www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1146722998263090.xml&coll=1
"Less than 24 hours after a Woodbridge man was served with a restraining order, he killed his estranged wife and her mother early yesterday.."
Why was this woman and her mother not protected by her "protective" order against her husband? Why bother? How do we better protect women from their abusive partners?
Full Version: (Still) Your Daily Dose Of Outrage
this is more like my daily dose of dread:
barbara bush vs rose kennedy: the ambitious uterus bake-off!
x-posted to lj
barbara bush vs rose kennedy: the ambitious uterus bake-off!
x-posted to lj
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060517/ap_on_re_us/unmarried_couples
Well HELLO.... do we still live in America? Land of the FREE, home of the brave? To me, this type of thing could have some FAR REACHING effects! I mean what about people like me, living with the kids and EX -HUSBAND? not married but still a FAMILY!..... what about the women or men couples with children? maybe not married but still a FAMILY! What a bunch of sh*t! If one state / city can do this, what's to keep others from doing it?
Well HELLO.... do we still live in America? Land of the FREE, home of the brave? To me, this type of thing could have some FAR REACHING effects! I mean what about people like me, living with the kids and EX -HUSBAND? not married but still a FAMILY!..... what about the women or men couples with children? maybe not married but still a FAMILY! What a bunch of sh*t! If one state / city can do this, what's to keep others from doing it?
I posted about that in Feminist Outrage. I cannot even being to rant about how much that pisses me off. And it makes me want to never get married.
i'm sorry, what? the whole city, in the WHOLE city people can't live together unless they meet certain requirements? how is that not a violation of human rights? HOW?
i don't know about the states but in canada you're considered common law after having lived together for a while and are taxed and stuff accordingly. is it different there somehow? and wtf, the three children are related to the mother and the father, so really it's just the mum and dad that aren't related by blood or marriage and that's only Two people. i'm just shaking my head over here.
i don't know about the states but in canada you're considered common law after having lived together for a while and are taxed and stuff accordingly. is it different there somehow? and wtf, the three children are related to the mother and the father, so really it's just the mum and dad that aren't related by blood or marriage and that's only Two people. i'm just shaking my head over here.
HOLY BIBLE Romans 1:26-28
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
pepper - as far as I know "commom law" marriage IS something we have here in the US and the length of time which has to pass for it to be so varies from state to state....
this is just another case of government (local or otherwise) using their time and power in ways that benefit no one instead of concentrating on the "real" issues at hand.... I bet there are homeless people in that area that could benefit from some government consideration, or maybe some abused children.... but no, instead they want to spend time and money making sure that a "FAMILY" is as stressed out and inconvenienced as possible.... I mean, god forbid, in this day and age of single parent families and women/men who struggle to raise their children alone, that somewhere a 2 parent family who is obviously making the effort to stay together and raise their children, should be allowed to live in one household, pay taxes, work and be TOGETHER....
isn't it obvious by now that the "holy bonds of matrimony" don't mean jack shit to many people anymore (look at the divorce rate) so what's the big deal if this HAPPY FAMILY isn't a MARRIED FAMILY?!??!??!
I say, leave them the hell alone and be happy for them!
this is just another case of government (local or otherwise) using their time and power in ways that benefit no one instead of concentrating on the "real" issues at hand.... I bet there are homeless people in that area that could benefit from some government consideration, or maybe some abused children.... but no, instead they want to spend time and money making sure that a "FAMILY" is as stressed out and inconvenienced as possible.... I mean, god forbid, in this day and age of single parent families and women/men who struggle to raise their children alone, that somewhere a 2 parent family who is obviously making the effort to stay together and raise their children, should be allowed to live in one household, pay taxes, work and be TOGETHER....
isn't it obvious by now that the "holy bonds of matrimony" don't mean jack shit to many people anymore (look at the divorce rate) so what's the big deal if this HAPPY FAMILY isn't a MARRIED FAMILY?!??!??!
I say, leave them the hell alone and be happy for them!
HOLY BIBLE Romans 1:26-28
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
pepper - One more thought.... I think the MAN and the WOMAN in question, in this situation, should consider suing the city, state, whatever..... I don't usually condone lawsuits and such but in the case of this MAN and WOMAN and their children, I think something should certainly be done..... I hope someone takes up their case and fights for them....
HOLY BIBLE Romans 1:26-28
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
it's gotten really easy to only read the applicable posts in these threads. i just want to say thanks girls for not getting distracted by the flotsam and jetsom and to tell you that your words are appreciated.
voodoo, i agree with the lawsuit. like i said that HAS to be a violation of human rights, deciding how many people can reside together is a bit too big brother-ish to me. where's the logic in that at all eh? what about a live in nanny or housekeeper, is that illegal too? maybe she can hire her man as a nanny and he can hire her as a housekeeper (or vice versa, or whatever) and they can pay each other exactly the same wages. ha ha. truly idiotic.
voodoo, i agree with the lawsuit. like i said that HAS to be a violation of human rights, deciding how many people can reside together is a bit too big brother-ish to me. where's the logic in that at all eh? what about a live in nanny or housekeeper, is that illegal too? maybe she can hire her man as a nanny and he can hire her as a housekeeper (or vice versa, or whatever) and they can pay each other exactly the same wages. ha ha. truly idiotic.
pepper - again, I agree..... I'm not sure if it violates "human rights" exactly but PLEASE! It violates SOMETHING that's damn sure! I mean, I know that the government CAN put housing regulations on SUBSIDIZED (sp?) housing, but that's cause they (the gov.) is paying for that housing.... BUT, private housing? NOT subsidized? Please! AND, it's not like they said it was a "community" standard, like one of those "home owner associations" thingys where there are rules and regulations in a particular subdivision or whatever, that could actually govern things like this.... I STRONGLY disagree with those "home owner associations" too by the way..... but this was reported as a city regulation (or state maybe, but I think it was at the city level) AND from what I understood of reading the story, the regulation didn't come right out and say "NO UNMARRIED COUPLES MAY LIVE TOGETHER" but it was worded in a way so that conclusion or interpretation could be made.....
bullshit if you asked me.... total bullshit....
like I mentioned, I live with my ex husband and children and we pay our taxes blah blah blah and I'll be damned if someone is gonna tell us we can't live in the place WE PAY FOR.... I think NOT! It's like I tell my family and anyone else who thinks they have an opinion on my life.... "when you start paying my bills and supporting me, then you can have a say in what I do".... the same goes for this poor family and the city they live in.... if the city wants to pay for a home for them and support them, then alrighty BUT until then, the city should have no say at all in their living situation.
bullshit if you asked me.... total bullshit....
like I mentioned, I live with my ex husband and children and we pay our taxes blah blah blah and I'll be damned if someone is gonna tell us we can't live in the place WE PAY FOR.... I think NOT! It's like I tell my family and anyone else who thinks they have an opinion on my life.... "when you start paying my bills and supporting me, then you can have a say in what I do".... the same goes for this poor family and the city they live in.... if the city wants to pay for a home for them and support them, then alrighty BUT until then, the city should have no say at all in their living situation.
voodoo princes:
I am just wondering- why did you get married to someone only to get a divorce then end up still living with that same person? Wouldn't it have been much easier to stay married or just not have gotten married at all in the first place?
I am just wondering- why did you get married to someone only to get a divorce then end up still living with that same person? Wouldn't it have been much easier to stay married or just not have gotten married at all in the first place?
voodoo, i don't think the government should have a say even if they Were paying for that family to live. like they've bought that family's rights with money or something? ah, that's just gross.
What the heck do they need an occupancy permit for anyway? I've never had to do anythign like that. The city actually gets to say whether you can live there or not?!! Oh heck no..I'd be taking my tax dollars to another town in the first place. That is insane! I smell a Supreme Court case coming out of this one!
Oh goodie. DHS pays another small business/website a visit.
Well, at least they didn't shut them down, yet, like they did to Pajiba.
/sarcasm
Well, at least they didn't shut them down, yet, like they did to Pajiba.
/sarcasm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060530/od_nm/dutch_pedophiles_dc
OK.... I'm not sure whether to be outraged, enraged or just dumfounded. I read this article and then read it again to make sure it wasn't a joke.... are these people serious????
OK.... I'm not sure whether to be outraged, enraged or just dumfounded. I read this article and then read it again to make sure it wasn't a joke.... are these people serious????
WTF???!!!!
Well, the "free train travel" aspect of their platform is a good idea at least. 
It's frustrating b/c conservatives will just latch onto this shit and say, "See what happens when a society becomes too free and too open? Legalize pot and prostitution and then it all goes to hell!"
It's frustrating b/c conservatives will just latch onto this shit and say, "See what happens when a society becomes too free and too open? Legalize pot and prostitution and then it all goes to hell!"
OH.MY.
so um..if they want sex with animals legal, but animal cruelty illegal....does that mean the sex with animals is consensual?
well, unfortunately that will be the reaction of the conservatives HOWEVER in my opinion the legalized "soft drugs" and legalized prostitution are ok and have proven themselves not to be a HUGE out of control problem in that region BUT just because SOME areas of law are "relaxed", it should not be looked at as an open door invitation to every sick freak out there to try to "legalize" or "ligitamize" their heinously criminal activity. So really, liberals (and I do mean QUITE liberal) also "latch onto" say, the openess of a region, as is the case here, and uses that regions relaxed attitudes to try to justify and/or legalize something TRUELY criminal. I think that's frustrating too. Why ruin a good thing by trying to see how far you can push the envelope? I think that actions like this may backfire and cause the more open minded and forward thinking countries to re-think things and maybe start enacting more restrictive laws and regulations.... you know? That would only serve to set back the progress (and yes, I see it as progress) that those free thinking countries have made. There always has to be a party pooper hey? Be it the super conservative do-gooder or the super sick weirdo..... can't we just find an "in between" and be happy? You know? Like... pot = good BUT sex with 12 year olds = BAD..... Oh well....
Heh - I knew it (see new thread).
Next time I see some gal smoking a spliff and making out with her girlfriend, I'll warn her that not only she is on the path to hell, but she'll probably end up fucking the horse she rode in on. . .
Next time I see some gal smoking a spliff and making out with her girlfriend, I'll warn her that not only she is on the path to hell, but she'll probably end up fucking the horse she rode in on. . .
Oh my cod.... is to be expected, I suppose....
snafooey - HA HA HA HA HA HEE HEE HEE HEE HA HA HA HA HA HEE HEE HEE HEE..... you make me laugh
snafooey - HA HA HA HA HA HEE HEE HEE HEE HA HA HA HA HA HEE HEE HEE HEE..... you make me laugh
and free train travel for all! hoo, ha! that's the best line of the whole article. funny.
thanks, voodo.
actually, i think the free public transit is an option in a few places already - i'll try to find links. i know a lot of environmentalists advocate that at the very least it should be free on high smog alert days - i think they were going to do that here, but it hasn't passed yet.
actually, i think the free public transit is an option in a few places already - i'll try to find links. i know a lot of environmentalists advocate that at the very least it should be free on high smog alert days - i think they were going to do that here, but it hasn't passed yet.
free public transit makes so much sense anyway.... high smog or not..... just think about the long term ramifications and savings! it would be amazing BUT it is hard to get the "powers that be" to see long term anything... all they look at, it seems, is how much it would cost them NOW..... BOO BOO BOO on the "powers that be"!!!!!!!
So freaking embarrassing for New Orleans!
With all of our problems with dumbass, lying, cheating, stealing Congressman William Jefferson making us look bad all across the country at a time when we need people's sympathy and support! Argh!
ETA: I just called Mr. Jefferson's office and urged him to resign. It made me feel all warm inside!
With all of our problems with dumbass, lying, cheating, stealing Congressman William Jefferson making us look bad all across the country at a time when we need people's sympathy and support! Argh!
ETA: I just called Mr. Jefferson's office and urged him to resign. It made me feel all warm inside!
OK, I got some additional information, and it's our current gov't I hate more even than W. Jefferson...thought I still don't like him.
dingos!
I can't believe Bush is seriously considering making an amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a women.
Why does in one care about same sex mariages? Seriously, in a world with so much hate, People who connect and love each other should not be judged or subject to restrictions that trivializes that feelings. I don't understand the politcal importance of punishing innocent people for thier feelings.
Just my 2 cents, I don't know.
Why does in one care about same sex mariages? Seriously, in a world with so much hate, People who connect and love each other should not be judged or subject to restrictions that trivializes that feelings. I don't understand the politcal importance of punishing innocent people for thier feelings.
Just my 2 cents, I don't know.
HOLY BIBLE Romans 1:26-28
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
cha ching! ooh, time to order more cheques. some deserving organizations ate gonna start wondering what's up with the windfall. amen.
pepper: WHAT PART OF
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
quote:And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
cha-ching! and again... the cheque overfloweth.
My last check was to Planned Parenthood. But I'm planning on sending June's check to:
http://gynpages.com/fwwho/
So, old Stevo will be directly contributing to abortions in my town. Thanks buddy, there are a lot of women fallen on hard times, that need a little help.
http://gynpages.com/fwwho/
So, old Stevo will be directly contributing to abortions in my town. Thanks buddy, there are a lot of women fallen on hard times, that need a little help.
What kind of soldier is the US making?
Raping a woman, killing her and her family and setting the house on fire. Goddamn this makes me mad.
Raping a woman, killing her and her family and setting the house on fire. Goddamn this makes me mad.
I don't know what kind of soldier the US is making. I do know that they made my guy an honerable one, though. Hopefully this doesn't give all US soldiers a bad name, just because of one young nutcase with a "personality disorder." (Why they let him BACK into the military is beyond me). It's screwed up, I know... but so is our loved ones being over there in the first place. =(
Hate Groups are Infiltrating Military
Can't meet recruitment quotas? Let the skinheads in! Pretty insane that there is neo-Nazi graffiti on the streets of Baghdad.
Can't meet recruitment quotas? Let the skinheads in! Pretty insane that there is neo-Nazi graffiti on the streets of Baghdad.
Keep in mind, though, that the SPLC sees the Klan behind every tree.
Um, James Carville actually said "Somolia's going over to the dark side" yesterday on the Today Show. With a straight face and everything. Asshat.
All over the world it seams we see states waging war on humanity. Often it is against their own citizens or those who they pretend to protect.
One would think that this would lift peoples eye to the mockery of state power. Yet it seams that with each escalation of violence, with each increase in the human slaughter… rather than turning on the state and challenging it’s right to monopolize power, people everywhere become more fervently patriotic and ready to march off to slaughter in the name of better they than I die… which inevitably results in carnage.
Meen while the powerbrokers are enjoying polite debates and negotiations over the spoils of conflict far away form the bloodbath, intermittent powered, overflowing sewers and rampaging epidemics.
The veal must task extra good, knowing that every guided missile solidifies your progenies unearned right to rule while others serve.
One would think that this would lift peoples eye to the mockery of state power. Yet it seams that with each escalation of violence, with each increase in the human slaughter… rather than turning on the state and challenging it’s right to monopolize power, people everywhere become more fervently patriotic and ready to march off to slaughter in the name of better they than I die… which inevitably results in carnage.
Meen while the powerbrokers are enjoying polite debates and negotiations over the spoils of conflict far away form the bloodbath, intermittent powered, overflowing sewers and rampaging epidemics.
The veal must task extra good, knowing that every guided missile solidifies your progenies unearned right to rule while others serve.
None of the police officers involved in shooting Jean Charles de Menezes will be charged or punished. Remember him? The man who was shot in the head seven times on the London Underground because they thought he was a suicide bomber. Even though he was just a guy, who got on the subway and didn't do a single thing that would have made anyone think he was a bomber. Well, except the whole not-being-white thing.
Apparently it's now legal in London to shoot people for being a bit foreign-looking. Guess I won't be visiting for a while...
Apparently it's now legal in London to shoot people for being a bit foreign-looking. Guess I won't be visiting for a while...
If you’re a cop that is. I have to say I wasn’t particularly surprised by that decision. England does not have a very long history, as far as I can see of respecting people’s civiler liberties. Remember the Guildford Seven?
QUOTE(plynn @ Jul 17 2006, 06:59 PM) 
None of the police officers involved in shooting Jean Charles de Menezes will be charged or punished. Remember him? The man who was shot in the head seven times on the London Underground because they thought he was a suicide bomber. Even though he was just a guy, who got on the subway and didn't do a single thing that would have made anyone think he was a bomber. Well, except the whole not-being-white thing.
Apparently it's now legal in London to shoot people for being a bit foreign-looking. Guess I won't be visiting for a while...
Or the whole thing could have been a tragic accident, brought on in part by his refusal to obey police instructions when undercover officers finally confronted him.
Wah? The investigation revealed that none of what the officers said happened, actually happened. He wasn't wearing a parka, nor was he carrying anything suspicious. He didn't jump the turnstiles or run away from the officers. They may have shouted at him in the moments before he was shot, but how was he to know the shouts were meant for him? He hadn't done anything illegal that would warrant be swarmed and shot him in the head. If he didn't respond immediately and perfectly to whatever instructions the police gave him, it was probably because he was shocked to find a gun in his face. He wasn't given a chance, which, at the very least, shows the officers were not following procedure and were acting extremely recklessly
Well, from what I read the London police "procedure" to neuralize a suicide bomber was to swarm him and, if he made suspicious moves or refused orders, to quickly shoot him in the head. The idea here, apparenly, is that such a quick "lights out" headshot stands a better chance of preventing the bomber from detonating the explosives.
The question then becomes: Did he comply properly with the orders of the police officers once they announced themselves to him? Did he do anything that would have made those officers think, "Oh shit, he's gonna trigger a bomb! Take him out!"
The question then becomes: Did he comply properly with the orders of the police officers once they announced themselves to him? Did he do anything that would have made those officers think, "Oh shit, he's gonna trigger a bomb! Take him out!"
So, anyone else more than a bit miffed about the 10K promissary note the charming US government was going to force on its citizens trapped in Lebanon? Yep, no evacuation for you unless you pay for it...
I don't even know if they've resolved it, but I do know that there is a bottle of rum calling my name.
I don't even know if they've resolved it, but I do know that there is a bottle of rum calling my name.
I hadn't heard about that... do you have a link to any articles... if it is true and I'm inclined to belive you... then it is outragious... and typical
http://www.forbes.com/business/services/fe.../ap2887271.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/19/...tion/index.html
These make brief mention of the fact that they were going to charge, although I'm hoping the 10K was just something some random person on the internet pulled out their ass.
They have since said they wouldn't make anyone pay. How kind of them.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/19/...tion/index.html
These make brief mention of the fact that they were going to charge, although I'm hoping the 10K was just something some random person on the internet pulled out their ass.
They have since said they wouldn't make anyone pay. How kind of them.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.