
pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In
order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test
with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the
distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I
have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no
problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other
hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their A$$, doing
drugs, while I work. . . Can you imagine how much money the state would
save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance
check?

This was sent to me by a friend and I just HAD to put it in a blog!!! This angers me to no end! 

The following is part of an article on the web today. It clearly states that governments collect more than $200 billion in tobacco taxes every year..... and people wonder why tobacco products are still around! Everyone wants to spend all of this money trying to prevent people from smoking or to help them quit, yet if we could just end the production of cigarettes, wouldn't that do the trick? Of course that can't happen because the government is making too much money to ever consider such a thing. How ridiculous! Spend more money to help people say "no" to something that is still being produced.... Someone PLEASE help me understand the logic behind this!

"NEW YORK - Tobacco use killed 100 million people worldwide in the 20th century and could kill 1 billion people in the 21st unless governments act now to dramatically reduce it, the World Health Organization said in a report Thursday.

Governments around the world collect more than $200 billion in tobacco taxes every year but spend less than one-fifth of 1 percent of that revenue on tobacco control, it said.

"We hold in our hands the solution to the global tobacco epidemic that threatens the lives of 1 billion men, women and children during this century," WHO Director-General Dr. Margaret Chan said in an introduction to the report.

The WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic 2008 calls on all countries to dramatically increase efforts to prevent young people from beginning to smoke, help smokers quit and protect nonsmokers from exposure to second hand smoke.

It urges governments to adopt six "tobacco control policies" — raise taxes and prices of tobacco; ban tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship; protect people from second hand smoke; warn people about the dangers of tobacco; help those who want to quit smoking; and monitor tobacco use to understand and reverse the epidemic."

Folks  this is the Month that we RE-TAKE  AMERICA

We can't give up on this issue.

Paul  Harvey says:

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going  to sue somebody for singing a [...]-[...]-[...] song in December.  I don't  agree with Darwin , but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high  school teacher taught his Theory of Evolution

Life, liberty or  your pursuit of happiness will not be  endangered  because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.  

So what's the big deal?  It's not like somebody is up  there reading the entire book of Acts.  They're just talking to a  God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to  the  players  on the field and the fans going home from the game.

But it's a  Christian prayer, some will argue.

Yes, and this is the United  States of America , a country  founded  on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book,  Christian churches outnumber all others  better  than 200-to-1. So what would you expect  --  somebody  chanting  Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem  ,  I  would expect to hear a Jewish prayer



If  I went to a soccer game in Baghdad , I would expect to hear a Muslim  prayer.



If  I went to a ping pong match in China , I would expect to hear someone  pray to Buddha.



And  I wouldn't be offended.

It wouldn't bother me one bit.

When in  Rome ...

But what about the atheists? Another argument?  

What  about them?  

Nobody is asking them to be baptized.  We're not going to  pass the collection plate.  Just humor us for 30 seconds.   If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of  ear  plugs.   Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand.  Call your  lawyer!

Unfortunately, one or two will make that call.   One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot  do.    I  don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the  world's foundations.

Christians are just sick and tired of  turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.  Our  parents  and grandparents taught us to pray before eating; to pray before we go  to sleep.

Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a  handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.  

God,  help us  

And if that last sentence offends you,  well  ..  just sue me.

The silent majority has been silent too long.  It's time we let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard  that the vast majority doesn't care what they want. It is time the  majority rules! It's time we tell them, you don't have to pray; you  don't have to say the pledge of allegiance; you don't have to believe  in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we  will honor your right  . But  by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are  fighting back.

and  we  WILL  WIN!  

God bless us one and all ... especially those who denounce  Him,  God  bless America, despite all her faults. She is still the greatest  nation of all.

God bless our service men who are fighting to  protect our right to pray and worship God.





2008  will  be  the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the  foundation of our families and institutions ... and our Military come  home from all the wars.
Keep  looking up.

 

"AND  THAT'S THE REST OF THE STORY"  

The following article was copied from MyFoxNY. It was posted on August 10th. I'm not sure of the specifics of the article itself.

A JetBlue passenger was barred from boarding a plane because he wore a T-shirt with an Arabic message.

The ACLU is suing JetBlue and the Transportation Security Administration for discrimination.

Do you think the passenger should have been allowed to wear the shirt on the plane?

What if that t-shirt said "Praise God"? What is this world coming to? This makes me want to go out and buy a t-shirt with something in Arabic written on it! If we're going to do this, then why don't we ban all foreign languages from U.S. based aircraft? (She said with sarcasm in her voice) This is beyond ridiculous!

a.. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

b.. No special ballots for elections.

c.. All government business will be conducted in our language.

d.. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.

e.. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

f.. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers.

g.. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs.

h.. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

i.. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay. But, options will be restricted.

j.. You are not allowed waterfront property. That is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

k.. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. If you do, you will be sent home.

l.. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.



Harsh, you say?........


The above laws happen to be the immigration laws of MEXICO

I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the September 11 casualty and those who die serving our country in Uniform are profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well, I can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack, you're going to get an average of $1.185 million. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million.
If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable.

Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.

Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough! Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Soldiers put themselves in harms way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their families know the dangers.

We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.

You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad. Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent housing...make sense?

However, our own US Congress voted themselves a raise. Many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month. And most are now equal to being millionaires plus. They do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system. If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, they may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed them in harm's way receives a pension of $15,000 per month.

I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting.

Rush Limbaugh

This is beyond insane! How can we allow this to continue?

SHOCKING SENATE VOTES

The following senators voted against making English the official language of America :

Akaka (D-HI) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Cantwell (D-WA) Clinton (D-NY) Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) < BR>Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Salazar (D-CO) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Wyden (D-OR)

 

Now, the following are the senators who voted to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits. They are grouped by home state. If a state is not listed, there was no voting representative.

Alaska : Stevens (R)
Arizona : McCain (R)
Arkansas : Lincoln (D) Pryor (D)
California : Boxer (D) Feinstein (D)
Colorado : Salazar (D)
Connecticut : Dodd (D) Lieberman (D)
Delaware : Biden (D) Carper (D)
Florida : Martinez (R)
Hawaii : Akaka (D) Inouye (D)
Illinois : Durbin (D) Obama (D)
Indiana : Bayh (D) Lugar (R) < BR>Iowa : Harkin (D)
Kansas: Brownback (R)
Louisiana : Landrieu (D)
Maryland : Mikulski (D) Sarbanes (D)
Massachusetts : Kennedy (D) Kerry (D)
Montana : Baucus (D)
Nebraska : Hagel (R)
Nevada : Reid (D)
New Jersey : Lautenberg (D) Menendez (D)
New Mexico : Bingaman (D)
New York : Clinton (D) Schumer (D)
North Dakota : Dorgan (D)
Ohio : DeWine (R) Voinov ich(R)
Oregon : Wyden (D)
Pennsylvania : Specter (R)
Rhode Island : Chafee (R) Reed (D)
South Carolina : Graham (R)
South Dakota : Johnson (D)
Vermont : Jeffords (I) Leahy (D)
Washington : Cantwell (D) Murray (D)
West Virginia : Rockefeller (D), by Not Voting
Wisconsin : Feingold (D) Kohl (D)

What the..? How did these idiots get into office? By us!!! I really can't believe that we sent them there to do this @#!*%&*~!!!!! I certainly don't want to see an illegal immigrant get social security when they didn't pay a dime into it!

 

 

If Mike Vick (of the Atlanta Falcons) is found guilty of helping to run, hide, bet on or train dogs for dog fighting - I hope he's put away for a very long time! I still find it hard to believe that in this day and age people find pleasure in such things! How can that be considered a sport in any way, shape or form? It's disgusting and unfeeling. I hope all involved will be sent to prison! OR! How about if we just let them fight it out and the loser can be strangled, drowned or shot! What a bunch of IDIOTS!

DENVER – A new Colorado law that went into effect on Sunday requires veterinarians to report any case in which they suspect an animal is being abused or involved in fighting. Diane Balkin, with the Denver District Attorney's office, says that cruelty is defined by law as any act of mistreatment or neglect. The law does not apply to physical abuse alone, says Dr. Michelle Smith, of the 29th Avenue Animal Hospital at Stapleton. "It can be neglect in the form of leaving a dog outside without adequate shelter on a hot day, or not giving enough food or water," she said. The law is patterned after child abuse laws where a medical doctor is required to report child abuse. Some fear that the law will discourage people from taking their pets to the vet for treatment, but Denver city leaders disagree. "The studies have indicated that individuals won't be deterred from seeking veterinary care for fear the vet will report them. There are certainly a host of people that won't go to the vet at all just like there are people who will not go to the pediatrician or go to any type of medical doctor," said Balkin. Only six other states have passed similar animal abuse prevention laws. The Colorado Veterinary Medical Association has backed the law with overwhelming support.

Silly me! I thought this was ALREADY a law! Makes perfect sense to me! I'm so glad to hear that there's more people on the animal's side!

 

Does anyone know if these people are checked for their papers? Why do they have to yell in Spanish? If you don't speak the language, learn it or go home!

 

AURORA - It's hardly a secret. If you live near Colfax Avenue and Dayton, you have likely seen it. A car drives by a group of about 10 men. Someone in the car yells something, typically in Spanish, and then a few of the men get in the car.
Harold Lasso, policy director for El Centro Humanitario, says the going rate for the day-laborers is usually more than $10 an hour, but it can get up to $20 an hour for specialized work.

"These are people who mostly know how to work the land. They come from farming communities," said Lasso.

On Tuesday, Tim Joyce with the Aurora City Attorney's Office said, in no uncertain terms, the site cannot continue to operate this way.

"Eight years of complaints at that location indicates there is a problem," he told a meeting at a nearby library filled with workers and advocates for the workers. "The activity at that location needs to stop now."

During the meeting, a man from El Salvador told Joyce and others with the city that he has come to the location for five years. He said, in Spanish, that the site represents a chance for a "dignified job for dignified pay."

The City Attorney's Office says the site is simply too close to another employment office and because of that, the location puts it at odds with city code.

Advocates of the workers say if the city closes that site down, another one will pop up at another location.

It is still not clear just how the city may try to close the site, or if it will even happen at all. By Tuesday afternoon, cars were still pulling up and people were still getting in.

This is an excerpt from an article on the CNN web site by Ruben Navarrette Jr.:

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- For most of last night's debate on CNN, the Democratic presidential candidates did what you would expect: They argued with one another and tried to separate themselves from their opponents on issues ranging from Iraq to health care to gay marriage.

But it was on immigration reform that things got really interesting. There, some of the candidates seemed to be arguing with themselves and trying to separate what they believe now from what they believed previously. And that needle isn't always easy to thread.

Gov. Bill Richardson initially said that he supported the bipartisan Senate compromise, and now he says he is against it. When pressed during the debate to explain why a proposed "earned legalization" doesn't amount to amnesty, he said that, under the Senate plan (which he opposes), illegal immigrants seeking permanent residency would have to return home temporarily as part of a "touchback" requirement. Yet, Richardson said, he considers that same provision "unworkable."

Sen. Hillary Clinton says that she favors giving illegal immigrants a path to legalization. It's a reasonable position, but who would have it expected from the same elected official who, in February 2003, talked tough on the issue by reassuring the listening audience of WABC radio in New York that she was "adamantly against illegal immigrants?" If you're "adamantly against" something, why support a measure that excuses it and even, if you believe the critics, encourages more of the same in the years to come?

Sen. Barack Obama voted last year to build 750 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. Now he supports giving illegal immigrants a path to earned legalization. What a confusing message that sends to those who are considering entering the United States illegally: "We don't want you here, and we're going to try to fence you out. But, if you get in, we'll give you the chance to stay permanently."

And Sen. Joe Biden admitted during the debate that a wall wouldn't keep out illegal immigrants. That would be the same Joe Biden who last year, yep, voted for the wall that won't keep out illegal immigrants. So why support something that you know isn't going to work? Biden tried to sell the line that his intent in supporting the fencing was to keep out illegal drugs not illegal immigrants, who can go over, around or under any fence. As if drug smugglers haven't known how to go over, around or under border fencing.

What the?........... Why would anyone vote for ANY of these people? This is ridiculous! How can they (in good conscience) back-peddle just to sound good? Why is it so hard for them to have an opinion and stick with it? Why would the American people want someone to represent them when they can't even make up their minds?

 

DENVER  -- 

A bill aimed at preventing illegal immigrants from avoiding prosecution by being deported is now on the desk of Gov. Bill Ritter.

Currently, illegal immigrants arrested for a crime who post bond to get out of jail can end up in immigration court, where they can be deported.

 

Judges sometimes drop charges against them but the measure passed by state lawmakers (House Bill 1040) would require that they be arrested if they return to the United States.

If the bill is signed into law, judges would issue a no-bond warrant for suspected felons who are deported. The warrants would go into state and national crime databases and they would be arrested and required to remain in jail without bond until they can go on trial.

 

"Illegal immigrants are not going to be able to decide if they want to face criminal charges in this country, if they want to buy their way out," said Paula Presley, detention bureau chief for El Paso County.

 

The bill would also require bonding agents to lose their money if their customers are deported. The forfeited bond money would be used to help pay for more prison space.

AAHHHH!!!!! What a shame! They wouldn't be able to commit crimes and run home to Mexico anymore! Poor babies..