anonymous controversy

Asian lady sues 16 year old

2009-02-14T21:02:00.003-05:00

Seriously? I find this lawsuit so ridiculous and can't even describe how disappointed I will be in our legal/justice system if anyone partaking in this lawsuit is awarded any money.
Miley Cyrus is only 16 years old. She's been in the news a lot lately for her "irresponsible" behavior and it seems like the general public thinks she should be more responsible then the 16 year old that she is just because she is a celebrity. Just because she's getting paid more money then any other 16 year old in the world right now does not make her smarter or more mature then any other 16 year old. And with the exception of violent acts (if even then) since when are 16 year olds held accountable for their actions? Aren't they their parent's responsibility still?
Should her parents be sued? Still NO. This Asian lady needs to get over herself and stop trying to make money off a 16 year old. Stop making mountains out of mole hills, you know? Too much greed in this country.
Someone else said it pretty well... (here)

The pregnant man

2009-02-09T13:33:00.002-05:00

Calling the "man" who is pregnant for the second time a pregnant man is very misleading if you don't look into the details of the story.
The definition of woman is "A woman is an adult female human being" and the definition of female is "being the sex (of plant or animal) that produces fertilizable gametes (ova) from which offspring develop". In order to actually BE a man (by definition) you must be male which means "an animal that produces gametes (spermatozoa) that can fertilize female gametes (ova)".

Being a woman in the middle of a sex change operation does not make you a man, therefore she was NOT the first pregnant man. She was just the first woman in the middle of making herself look like a man, who had a baby. And I personally think it's wrong. If you want to be a man and are taking the steps to becoming a man then you should let go of all the things that women do, such as giving birth. That's a woman's privilege. But to each his own. I do not feel like "he" should be given the publicity that he has got. I know I am adding to that, but I couldn't help it because it annoys me so.

abortion, part 2

2009-01-18T21:41:00.003-05:00

boy oh BOY abortion is a hot topic for me! i really just can't stand the thought of it and am disgusted by so many murderers/whores justifying it so they can continue to sleep with whomever and not have to deal with the consequence of pregnancy and child birth.
tonight I read this and it basically says that with our new president certain people are hoping that funding for abstinence only education will be cut. Obama openly feels that women deserve choice, specifically the right to choose whether or not they should have an abortion. I, however, feel their choice should be whether or not to have sex. THAT is the only choice that should be protected.
Now I do not know what specifically is taught under the abstinence only program, but a lot of people feel that it is not working. If it is not working it is because too many people are not listening. Too many people already know that if they have pre-marital sex, and become pregnant, then they have abortion as an option. If abortion was illegal and all those too many had to start taking care of their babies then quite possibly those 47% repeat abortion "fans" would not be so eager to repeat their mistakes.
Obama, has openly claimed to be a Christian. (part three, somewhere around 5 minutes if you have doubt) One of God's ten commandments is NOT TO KILL. so how can any Christian support abortion? [Murder is the unlawful killing of a human, so while you may argue that abortion is not murder, there is no arguing that it IS killing.] God also says you shouldn't have pre-marital sex. Most of the women choosing to have abortions are not married.
It's such a frustrating topic for me. Because I just don't see how anyone can justify killing an unborn baby, and I hate how irresponsible people can be.
What makes one unborn baby better then any other? That is a question for any woman who has terminated one pregnancy and then carried another full term. Did you get prenatal care? Did you worry when you felt unexplainable pain? Did you feel anything when you saw your baby on an ultrasound screen? and What made that baby you decided to let live better then the one you killed?
I also personally feel that anyone who has an abortion does not deserve to have any other baby. Not when we live in a country where condoms and birth control can be received for FREE, where adoption ads can be found in the backs of magazines, and there is no good reason to have an abortion in the first place other then one woman's selfishness.

Jealous of the Duggars

2008-12-25T20:57:00.002-05:00

With the birth of the Duggar's 18th baby came a lot more negative comments. I know I have already ranted about the negative comments on them but being my blog it is my perogative to rant as much as I want on whatever I want. :)
I have actually seen a lot of "I hate them" comments which justs astounds me. How can you hate people you don't know? It really opens my eyes to the close mindedness of some people.
I've already addressed how I feel like most of the comments about them stem from plain ignorance. For example, "we are supporting them", "they are on welfare taking money from people who could benefit from it so much more", etc. That is an ignorant lie. An example of how people can say whatever they want and spread false knowledge. "They are overpopulating the planet", is another hilarious one. The planet being overpopulated is not a fact, it is an opinion. And instead of putting your time and energy into putting down the Duggar's for "overpopulating" try focusing your energy towards people who are really contributing to overpopulation. All the murderers sitting in jail for life for murdering people, all the women having sex and giving their babies up for adoption, all the people having kids and not taking care of them and letting them grow up into irresponsible adults. Why not focus your negativity on those people?
Well I have no choice but to draw my own conclusions, and that is that people are jealous. Some people have nothing better to do with their time then hate decent strangers, but I think deep down most people are jealous. That's what we learn when we are younger, in school, dealing with verbal bullies. That those "bullies" are putting you down because they are jealous or insecure. Like someone on fertility treatments trying desperately to have her own kids. Despite some Duggar "haters" comments about overpopulation other Duggar haters would rather spend a substantial amount of money on fertility treatments rather then adopt. Which is understandable, and their right. I just find it amusing. Other people might be jealous of their financial well being. The people who know better and aren't making the welfare "we are supporting them" comments, anyway. Not very many people in this country are living a comfortable debt free life. Yet the Duggars are, with their 18 children, and that is an enviable fact. I only wish I was debt free, and I don't have close to as many kids as them, not to mention their 9 cars and huge house. I envy their financial well being but to a point where they should be made an example, not put down for it. Another enviable trait is their wonderful children. You can't really judge someone's parenting skills until you see how a child they have raised fares being on his own. Their oldest son OWNS a pre-owned car dealership. See for yourself. That is quite an accomplishment for a 20 year old. Plus he's never done drugs and didn't have premarital sex. So maybe all the people saying the Duggars can't possibly be decent parents are just jealous. "They can't possibly spend enough one on one time with their kids", "they ignore their kids", "they make the older children raise the younger ones". Josh's wife Anna said on live TV that she hopes her and Josh have a large family as well. Why would he want his own large family if he didn't get plenty of love and attention from his parents?

Just because having a large family isn't your dream, doesn't make someone else crazy or nuts for wanting that. I think all the people who don't like the Duggars should stop watching their show, reading about them, and writing about them. Just grow up and butt out. Those of us who enjoy them and think they are doing a great job will continue to read and watch and learn from them. Stop using your right to freedom of speech to spread ignorant lies, or to just be rude in general.

large familes; specifically the Duggars

2008-11-15T00:07:00.002-05:00

I don’t pretend to know everything but I do try to keep my ignorant comments to a minimum. Before people start insulting someone for any reason they should have the facts.
I have read so many negative comments about the Duggars and I find them all completely ridiculous. Who could find fault with people simply because they have a lot of kids? People have no other basis for their rude comments. So now I am going to rant about some specific comments that have bugged me the most…
Probably the most annoying is the comments about how the Duggar’s are probably on welfare and are taking money from people who could benefit from it more or need it more. The Duggar’s are not on welfare, and are not even in debt actually. They are licensed real estate agents, and according to their show have some rental properties that contribute to their income and the father/husband is or was a politician. Plus I am pretty sure they receive some kind of payment for doing their show, which people have said negative things about but how is them getting paid to do their show any worse then actors being paid to star in TV and movies, or a magazine paying millions of dollars for rights to a star’s baby’s first photos. They are financially supporting their kids in a legitimate way. How is that NOT a good thing?
The second most irritating comment would be the ones that say the Duggar’s should be adopting if they want more kids. While I am all for adoption for people who want kids and can’t have them, or anyone who just prefers adoption, people have a right to have their own kids if they’re capable and there is nothing wrong with that. It is not the Duggars’ fault that other people didn’t want their biological children and it is not their responsibility to take in otherwise unwanted children. Why are we putting down people who are taking care of their family for not adopting and taking care of someone else’s child? Maybe “someone else” should stop having kids they don’t want (and I mean stop getting pregnant in the first place, NOT aborting) and this wouldn’t even be an issue.
Then somewhat relative to this is all the “they’re damaging the planet” comments. Absurd. One family having a large amount of kids is not damaging the planet. A lot of families having large families is NOT what is damaging the planet. They buy things used and use hand me downs, which is one step further then some people go towards conserving our planet. What is really the difference between one family with 18 kids and eighteen families with one kid each? People are whining about over population like large families are solely responsible for that. Once again though, if people who didn’t intend to keep their children and take care of them stopped having children (by preventing pregnancy, NOT by aborting) that would prevent a lot of “over population“. But instead of supporting abstinence and pregnancy prevention for people not ready to take care of their children it is a lot easier to just criticize a large family I guess.
Lastly on my list is the people who complain about the way the Duggar’s are raising their kids. For anyone who has not seen their show the oldest son was just recently married. His wife was the first person he ever kissed or had sex with, and neither happened until they were married. You can say what you want but that is definitely something to be proud of. I’m not saying their children are perfect because obviously, no one is; but to raise a child (or children, actually) with decent morals like that means the parents are doing something right. Aren’t we all [with kids] striving to raise our kids to be decent responsible adults, and not sexually active, drug using teenage degenerates…? So far the Duggars have achieved that, so why are people insulting them for that?
People should stop focusing their negativity on such trivial close minded complaints and put their time and energy towards something more productive and positive.

MY bailout plan

2008-11-14T00:47:00.005-05:00

However many weeks ago the government finalized their $700 billion bailout plan and started buying out banks and whatever else.. I have not spent a lot of time looking into the details of the plan but I heard it didn’t work as planned and yet they are talking about another $700 billion bailout for auto companies. It’s truly astounding. According to the U.S Census Bureau, there are over 305 million people in the U.S. I did a little math and if you round up and say there are 310 million people in the U.S and you split $700 billion between them everyone gets just over $2200. That’s for EVERYONE including children, whose money would go to their parents. Now obviously there are people in this country who don’t need financial help, like celebrities and anyone who has “millionaire” status and any one of their children. So what should the income limit be? Too many people are living beyond their means and have the kind of lifestyle where the more money they make the more it takes for them to live comfortably; so there are probably plenty of people who don’t really need financial help but would say they do because they haven’t yet learned how to be financially responsible. If I had to make an uneducated guess I would say that a good cut-off would be $200,000. Any one making over $200,000 should be excluded from any share. I don’t know how many people (and their dependent children) that would take away from the equation but it would definitely make well over $2200 available for everyone else.
I am not an economist so I don’t “know” that this would solve any problems, but it would be as much worth a try as any other $700 billion plan. Because people are going to spend that money. And if they spend it on their debt it will be a big step in helping out the failing banks. And if they spend it on their bills and food it will be a step toward boosting the economy. And if they spend it on anything, it is money going back to our economy. So why is the government focused on helping businesses instead of the struggling people? And in the end who is going to pay for the bank bailout or the auto bailout? Taxpayers. So why shouldn’t they catch a big break in the process?
MY plan would help homeowners, it would help people on financial aid just as much as those who are not, it would help all the people affected by job losses or pay cuts, raised gas prices (because how long are these low prices going to last? Lol), and benefit anyone with children as well as people without.. It would help the taxpayers and the people who make up this country. And helping the people who make up this country should be the government’s priority if they’re bailing someone out regardless.

anti-abortion

2008-11-12T09:40:00.006-05:00

“now that I’m safe, I’m pro-choice”

Do you consider that a "pro-choice" or "pro-life" message?
To me, it is pro-life. “pro-choice” is undermined by the “I’m safe” statement. To me, it is making an obvious contradiction to emphasize on the being “safe”.
I doubt everyone who is pro-life would agree that the graphic sends a pro-life message and I am sure plenty of people who are pro-choice have their reasons for thinking the message conveys a pro-choice method. Everyone interprets things differently and with that being said, I don’t like or want to be put down for my opinion. I don’t mind hearing other people’s points of view -I actually like hearing them, as long as they’re not unnecessarily rude. It helps me be more open-minded when I have more then my own opinion to consider.
With that being said I am very much against abortion.
According to thefreedictionary.com, murder is defined by the unlawful killing of one human by another. Which would mean that abortion is not considered murder by someone. Must be why it is still legal. How can anyone justify killing a baby? If that baby had a face they could plaster all over the media, more people would be against abortion. (What is the difference between changing your mind after finding out your pregnant, and having an abortion & changing your mind *right after* the baby is born and deciding to murder it. It's the same logic.) Why is it ok to have an abortion? WHY is it legal? If a person doesn’t want to have a baby then they should not be having sex. Instead women are having sex and using abortion as a last resort form of birth control. Why isn’t adoption their choice? Someone actually feels better about themselves for killing their baby then they would had they given the child up for adoption? People are paying thousands of dollars to adopt a child and if you’re going to pay to kill yours why not just give it to someone for free. Most states, if not all, have safe haven laws. I guess too many people aren’t willing to temporarily sacrifice their body to do the right thing.
As for people who conceived due to situations they couldn’t control, like rape, I still feel like adoption is the way to go. So you didn’t ask for it? Well two wrong’s don’t make a right. AND only 1% of abortions in the U.S are done because of rape or incest. A whopping 93% are done for “social reasons” (the child was unwanted). and 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had a previous abortion. (Statistic reference)
I am ANTI-ABORTION; I am not "anti-choice". The bottom line is women HAVE a choice and that is whether or not to have sex. That is most definitely their choice and it is a choice that should always be protected. However once they make the choice to have sex they need to accept all the consequences that come with it. ALL of them. Stop making excuses and outs for irresponsibility.

Capital Punishment

2008-11-11T08:41:00.003-05:00

I feel like the death penalty is not used enough. I watched a show that documented life in prison for certain inmates and one specifically said he murdered someone to get the death penalty b/c he was too much of a coward to commit suicide, but he wanted to die. In such an instance he should be rushed to the “front of the line” and not be allowed to appeal.
Murder (not done in self defense) should be punishable by death. And second-offense rape should be punishable by death. I don’t think it should be given on a case by case basis either, it should be the punishment for anyone who commits those crimes, without consideration for any other punishment.
Obviously in some cases it may be hard to determine if the accused is guilty of the crime, and if death was the only option for the guilty I am sure many more would plead not guilty. But in instances where the accused admit their guilt or there is unquestionable proof, they should be put to death with no option to appeal. Not going through numerous appeals and not sitting in prison for years waiting to be put to death would cut down the cost of the death penalty. It's all a matter of choice and when you choose to end another person's life you should lose all rights you have. It's cause and effect, and taking responsibility for your actions.
And as far as wrongful convictions are concerned well that is where the “unquestionable proof” would come in..I guess “unquestionable proof” would need to be more clearly defined in order to be fair.
I would hate to be the person in charge of such a decision or on the receiving end of a wrong decision but I guess we would just have to take comfort in the fact that God is in control of it all.

Greed

2008-11-09T14:01:00.004-05:00

I just now heard and read about the contractor who found money in someone else’s wall and sued for his share of it. Ridiculous. It is a perfect example of how greedy people are. Everyone wants a share of something whether they’re entitled to it or not and the person determining if they’re entitled or not isn’t necessarily right. It’s mostly a matter of opinion and luck on getting a judge who agrees with you.
The man who found the money was quoted as saying
“I open up one of the envelopes, tear open the corner and there’s a $50 bill”
He THEN calls the homeowner.
The contractor felt he was entitled to a larger chunk then the 10% offered to him, due to “finders, keepers”.
According to wikipedia, “Finders, keepers is the adage with the premise that when something is unowned or abandoned, whoever finds it can claim it.” However everything in the home belongs to the homeowner whether she is aware of it’s existence or not. Or at least that is how it should be. The contractor had no right to even open what he found in SOMEONE ELSE’s home. It should have all been turned over to the homeowner. He then should have graciously accepted the finder’s fee she offered and prayed for some good luck of his own instead of greedily attaching himself to someone else’s good luck.
What happened next?
“A month after The Plain Dealer reported on the case in December 2007, Dunne's estate got involved, suing for the right to the money.” Dunne is the man who stashed the cash and “died without a will or heirs.”
Just because somewhere down the bloodline you are related to someone doesn’t make you entitled to any of their money. Unless of course it was willed to you, which in this case it was not. But greedy people will try, and in cases like this they will win.
It’s ridiculous. NOW after lawyer’s fees and payouts to the descendants the greedy man who started the lawsuit was reported to only have walked away with a few thousand dollars. 10% of the money in question would have been $18,200 which is more then just a “few” thousand. Also, in the midst of all this his business suffered due to what he feels like was the media portraying him as greedy. How he can feel vindicated when he walked away with less then what was originally offered shows what a moron he is. The homeowner obviously agreed with him that he deserved something or she wouldn’t have offered 10%.
...simply ridiculous.

Here are the articles I read about this in and quoted..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_re_us/house_hidden_money
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/13/eveningnews/main3617369.shtml

my bright idea

2008-11-09T01:09:00.000-05:00

I would love to see a commercial that mocks the Corn Refiners Association’s commercials about high fructose corn syrup. Except the clueless idiot would answer the question “what do they say about it” instead of stuttering or staring blankly..
apparently i am not the first person to have my bright idea..there are a few commercial "come backs" on youtube but there should be some airing on TV.

Politics

2008-11-04T19:53:00.000-05:00

Shortly after the primaries were over I read an article (that I unfortunately can not find to link to) in which a black lady said she had been a Hillary supporter until Obama brought up race, then she felt like she had to change her vote to Obama simply b/c she was black. while I can understand Obama will do what he has to win when the race issue came up against Hillary I was a little surprised. Hillary was, afterall, trying to be the first female president. why didn't that woman stick with Hillary because of the "woman" in her. why did the "black" in her prevail. why is skin color or sex even a deciding factor? it seems like a lot of people are focused on our potential "first black president"s skin color. I read somewhere that Obama "is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side". now i am not sure how accurate that is b/c it was in an email that had a lot of inaccuracies but either way Obama's mother was white. he was mostly raised by his white family. and I am against ignorant voting. so it really irritates me that someone would vote for Obama solely because his skin is more black then white.

I do not affiliate myself with either political party. I have my own views and opinions about numerous topics and whether they "match" one party more then the other is irrelevant to me as I do not vote. Nor would I vote for someone simply based on their affiliation. Voters should actually take the time to read up on or listen to the candidates views on matters, plans for our country, and make an informed and educated vote. if you can not or will not take the time to educate yourself on each candidate then you should not vote. and it really is that simple.