There once was a town called Shellymin it was a very peaceful place, everyone knew each other, they were all friends. It was a little island, most people would go there for a holiday even though others stayed there for a lifetime. You had to go on a ferry to get to the island, it costed $5 per person but if you were a homeowner it would only cost $2. The trees were very good to climb on and that’s why all the children loved the tree’s there. There was also a huge lake that you were aloud to swim in but you couldn’t go past the poles that were in the water because that’s where the fish swam. All the houses stood in a row like soldiers, and every house that was built was to be made out of wood because the man who owned this island loved houses made out of wood, you also couldn’t paint them, but if you had permission you could.
In this little island there lived a rich family, this family was called the Charlson family. Steve Charlson was in the company that worked for the island and he had a wife and four children. He had light brown hair and eyes the colour of the sea. His wife, Alice was a Nurse at the Shellymin’s Children’s Hospital and was thin and beautiful with her long golden hair and bright blue eyes. Their eldest child was Jake Charlson, who was seventeen and nearly going to collage to train to become a teacher. With his good looks and his sweet and sensitive personality he got him self a girlfriend . Next in child birth was Jessica Charlson or you might say Jess, as she was known to be called, she had long brown hair, a few freckles and bright blue eyes the colour of her mum’s, she was pretty, bright and was 13. After Jess came Maxwell Charlson but he preferred to be called Max, Max was a bully at school and had very little friends, he was 11, stubborn and had shaggy, muddy brown hair and a gloomy face. The very youngest of the children was Caroline Charlson, the 4 year old, cute little angel, at least that’s what her parents thought of her, the true Caroline was a clever, tough, out going little rascal, she was cute with her puppy dog eyes and curly blonde hair on the outside but the real her was on the inside.
Then there was there house that was very beautiful, it had a balcony outside every room and it was a 3-storie mansion that looked over the lake, it was LOVELY! Each room had a safe in it just incase they would have a brake-in. In Jesse’s safe there was her money her jewelry and her rare CD’s. In Jake’s safe there was a book called “How To Be A Teacher” there was also a trophy from the Spelling Bee contest when he was 7. In Max’s safe there was an invitation to the bad boys gang party and a card that said: you are now an official bad boy gangster, and a CD signed by the country’s best rapper. Then last is Caroline she had a karate medal and karate clothes from her secret lessons, and a medal from the beauty contest she won when she was 3 and her first lost tooth from a few weeks ago. In the living room they had a flat Plasma screen TV in front of their couch and a coffee table just beside it, they also had all around sound to make the TV sound realistic. In the Kitchen they had a glass table, some cupboards and lots of top class electronics. In Jake’s bedroom, he had a bed, a desk with a 24 inch screen Macintosh computer on it, a TV and a walk in wardrobe. In Jess’s room she had a mirror, some posters of Avril Lavigne and Brad Pit, she had a bunk bed with a desk underneath instead of a bed and a 30 inch TV. In Max’s room there was a rock ‘n’ roll guitar tickets to a concert that’s called: ‘rocking my life’ CD’s for beginner rockers. Also a Compaq laptop and a rockstar book. His bed was a big one that had a black blanket and in big white letters it said this: ROCKSTAR! He also had a white plain pillow. On the wall there was posters of famous rocker’s. In Caroline’s room there was a little bed on the wall there was a painting off a mermaid sitting on a rock then in the corner was a little table with a mirror on it and some ‘learning to read’ books and the carpet was a little pink and red stripes carpet then in the mum and dad’s room there was a king sized bed a mirror on each side of the bed there was a bedside table and then there was a door that led to the bathroom. There was also a indoor pool with lots of toys.
The charltons’s also had a trampoline that floats on the water. Upstairs was a play room with playmobile Lego action figures mini go-karts a little race track and two mote-control cars then there was a spare room for guest’s and a cupboard where all the mum and dad’s trophies and medals. “I’m going to the pub you look after the kids ok?” Said Steve as he went out the door.
“Ok, darling.” She said as he closed the door behind him.
When he got to the pub he said “Hi Moe, give me a beer or two.” In 25 minutes Steve had drunken 12 cups of beers and a bottle of wine. Not surprisingly Steve got drunk, he was so drunk he couldn’t drive the way home and had to take a taxi.
“Hi honey, I’m home!” Steve said as he walked into the room with a slam behind him as he closed the door.
“Shh, don’t wake up the kids!” Alice whispered. ”What took you so long, Steve?”
“Um, uh, can I lie down for a second?”
“Oh no, don’t say you got drunk again! How many beers did you have?”
“Just 12.”
“Just 12? You know what could happen if you got drunk like the time you nearly killed someone with a chair. Where is the car, Steve? You didn’t take a taxi home, did you? Now the car’s still at the pub!”
“Just calm down, I can explain.”
‘Explain what Steve? You know what, this is just going too far, I’m going have to leave. You obviously do not know how to set an example, these are our children Steve! And if you can’t take care of them, then I will! Tomorrow morning I’m taking Caroline and Jessica and leaving this house for good.
“Fine, let it be that way! You maniac!”
“Me? You’re the maniac! No, even worse, you’re an imbecile!”
“NO! Don’t have a divorce!” Shouted Caroline while she jumped out from behind the sofa.
“It’s not what you think.” Alice said in a calm voice.
Then max jumped out from behind the sofa and said “But then why did you say your taking Jess and Caroline and leaving for good?”
“Look everyone just go to bed and in the morning Alice will take Jess and Caroline ok?” Said Steve angrily.
Then Jake slowly gets up from behind the sofa and said “No! It’s not fair soon I’m going to college and won’t be able to see you again!”
“Don’t worry Jake we’ll visit you alright?”
In the morning at 10 o’clock Alice, Jess and Caroline got up had breakfast and then had a little play but Alice looked for a house then she found a lovely house just like there’s so Alice, Jess and Caroline went to have a look at it while Max, Jake and Steve stayed home. When all the boys woke up they had breakfast Max had some Weet-Bix with sultana’s on it and milk, Jake had nutigrain and Steve had some yogurt then they started cleaning up all the girl’s room first they painted Caroline’s room white then they took her bed away and then her table and the mirror then they took all of Jesse’s stuff and they took the posters of her wall. They took her TV away and her table and bunk bed. When a big truck came they put everything in the truck and the truck drived off to give the furniture to Alice and the kids. For lunch they all had some sandwiches because no wanted a really good lunch they didn’t feel like it then Steve said “ok who wants to go get spoilt maybe go in the pool have a party just to get cheered up?”
Both boys said “yeah!” The next day it was their school day the school was called ‘New Life, the school was 5 minutes away it had a playground with 2 swing’s a slide a pole to slide down and that was all there was also a sandpit, there was pre-primary to high school there was a library and a swimming pool the principal was called Mrs. Marble she had a son called Mr.Marble his first name was Alex he was my teacher everyone in the class liked him because whenever your good he will give you fake money then you can buy lollies off him and whoever has the most money at the end of the year will get 2 bags of lollies. Then the school library teacher was called Mrs.Hudnker she taught the year 1 to year 2’s to read then she read stories to the year 3’s to year 7’s then she would give us worksheets and pencils. The school was very nice everyone liked it.
but one-day when the dad was resting a man called John that was going to get kicked out of the island didn’t want to get kicked out and also he wanted their money (with ‘their’ I mean the rich family) so he got a match stick lit it and started a fire…The fire got bigger and bigger by the time the fire was as big as the door John had gone to the place where firemen worked he was back with a fireman suit. He ran into the house and took Steve, Steve woke up shocked. John then took Steve to the his house Steve then shouted “where is my kid’s go get my kids!” but the man called John laughed and said “well only if you let me back into here,you didn’t really think I was a fireman did you? Haha” Steve stared at John then said “look John you are band but if you save my kids then I’ll let you stay. You in?” “Deal” said John with a smirk on his face but first John took Steve to a chair and put sticky tape on Steve’s mouth and tied him onto the chair then John went to go for the kids but when John came back he said “the kids weren’t there” Steve frowned and said “your just trying to scare me get my kids right now!” John smiled again “look pal there not there and I’ve done want you wanted me to do so you better let me stay” “NO WAY!” said Steve in a angry voice “ok then Steve we will do it the hard way” John took out a knife and was just going to stab Steve when the door smashed and a log came flying in then guess who opened the door.
It was Max, Jake, Bell, Alex and Jessie and all the other kids then Max said “SAVE IT JOHN IF YOUR GOING TO HURT MY DAD YOU HAVE TO GET THROUGH ME AND EVERYONE ELSE!” then all the kids got out their weapons some had baseball bats some had tennis rackets some had logs. However, Steve did not want to risk his children so Steve said, “NO kids don’t! You will die please kids!” but the kids did not listen then Jake said “dad you have done everything for us like when your working and I want to play footy with you because no one else does you will just play with me and do your work later” then all the kids nodded then Jessie said “so now we are doing something for you!” but John wouldn’t allow this so he pointed up they gun and loaded it, Steve was signaling to go home but this time the children obeyed.
Chapter two
The Clever, tough outgoing little rascal
Is let out.
“What are we going to do?” Asked Jessie “my stepfather might be killed!” she started panicking. “Tell the police?” asked Max. “No! If we want to save our father than if we tell the police they wont let us interfere.” Said Jake frowning. Max got angry. “Shut up Jake we shouldn’t interfere!” “Max, Jake is right we need to save your dad we can’t let the police do it! Anyway the police don’t know where they are, and right now I don’t either! The police are terrible anyway, this is the first time that there has been and murderous kindapper on the loose since I was born!” Bell said firmly. Everyone started shouting at each other and fighting. “EVERYONE! SHUT UP!” Alex roared. “We are losing time! Fighting is not the answer! First we will try save dad then if we can’t we will tell the whole town!” the other kids and teenagers started to nodd there heads. “we need to spy on them first but we need someone small that can fit between the gates. Because John locked them once we went out.”
“Now it is my time to shine!” a voice came from down the dark drippy alley. “Who was that?” Jessie asked. Geuss who came into sight this time? Caroline. “Caroline!” everyone shouted. “No your to young to join with us, its not like you do karate!” everyone giggled by the thought of that. “Oh really?” caroline showed everyone her medals for karate. She had proved them wrong. “Wow!” everyone shouted. “Now lets get to work!” Caroline shouted with a smile on her face. “Wait a minute.” One of the boys said. “Why would John just let us go? Wouldn’t he think that we would tell someone?” “We got to get out of here before he finds out we are here!” Another boy whispered. “To late!” It was John! The kids tried to run but he caught them all. Accept from Caroline that had seen him come out and right now was saving his stepfather.
She explaned that they couldn’t tell anyone and had to save the kids. “John has made a big deal out of leaving this island.” Caroline whispered “dad?” caroline saw that Steve was like a statue. She heard him whisper under his breath, “Alice.” Caroline was confused, “what about mum. Whats wrong with her?” Steve stopped being like a statue and shouted with a horrified face, “ALICE! John said he is going to hurt her! He knows where she is! We need to save her!” Caroline understood and at once they both ran to the hospital.
Steve ran to the counter. “Oh, hi Steve lovely day today, I am sorry about your divorce. Are you here for a app-“ “just be quiet! I have to see Alice! This is an emergency!” “I uh, well, um,” the women studdered. “Where is she!” Steve screamed. “Don’t shout! The lady whispered. Why are you here?” “It is an emergency please I need to see her!” “Ok, ok, calm down I saw a man walk out with her, he said his name was John Mclay, he was taking her out for a test or something, well, that’s what he said.” Steve and caroline had wide eyes. They ran out of the hospital. “What should we do?” Caroline cried. She had tears rolling down her cheek. Same with Steve.
DING, DING, DONG. It was time for everyone in the island to go somewhere of the island. Caroline and Steve had been looking for hours asking every person they saw. No sign. Everyone left. Accept from John Alice and the kids. They were here somewhere hiding. “What if mum is dead and brother and sister and friends?” Caroline wheeped. Steve lifted her up onto his shoulders to comfort her. But not only he comforted her he made her smile the biggest smile. The kids and Alice were in an alley hiding. “Dad! I see mum and others!” whispered Caroline merrily. Steve had also seen. They ran to each other and kissed and hugged. But Alice was quick to think. “We must get out of here! John was going to put a sleeping pill in me and drown me in water!” everyone started to frown. “Look there is the last ferry over there, we should catch it to the meeting. We are allready late! But while we are going there we need an excuse.” Said Alice. They quickly hopped onto the boat. Just as it was going to leave Steve said “wait! We can’t come back to this island, we need to go somewhere else. Lets go get the carand bring it with us so we can go somewhere. Kids stay here. Jake you look after them Alice and I will get the car.” The two ran off and got into the car. Steve was starting it up and Alice had a horrified face. “Steve? Steve? STEVE?!” screamed Alice. “What?!” Said Steve rising his head. “The chilrdren! The ferry!” Screamed Alice getting out of the car. Steve quickly looked. The ferry was leaving with the children. “John was the ferry driver!” shouted Steve they ran to the water. Steve jumped in so he could get to them but they were allready near the end. Steve swam back. The two were shouting for help. The kids were to. John took them off the boat. He had a big metal thing that was black and a square shape. The sun was shining off it. Suddenly they both realised. It was a BOMB.
Days later there was no sign of the kids or the townspeople. Steve and Alice collected all the keys for the cars just incase they needed someextra transport. Their were two keys for each car incase one was lost. They had made a raft and they floated to the other side when the water was calm and still. The sun gazed down on them. A car was parked on the other side. Steve opened the door and tried every key. Finally he found the right one. The car was a red Holden wit some brown mud on the bottom. Alice touched the car. “It has been here for a while the car is very hot.” The sun gazed down in the lovely blue lake. Alice and Steve got into the car. He turned it around and drove around the corner. Suddenly he stopped. The meeting house had blown up. There was black ashand the the lovely house with a bell on the front and swimming pool in the front turned into big ruins. The place was terrible. Suddenly they saw a note on a tree this is what it read: Dear Mom and Dad,we know
That you would come for us so we sneaked this writing and stuck it to a wall. John said something about, a dungeon. We don’t have much time so we will just give you these sums.
715+2351920+2015+42114.7515.1419.
My book the kidnappe?
my answer is it's nice to read and cool too ilike it star for you..
Reply:why did you post an entire book on the internet? It is wayyy ytoo long, and it is boring! You added extra characters in the second chapter that weren't there before like Bell and Alex. you elaborated on deatails too much, but didn't give toher needed info on characters. Also, you say Steve was Jess's stepdad in the second chapter, but her dad in the first. this book needs Majro editing!
Reply:i like it
Monday, November 16, 2009
Hillary Agrees with Bush we must stay in Iraq???
In a calculated bid to position herself for the 2008 Democratic nomination, Senator Hillary Clinton told the New York Times Wednesday that, if elected president, she would keep significant US military forces in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
Based on a half-hour interview with the New York Senator and putative front-runner in the Democratic presidential contest, the Times reported that Clinton “articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of ‘bringing the troops home.’”
Clinton told the newspaper that there are “‘remaining vital national security interests in Iraq’ that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.”
The US troops, according to Clinton’s plan, would be used to “fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.”
They would not, she stressed, be deployed to secure Baghdad or to quell sectarian violence “even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.”
As for Iraq’s importance to US “national security,” Clinton could not have been clearer: “It is right in the heart of the oil region.”
Asked how many troops would be left behind under such a plan Clinton demurred, claiming that she would bow to “the advice of military officers.” Undoubtedly, however, these open-ended missions—securing Iraq’s borders, suppressing resistance, training its military and, above all, assuring control of its oil, not to mention protecting and supporting all those engaged in these activities—would require the permanent basing of tens of thousands of US soldiers and marines in an occupation that would last for decades.
Indeed, as the Times notes, Clinton’s proposal closely resembles the position taken by Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon’s comptroller under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He estimated that such a “limiting” of missions would reduce the number of troops required to 75,000.
The timing of Clinton’s interview was hardly a coincidence. The article appeared the day before the Democratic-led Senate voted on a resolution setting a timetable for withdrawing US combat troops by March 31, 2008. While the mass media routinely referred to this measure as a Democratic proposal to end the war, it fell far short of that.
In fact, as a number of leading Senate Democrats explained, the timetable was a “goal” rather than a legislative mandate backed by the cut-off of war funding. Moreover, like Clinton, the resolution itself clarified that US troops would remain in the country for the “limited” missions of training and supplying Iraqi forces, conducting “targeted counterterrorism operations” and protecting US personnel and infrastructure. Again, these are operations that would keep tens of thousands of US military personnel in the country indefinitely.
In any case, the Senate failed to pass the resolution, voting 50 to 48 to reject it. The Democrats would have needed 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster and pass the measure.
In the end, the Senate approved two nonbinding resolutions—one Republican and one Democratic—declaring support for the troops in Iraq. The Republican version included a clause vowing never to cut any funds for “troops in the field.” Both passed overwhelmingly.
Just hours earlier in the House of Representatives, members of the Appropriations Committee voted 36 to 28 to approve a package—ironically dubbed an antiwar measure—that provides over $100 billion more to finance the Bush administration’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the escalation announced by the White House earlier this year.
This legislation calls for most US combat troops—again, by no means all—to be withdrawn by August 31, 2008, and sets earlier deadlines if the Iraqi government fails to show progress in key areas, including the passage of a new oil law, allowing US energy monopolies to begin exploiting the country’s vast oil reserves. Like the Senate resolution, however, these deadlines have no force of law, and no teeth should Bush ignore them.
Also attached to the war spending bill are requirements that US troops be fully trained, equipped and rested before being redeployed to Iraq. The Democratic leadership, however, added language empowering the president to waive these requirements as he sees fit, so as not to interfere with the planned deployment of some 30,000 more troops in the “surge” announced in January.
As the Senate vote indicates, the chances of even these empty restrictions on Bush’s power to continue the war passing both houses of Congress are nil. Even if they were to be approved, the Bush White House has vowed to veto them.
The political developments on Capitol Hill, as well as the continued carnage in Iraq itself, are demonstrating the undeniable truth that the massive repudiation in last November’s election of both the Iraq war and the Bush administration’s policies as a whole have failed to change anything.
On the contrary, a vote that represented a popular mandate for ending the war has been answered with the war’s escalation. This is the result of the increasingly undemocratic character of the US government, which openly rejects the will of the people in order to serve the interests of the big oil monopolies, the Wall Street banks and America’s ruling oligarchy as a whole. It is also a product of the complete duplicity of the Democratic Party, which gained control of both houses of Congress on the basis of the antiwar vote, but represents these same interests and is therefore committed to continue the fight for “success” in Iraq.
In stating her commitment to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq if she is elected president in 2008, Hillary Clinton is merely making explicit the real policy of the Democratic leadership as a whole, all of the talk about ending the war and bringing “the troops home” notwithstanding.
This is made clear by the Democratic Leadership Council, the most powerful caucus within the Democratic Party, which recently posted on its web site a statement entitled “Plan B on Iraq,” which ridiculed the demand for a “rapid and complete withdrawal from Iraq” as “Plan Zero.”
In a fairly straightforward passage, the article noted that “many of the ‘deadline for withdrawal’ plans circulating in Congress actually assume we will leave significant non-conventional-combat forces in Iraq for an extended period of time; most have loopholes for changing the withdrawal schedule as necessary.” It continues: “All the focus on deadlines obscures discussion of the need for a smaller, redeployed force with a crucially different but still urgent mission. Those offering plans for withdrawal of ‘combat troops’ need to be much more explicit about the kind of US troops that should remain.”
The DLC suggests that Washington would remain in Iraq with a “counterterrorism force” that “would consist largely of military trainers, special forces, intelligence and logistics.” It adds, “Some experts also have suggested that it help Iraqi forces guard borders.”
The statement adds the following peculiar passage: “In general, our military and diplomatic operations should acknowledge the especially barbaric Sunni insurgent-Al Qaeda tactics in Iraq...”
What seems to be suggested is that the “counterterrorism” actions of the reduced force in Iraq would be directed at aiding the terror activities of the Shia militias and death squads in the sectarian civil war that has broken out in the country, a strategy that some military analysts have dubbed the “Salvador Option,” for its resemblance to the backing for the Central American death squad regime in the 1980s.
This outlook seems to be echoed by Ms. Clinton in her interview with the New York Times. At the end of the interview, she brushes aside a question over whether US troops could stand aside in the face of violent sectarian ethnic cleansing operations, declaring, “Look, I think the American people are done with Iraq.”
She continued, “No one wants to sit by and see mass killing. It’s going on every day.... This is an Iraqi problem; we cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. If we had a different attitude going in there, if we had stopped the looting immediately, if we had asserted our authority—you can go down the lines, if, if, if...”
Of course in all of this blaming the Iraqis for the historic catastrophe that the US war of aggression has inflicted upon their country, the Democratic Senator does not raise the obvious hypothetical: what if she and fellow members of her party had opposed the war and refused to vote for the October 2002 resolution granting the Bush administration the power to invade a relatively defenseless country on the fraudulent pretext that weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties (both nonexistent) posed an imminent threat to the US?
Instead, in Clinton’s view, it is a matter of the Bush administration—which is responsible for the deaths of 655,000 Iraqis, the wounding of countless more and the imprisoning of tens of thousands—failing to “assert our authority.”
There is an obvious reason for Clinton’s refusal to repudiate her 2002 vote to authorize war against Iraq. She is signaling America’s ruling elite that, should she be elected president, she is prepared to carry out even more horrendous crimes against the Iraqi people and to launch future wars of aggression against other countries in order to assert US hegemony and seize control of vital resources and markets.
No doubt Ms. Clinton has been counseled by her husband in this matter. Bill Clinton is the recognized master of the cynical political technique of triangulation—choosing a middle position between that of your right-wing supporters and the sentiments of your liberal backers. He would advise his wife that, while criticizing the Bush administration’s handling of the war, she should deliberately distance herself from those Democrats seeking to identify themselves with mass antiwar sentiments.
According to this political logic—confirmed in spades by the 2004 election—the base of the Democratic party may respond to antiwar demagogy in the course of the primaries, but in the end the party leadership will nominate a candidate acceptable to the big moneyed interests that control it and that support the essential aims of the US intervention in Iraq. The even more cynical corollary to this approach is the conception that, when all is said and done, the Democrats’ liberal, antiwar constituency will vote for Clinton anyway in a contest against a Republican. “Where else are they going to go?”
The four-and-a-half months since the midterm elections have amply demonstrated that a genuine struggle against the war in Iraq can be waged only by breaking with the Democratic Party of Clinton as well as with the Bush administration.
Hillary Agrees with Bush we must stay in Iraq???
She is talking out of both sides of her mouth. She wants to reduce the U.S. forces overthere and limit there mission, but will listen to the U.S. commanders. Well most U.S. comanders on the ground want the ROE to be revamped so that they can kill the terrorists where ever they are, to include mosques and holy sites. Limiting there mission would only further hinder there ability to track down and kill the terrorist as they are in the middle of the ethnic cleansing and secratarian violence. Such a strategy will place more ristrictions on the troops and further hinder her job. It is a nice idea but it would never work. She could reduce the amount of troops to 75,000 and then let those troops have a far more liberal ROE and it might work, but also would not makes sense, as why not just keep the same amount of troops over there with the more liberal ROE and get the job done quicker. At least she has an idea, that is a lot more than I can say for the other candidates running for president, but there is still no way I would vote for her as I see her as fake and a socialist. Where is Joe Liberman when you need him?
Reply:How did you go over the 1000 character limit?
Reply:That should tell u something.
Reply:The lady is a total genius!
.
Reply:Geez, you expect anyone to read all that? I could re-watch the debate in less time.
Reply:The word "synopsis" means nothing to you, eh?
Reply:it will take me all week to read that.
Ya stay in iraq
hillary is a waste of a homan being
this time in iraq, just finish it and nuke a city to show them who is boss
Reply:The Iraq war is a lose - lose situation. Pulling out, makes us look as bad as going in under false pretenses. Staying is a waste of money because they will never be equal. This is why going in was such a bad idea.
People say you can't pull out until we win. But winning is virtually impossible and us leaving is virtually a death sentence for every member of their new gov't and plenty of citizens.
After we defeated the Iraqi army we should have left and let the UN put them back together. It is a fact that we are the reason there are so many attacks weekly, and the reason that there are so many countries have lost respect for us. Us trying to put the country back together took on another job, fighting Muslims in a jihad. Can we kill all those that are extremist faster than they are converting? No. Which puts us in quite a bad situation. Pulling out eventually is our only hope.
Reply:After skimming your very long question, all I have to say is that Ms. Clinton will do or say anything to get herself elected. Given her past record of changing her mind, there is no way of knowing how she would act as commander-in-chief.
She is a snake who cannot be trusted with our national security let alone all the other decisions required to be made by our President.
The bottom line is that she barely has the support of her own party to get the nomination to run on the Democratc ticket. She is merely placing herself in a position to get some Republican support should that happen.
BTW: the war on terror is going to be an ongoing war for eternity. Winning in Iraq will not allow us to be war-free ever again
Reply:Hilary talks through her nose. She flings about all kinds of ideas. I'm not going to read all of this post. It doesn't matter anyway. Hilary will not win, no matter what she says.
Reply:Furk me, write a book.
Reply:She's all in favor of the war as all of the presidential candidates are. Look, we're not getting out of Iraq anytime soon at all. The Democrat House and Senate vs Bush is a puppet show and doesn't mean jack.
If you are familiar of the real reason we are in the middle east, you will know the US is only a little less than half way to finishing it's goal.
It's about time that people wake up to the cold facts that we're not fighting terrorism in the middle east. Almost 700,000 dead Iraqis should tell you something.
Reply:Your hypothisis offers a more complex political system here, than they have in Iraq. A presidential candidate who agrees with the Bush strategy, yet openly criticizes everything the administration does or plans to do regareding the war. She avoids the far left anti-war hacks, for fear their agenda will stick to her. She crowds the moderate middle to make herself as small a target as possible. She plans on troop reduction and refuses to help the Iraqi's control the civil war. She suggests that it is Iraqi's killing Iraqi's when in fact the whole world knows that Ahmadinejads foot print is all over this effort, yet she avoids addressing the Iran problem, at all costs.
Billary, that is Hillary, Slick, and Rahm Emanuel, remind me of the nineteenth century trickster, PT Barnum who said, "Theirs one born every minute !" This is the approach this comedy act applies when dealing with the American people.
Hillary's plan is whatever she thinks the American people will buy, therefore she realizes the folly of the democrats, particularly Reid, Pelosi, and Murtha, so she has distanced herself from the three stooges for this reason. Yet, her attitude towards Iraq is no different than the liberals, she just knows that if the American people believe that, she doesn't have a prayer in getting elected !
History is my educator in saying this about Hillary. We watched for eight years while the Islamic extremists attacked our country, or it's interest, at least six times, yet the Clinton team of Billary did nothing. Hillary was as much a part of the decision making of that era, as Slick is part of the team today. When the Serbs decided to start beating up on the Islamic Albanians in Kosovo, the Clintons were right there, with their high wire act, to protect the Muslims. How do you figure that ?
We know that Slick had a real fondness for the Russians, even before Yeltsin. In the sixties, he spent time there, protesting the Vietnam war. One has to wonder if they have the same admiration for the Islamic's in the middle east. We all know about their disdain with the American military. I will never forget the humiliation she brought on the Marine Corps while still in the White House. They were hosting a party for dignitaries when Hillary suggested that young Marine Corps officers, assigned to the White House, participate, by serving hor D'oeuvres. This alone deserved a good swift kick in that big wide @ss of hers !
Reply:that's why Dennis Kucinich is the man
Based on a half-hour interview with the New York Senator and putative front-runner in the Democratic presidential contest, the Times reported that Clinton “articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of ‘bringing the troops home.’”
Clinton told the newspaper that there are “‘remaining vital national security interests in Iraq’ that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.”
The US troops, according to Clinton’s plan, would be used to “fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.”
They would not, she stressed, be deployed to secure Baghdad or to quell sectarian violence “even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.”
As for Iraq’s importance to US “national security,” Clinton could not have been clearer: “It is right in the heart of the oil region.”
Asked how many troops would be left behind under such a plan Clinton demurred, claiming that she would bow to “the advice of military officers.” Undoubtedly, however, these open-ended missions—securing Iraq’s borders, suppressing resistance, training its military and, above all, assuring control of its oil, not to mention protecting and supporting all those engaged in these activities—would require the permanent basing of tens of thousands of US soldiers and marines in an occupation that would last for decades.
Indeed, as the Times notes, Clinton’s proposal closely resembles the position taken by Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon’s comptroller under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He estimated that such a “limiting” of missions would reduce the number of troops required to 75,000.
The timing of Clinton’s interview was hardly a coincidence. The article appeared the day before the Democratic-led Senate voted on a resolution setting a timetable for withdrawing US combat troops by March 31, 2008. While the mass media routinely referred to this measure as a Democratic proposal to end the war, it fell far short of that.
In fact, as a number of leading Senate Democrats explained, the timetable was a “goal” rather than a legislative mandate backed by the cut-off of war funding. Moreover, like Clinton, the resolution itself clarified that US troops would remain in the country for the “limited” missions of training and supplying Iraqi forces, conducting “targeted counterterrorism operations” and protecting US personnel and infrastructure. Again, these are operations that would keep tens of thousands of US military personnel in the country indefinitely.
In any case, the Senate failed to pass the resolution, voting 50 to 48 to reject it. The Democrats would have needed 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster and pass the measure.
In the end, the Senate approved two nonbinding resolutions—one Republican and one Democratic—declaring support for the troops in Iraq. The Republican version included a clause vowing never to cut any funds for “troops in the field.” Both passed overwhelmingly.
Just hours earlier in the House of Representatives, members of the Appropriations Committee voted 36 to 28 to approve a package—ironically dubbed an antiwar measure—that provides over $100 billion more to finance the Bush administration’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the escalation announced by the White House earlier this year.
This legislation calls for most US combat troops—again, by no means all—to be withdrawn by August 31, 2008, and sets earlier deadlines if the Iraqi government fails to show progress in key areas, including the passage of a new oil law, allowing US energy monopolies to begin exploiting the country’s vast oil reserves. Like the Senate resolution, however, these deadlines have no force of law, and no teeth should Bush ignore them.
Also attached to the war spending bill are requirements that US troops be fully trained, equipped and rested before being redeployed to Iraq. The Democratic leadership, however, added language empowering the president to waive these requirements as he sees fit, so as not to interfere with the planned deployment of some 30,000 more troops in the “surge” announced in January.
As the Senate vote indicates, the chances of even these empty restrictions on Bush’s power to continue the war passing both houses of Congress are nil. Even if they were to be approved, the Bush White House has vowed to veto them.
The political developments on Capitol Hill, as well as the continued carnage in Iraq itself, are demonstrating the undeniable truth that the massive repudiation in last November’s election of both the Iraq war and the Bush administration’s policies as a whole have failed to change anything.
On the contrary, a vote that represented a popular mandate for ending the war has been answered with the war’s escalation. This is the result of the increasingly undemocratic character of the US government, which openly rejects the will of the people in order to serve the interests of the big oil monopolies, the Wall Street banks and America’s ruling oligarchy as a whole. It is also a product of the complete duplicity of the Democratic Party, which gained control of both houses of Congress on the basis of the antiwar vote, but represents these same interests and is therefore committed to continue the fight for “success” in Iraq.
In stating her commitment to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq if she is elected president in 2008, Hillary Clinton is merely making explicit the real policy of the Democratic leadership as a whole, all of the talk about ending the war and bringing “the troops home” notwithstanding.
This is made clear by the Democratic Leadership Council, the most powerful caucus within the Democratic Party, which recently posted on its web site a statement entitled “Plan B on Iraq,” which ridiculed the demand for a “rapid and complete withdrawal from Iraq” as “Plan Zero.”
In a fairly straightforward passage, the article noted that “many of the ‘deadline for withdrawal’ plans circulating in Congress actually assume we will leave significant non-conventional-combat forces in Iraq for an extended period of time; most have loopholes for changing the withdrawal schedule as necessary.” It continues: “All the focus on deadlines obscures discussion of the need for a smaller, redeployed force with a crucially different but still urgent mission. Those offering plans for withdrawal of ‘combat troops’ need to be much more explicit about the kind of US troops that should remain.”
The DLC suggests that Washington would remain in Iraq with a “counterterrorism force” that “would consist largely of military trainers, special forces, intelligence and logistics.” It adds, “Some experts also have suggested that it help Iraqi forces guard borders.”
The statement adds the following peculiar passage: “In general, our military and diplomatic operations should acknowledge the especially barbaric Sunni insurgent-Al Qaeda tactics in Iraq...”
What seems to be suggested is that the “counterterrorism” actions of the reduced force in Iraq would be directed at aiding the terror activities of the Shia militias and death squads in the sectarian civil war that has broken out in the country, a strategy that some military analysts have dubbed the “Salvador Option,” for its resemblance to the backing for the Central American death squad regime in the 1980s.
This outlook seems to be echoed by Ms. Clinton in her interview with the New York Times. At the end of the interview, she brushes aside a question over whether US troops could stand aside in the face of violent sectarian ethnic cleansing operations, declaring, “Look, I think the American people are done with Iraq.”
She continued, “No one wants to sit by and see mass killing. It’s going on every day.... This is an Iraqi problem; we cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. If we had a different attitude going in there, if we had stopped the looting immediately, if we had asserted our authority—you can go down the lines, if, if, if...”
Of course in all of this blaming the Iraqis for the historic catastrophe that the US war of aggression has inflicted upon their country, the Democratic Senator does not raise the obvious hypothetical: what if she and fellow members of her party had opposed the war and refused to vote for the October 2002 resolution granting the Bush administration the power to invade a relatively defenseless country on the fraudulent pretext that weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties (both nonexistent) posed an imminent threat to the US?
Instead, in Clinton’s view, it is a matter of the Bush administration—which is responsible for the deaths of 655,000 Iraqis, the wounding of countless more and the imprisoning of tens of thousands—failing to “assert our authority.”
There is an obvious reason for Clinton’s refusal to repudiate her 2002 vote to authorize war against Iraq. She is signaling America’s ruling elite that, should she be elected president, she is prepared to carry out even more horrendous crimes against the Iraqi people and to launch future wars of aggression against other countries in order to assert US hegemony and seize control of vital resources and markets.
No doubt Ms. Clinton has been counseled by her husband in this matter. Bill Clinton is the recognized master of the cynical political technique of triangulation—choosing a middle position between that of your right-wing supporters and the sentiments of your liberal backers. He would advise his wife that, while criticizing the Bush administration’s handling of the war, she should deliberately distance herself from those Democrats seeking to identify themselves with mass antiwar sentiments.
According to this political logic—confirmed in spades by the 2004 election—the base of the Democratic party may respond to antiwar demagogy in the course of the primaries, but in the end the party leadership will nominate a candidate acceptable to the big moneyed interests that control it and that support the essential aims of the US intervention in Iraq. The even more cynical corollary to this approach is the conception that, when all is said and done, the Democrats’ liberal, antiwar constituency will vote for Clinton anyway in a contest against a Republican. “Where else are they going to go?”
The four-and-a-half months since the midterm elections have amply demonstrated that a genuine struggle against the war in Iraq can be waged only by breaking with the Democratic Party of Clinton as well as with the Bush administration.
Hillary Agrees with Bush we must stay in Iraq???
She is talking out of both sides of her mouth. She wants to reduce the U.S. forces overthere and limit there mission, but will listen to the U.S. commanders. Well most U.S. comanders on the ground want the ROE to be revamped so that they can kill the terrorists where ever they are, to include mosques and holy sites. Limiting there mission would only further hinder there ability to track down and kill the terrorist as they are in the middle of the ethnic cleansing and secratarian violence. Such a strategy will place more ristrictions on the troops and further hinder her job. It is a nice idea but it would never work. She could reduce the amount of troops to 75,000 and then let those troops have a far more liberal ROE and it might work, but also would not makes sense, as why not just keep the same amount of troops over there with the more liberal ROE and get the job done quicker. At least she has an idea, that is a lot more than I can say for the other candidates running for president, but there is still no way I would vote for her as I see her as fake and a socialist. Where is Joe Liberman when you need him?
Reply:How did you go over the 1000 character limit?
Reply:That should tell u something.
Reply:The lady is a total genius!
.
Reply:Geez, you expect anyone to read all that? I could re-watch the debate in less time.
Reply:The word "synopsis" means nothing to you, eh?
Reply:it will take me all week to read that.
Ya stay in iraq
hillary is a waste of a homan being
this time in iraq, just finish it and nuke a city to show them who is boss
Reply:The Iraq war is a lose - lose situation. Pulling out, makes us look as bad as going in under false pretenses. Staying is a waste of money because they will never be equal. This is why going in was such a bad idea.
People say you can't pull out until we win. But winning is virtually impossible and us leaving is virtually a death sentence for every member of their new gov't and plenty of citizens.
After we defeated the Iraqi army we should have left and let the UN put them back together. It is a fact that we are the reason there are so many attacks weekly, and the reason that there are so many countries have lost respect for us. Us trying to put the country back together took on another job, fighting Muslims in a jihad. Can we kill all those that are extremist faster than they are converting? No. Which puts us in quite a bad situation. Pulling out eventually is our only hope.
Reply:After skimming your very long question, all I have to say is that Ms. Clinton will do or say anything to get herself elected. Given her past record of changing her mind, there is no way of knowing how she would act as commander-in-chief.
She is a snake who cannot be trusted with our national security let alone all the other decisions required to be made by our President.
The bottom line is that she barely has the support of her own party to get the nomination to run on the Democratc ticket. She is merely placing herself in a position to get some Republican support should that happen.
BTW: the war on terror is going to be an ongoing war for eternity. Winning in Iraq will not allow us to be war-free ever again
Reply:Hilary talks through her nose. She flings about all kinds of ideas. I'm not going to read all of this post. It doesn't matter anyway. Hilary will not win, no matter what she says.
Reply:Furk me, write a book.
Reply:She's all in favor of the war as all of the presidential candidates are. Look, we're not getting out of Iraq anytime soon at all. The Democrat House and Senate vs Bush is a puppet show and doesn't mean jack.
If you are familiar of the real reason we are in the middle east, you will know the US is only a little less than half way to finishing it's goal.
It's about time that people wake up to the cold facts that we're not fighting terrorism in the middle east. Almost 700,000 dead Iraqis should tell you something.
Reply:Your hypothisis offers a more complex political system here, than they have in Iraq. A presidential candidate who agrees with the Bush strategy, yet openly criticizes everything the administration does or plans to do regareding the war. She avoids the far left anti-war hacks, for fear their agenda will stick to her. She crowds the moderate middle to make herself as small a target as possible. She plans on troop reduction and refuses to help the Iraqi's control the civil war. She suggests that it is Iraqi's killing Iraqi's when in fact the whole world knows that Ahmadinejads foot print is all over this effort, yet she avoids addressing the Iran problem, at all costs.
Billary, that is Hillary, Slick, and Rahm Emanuel, remind me of the nineteenth century trickster, PT Barnum who said, "Theirs one born every minute !" This is the approach this comedy act applies when dealing with the American people.
Hillary's plan is whatever she thinks the American people will buy, therefore she realizes the folly of the democrats, particularly Reid, Pelosi, and Murtha, so she has distanced herself from the three stooges for this reason. Yet, her attitude towards Iraq is no different than the liberals, she just knows that if the American people believe that, she doesn't have a prayer in getting elected !
History is my educator in saying this about Hillary. We watched for eight years while the Islamic extremists attacked our country, or it's interest, at least six times, yet the Clinton team of Billary did nothing. Hillary was as much a part of the decision making of that era, as Slick is part of the team today. When the Serbs decided to start beating up on the Islamic Albanians in Kosovo, the Clintons were right there, with their high wire act, to protect the Muslims. How do you figure that ?
We know that Slick had a real fondness for the Russians, even before Yeltsin. In the sixties, he spent time there, protesting the Vietnam war. One has to wonder if they have the same admiration for the Islamic's in the middle east. We all know about their disdain with the American military. I will never forget the humiliation she brought on the Marine Corps while still in the White House. They were hosting a party for dignitaries when Hillary suggested that young Marine Corps officers, assigned to the White House, participate, by serving hor D'oeuvres. This alone deserved a good swift kick in that big wide @ss of hers !
Reply:that's why Dennis Kucinich is the man
Horse bite on ribs?
Yesterday when I was bringing in horses from turnout at the barn I work at, one of the horses I was leading in got annoyed by another running by and turned his head quickly and bit down on my rib. It was excruciating and knocked all the wind right out of me. It bruised right away. Today, it is painful and very bruised. You can see each tooth as a bruise and the middle where he chomped down is a patch of blackish purple. I called my primary, but he wasn’t in and the on call doc called in antibiotics and Tylenol/codine. I know only an x-ray would tell, but my grandmother recently broke a few of her ribs and they could do nothing but help with the pain. Yes it hurts tons especially to move, but since I’m not having bad symptoms like trouble breathing I’m hoping taking the meds and resting will heal it in time. Does it sound like it’s just a bad bruise that will heal with this care or could it have some way done more damage
Horse bite on ribs?
sounds like its just a REALLY bad bruise. . .but just to be safe, have them xray it soon. If its a punctured lung, you could be in seroius trouble if u dont fix it right away. doesnt matter if u have no trouble breathing, u can still have a punc. lung
Reply:They should have given you an x-ray. If you are not having any difficulty breathing then you should be okay. I would be concerned about a collapsed lung if you were having any breathing problems. Put some ice covered with a towel on the area 15 minutes on, 30 minutes off. It will help dissipate the bruising and swelling and ease the pain.
Reply:Apply soframycin to the affected area everyday twice or thrice and just rest.... You will get well fast.....Also get an x ray done asap....as you would then be able to defeat any other harm if atall has happened......
get well soon....
God bless you....
Reply:IF YOUR PAIN CONTINUES FOR A LONG TIME GET TEST TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVEN'T DAMAGED AN ORGAN. THEN TAKE THE OTHER HORSE TO COURT.
Food
Horse bite on ribs?
sounds like its just a REALLY bad bruise. . .but just to be safe, have them xray it soon. If its a punctured lung, you could be in seroius trouble if u dont fix it right away. doesnt matter if u have no trouble breathing, u can still have a punc. lung
Reply:They should have given you an x-ray. If you are not having any difficulty breathing then you should be okay. I would be concerned about a collapsed lung if you were having any breathing problems. Put some ice covered with a towel on the area 15 minutes on, 30 minutes off. It will help dissipate the bruising and swelling and ease the pain.
Reply:Apply soframycin to the affected area everyday twice or thrice and just rest.... You will get well fast.....Also get an x ray done asap....as you would then be able to defeat any other harm if atall has happened......
get well soon....
God bless you....
Reply:IF YOUR PAIN CONTINUES FOR A LONG TIME GET TEST TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVEN'T DAMAGED AN ORGAN. THEN TAKE THE OTHER HORSE TO COURT.
Food
Insane Mommy and Daddy with a Tempure when pushed to extremes?
I do not know what is in the best interest of my son.Should I not fight a restraing order,let her sell our house that she doesnt want and never see my child again at least for a few years or fight her tooth and nail?I get angry when she attacks me and yell that she is being insane with me,sometimes I may throw an item and break it,maybe once a year,but her attacks are completely insane.Do I just let the house go and let her have the happy single mommy years and focus on earing a savings for when he needs real direction in life as a teen?But I believe our house will sky rocket in value over the next few years as our citiy is poised to expand due to a particular market where I would have an extra couple hundred grand if we just can keep the house and then sell it in a few years.Not that I ever want to sell it.I could go for primary custody,but that would be too harsh to do to my wife,but I really think she is nuts.Not just saying that.I love her.I am just not able to make her happy?
Insane Mommy and Daddy with a Tempure when pushed to extremes?
You need FAR MORE competent help than ANY of us on here can give you. PLEASE go talk to someone who can give you some wise decisions. Is there ANY chance your wife would consent to joint counseling? Is your wife REALLY NUTS? If she IS, how could she POSSIBLY be a stable influence on your son? And just HOW FAR will she go to poison his mind against you during his early years WITHOUT YOU?? You MUST find a way to stay in your son's life so he doesn't feel completely deserted by you, and spend the REST of his life resenting you for it. Have you given any serious thought as to how bad he could end up acting out by the time he hits puberty and high-school? The future value of your house is NOT WORTH giving up on custody of your son!
Please, PLEASE go talk to someone! You are in my prayers! And if you want to talk further, please look up my e-mail. I've been married 29 years and have been through some stuff! I would be GLAD to talk to you!
Reply:I lost you on where your real question is, but from what I did gather, its disgusting that you would rather make a profit off of a house than take your kid out of a hostile environment.
In response to your addition: my statement still stands. If your wife contributes to a hostile situation for your kid, why abandon them? You are okay with your child in an environment you can't oversee?
Reply:I think you should let her raise the kid and get out of that relationship. It is a toxic relationship and the one who will suffer the most if you stay in it is your son. Do whats best for him by getting out of it and focusing on making money for his future. If your wife is going to act the way she does, and she refuses to get help for it, then she deserves the consequences. You need to do what is good for you and your son. Best of luck!
Reply:money is just paper that you can use to start a fire if you have no one to share it with. I would rather have 100dollars and my wife than a winning super loto ticket and not have her. whoever is important to you.
Reply:My dear friend,
First you got to relax yourself.
Dare to be yourself.
Speak out what is not happy about it.
If you really love her just bear with it and calm her down.
Both have a good and peace talk or go for family counselling if require.
Maybe she not happy with your performance in sex, go to the wed for sex technique that teach you for free.
Look like you did something very wrong or something that mad her mad. Women like guys to give in and remember never win them, just let them win if you want peace.
So what people said you are a coward, so as long as you got what you want.
By all mean try to please her and the last solution is to talk to her parents if you are not in a wrong.
I had being in your side before, I save the family by giving in everything to her. SURRENDER
Insane Mommy and Daddy with a Tempure when pushed to extremes?
You need FAR MORE competent help than ANY of us on here can give you. PLEASE go talk to someone who can give you some wise decisions. Is there ANY chance your wife would consent to joint counseling? Is your wife REALLY NUTS? If she IS, how could she POSSIBLY be a stable influence on your son? And just HOW FAR will she go to poison his mind against you during his early years WITHOUT YOU?? You MUST find a way to stay in your son's life so he doesn't feel completely deserted by you, and spend the REST of his life resenting you for it. Have you given any serious thought as to how bad he could end up acting out by the time he hits puberty and high-school? The future value of your house is NOT WORTH giving up on custody of your son!
Please, PLEASE go talk to someone! You are in my prayers! And if you want to talk further, please look up my e-mail. I've been married 29 years and have been through some stuff! I would be GLAD to talk to you!
Reply:I lost you on where your real question is, but from what I did gather, its disgusting that you would rather make a profit off of a house than take your kid out of a hostile environment.
In response to your addition: my statement still stands. If your wife contributes to a hostile situation for your kid, why abandon them? You are okay with your child in an environment you can't oversee?
Reply:I think you should let her raise the kid and get out of that relationship. It is a toxic relationship and the one who will suffer the most if you stay in it is your son. Do whats best for him by getting out of it and focusing on making money for his future. If your wife is going to act the way she does, and she refuses to get help for it, then she deserves the consequences. You need to do what is good for you and your son. Best of luck!
Reply:money is just paper that you can use to start a fire if you have no one to share it with. I would rather have 100dollars and my wife than a winning super loto ticket and not have her. whoever is important to you.
Reply:My dear friend,
First you got to relax yourself.
Dare to be yourself.
Speak out what is not happy about it.
If you really love her just bear with it and calm her down.
Both have a good and peace talk or go for family counselling if require.
Maybe she not happy with your performance in sex, go to the wed for sex technique that teach you for free.
Look like you did something very wrong or something that mad her mad. Women like guys to give in and remember never win them, just let them win if you want peace.
So what people said you are a coward, so as long as you got what you want.
By all mean try to please her and the last solution is to talk to her parents if you are not in a wrong.
I had being in your side before, I save the family by giving in everything to her. SURRENDER
How do you control a outta control 9 yr. old girl( 3 year ago divorced home)?
My boyfriend of 2 yrs. is having trouble with his 9 year old daughter. He just received primary placement becuz their mother is an addict.(many more reasons) Anyway, the mother along with her family manipulates and brain washes her when she gets her 2 wkends a month to make her believe lies they tell. He tries to provide a stable environment with rules, proper meals, and love. The daughter gets so worked up when she doesn't get her way or spazes out by spitting on the floor, throwing things, saying negative things about herself, damaging home property etc. She threw herself into a screaming rage when my b.f. took her to the dentist to get a tooth filled. He was embarrassed. He doesn't believe in physical punishments, nor yelling. Time outs.He's at his wits end on how to handle her.(Mom acts that way as well) How do you break them of this? She is in councelling but won't talk about it anymore cuz she's afraid her mom will get into trouble and be mad at her.
How do you control a outta control 9 yr. old girl( 3 year ago divorced home)?
Go on the Dr. Phil show.
Reply:I would have the B.F start documenting EVERYTHING. For his protection and for actual evidence. The court system otherwise will only label it "hear say". I also recommend getting a tape recorder that is small enough so that the 9 year old will not know she is being recorded and keep that as evidence.
This is a form of child abuse.
If this is taken to the courts, family court is all about the children, the judge will see this mother as unfit and she may have to have supervised visitation and therapy.
Please for the kids try to help her now before she acts out and is in trouble. It is not her fault her mom is a loser.
GOOD LUCK.
Reply:usually when something like that happens, children at that age require a lot more attention. maybe her emotional needs aren't being met. ur bf needs 2 know that at a stage like this in her life she needs a lot of love and support from her father. if she spazzes out then he should come over to comfort her, and ask her if she's ok, and that he loves her.
Reply:Try to ignore her negative behavior and maybe when she's acting that way ask her whats wrong%26lt; in a nice way. Try more family outings %26lt; kids activities. Try getting her to interact with kids her own age. Buy her a diary and let her write her personal feelings in it%26lt; but the diary is personal it's not for any1 else to read except her. Keep up the disapline especially when it's aggressive. But it's important not to be negative or aggressive when disaplining her. I think she needs a female figure so maybe take her out shopping once a month? Just you and her without dad? have lunch, see a movie? Show her that even though there are rules, etc you still think about her. Ask her what she wants, needs etc. But dont spoil her. Just show her you care without wanting to know her buisness. she'll open up when she's ready. Maybe when the times right ask her does she enjoy councelling if not don't force her... ask her does she want someone to come with her... Maybe even cancel it for now?
Reply:Perhaps he should be in counseling with his daughter for a time; maybe they would be able to resolve their problems together with 3rd party guidance. At some point, she can go back to individual counseling but I think family counseling would be worthwhile.
Reply:Boot camp, believe it or not it will work. 2 weeks of that will teach her manors and discipline.
Reply:Sounds to me as if she is a very angry child. There are a lot of things in her life that she shouldn't have to deal with (mom being a drug addict, divorce). Your boyfriend should try and sit down with her and talk to her about the things that are troubling her. Maybe if he is able to get her to share what she is feeling with him she will feel listened to and secure. Just an idea.
Reply:take stuff from her,time out,not getting something she wants.sounds like hes letting her do whaever she wants.teach her the rules,whos boss and whats acceptable in your home.we are raising our granddaughter.its hard sometimes but she also knows its a certain set of rules here and she follows them or misses a weekend with her father and his family.may sound harsh but you CANNOT let her get by with everything.theres nothing wrong with him disciplining her and if he doesnt start it now,she will be out of control.a dentist can be scary,they use big needles and they hurt.try a pediatric dentist next time.main thing use some DISCIPLINE
How do you control a outta control 9 yr. old girl( 3 year ago divorced home)?
Go on the Dr. Phil show.
Reply:I would have the B.F start documenting EVERYTHING. For his protection and for actual evidence. The court system otherwise will only label it "hear say". I also recommend getting a tape recorder that is small enough so that the 9 year old will not know she is being recorded and keep that as evidence.
This is a form of child abuse.
If this is taken to the courts, family court is all about the children, the judge will see this mother as unfit and she may have to have supervised visitation and therapy.
Please for the kids try to help her now before she acts out and is in trouble. It is not her fault her mom is a loser.
GOOD LUCK.
Reply:usually when something like that happens, children at that age require a lot more attention. maybe her emotional needs aren't being met. ur bf needs 2 know that at a stage like this in her life she needs a lot of love and support from her father. if she spazzes out then he should come over to comfort her, and ask her if she's ok, and that he loves her.
Reply:Try to ignore her negative behavior and maybe when she's acting that way ask her whats wrong%26lt; in a nice way. Try more family outings %26lt; kids activities. Try getting her to interact with kids her own age. Buy her a diary and let her write her personal feelings in it%26lt; but the diary is personal it's not for any1 else to read except her. Keep up the disapline especially when it's aggressive. But it's important not to be negative or aggressive when disaplining her. I think she needs a female figure so maybe take her out shopping once a month? Just you and her without dad? have lunch, see a movie? Show her that even though there are rules, etc you still think about her. Ask her what she wants, needs etc. But dont spoil her. Just show her you care without wanting to know her buisness. she'll open up when she's ready. Maybe when the times right ask her does she enjoy councelling if not don't force her... ask her does she want someone to come with her... Maybe even cancel it for now?
Reply:Perhaps he should be in counseling with his daughter for a time; maybe they would be able to resolve their problems together with 3rd party guidance. At some point, she can go back to individual counseling but I think family counseling would be worthwhile.
Reply:Boot camp, believe it or not it will work. 2 weeks of that will teach her manors and discipline.
Reply:Sounds to me as if she is a very angry child. There are a lot of things in her life that she shouldn't have to deal with (mom being a drug addict, divorce). Your boyfriend should try and sit down with her and talk to her about the things that are troubling her. Maybe if he is able to get her to share what she is feeling with him she will feel listened to and secure. Just an idea.
Reply:take stuff from her,time out,not getting something she wants.sounds like hes letting her do whaever she wants.teach her the rules,whos boss and whats acceptable in your home.we are raising our granddaughter.its hard sometimes but she also knows its a certain set of rules here and she follows them or misses a weekend with her father and his family.may sound harsh but you CANNOT let her get by with everything.theres nothing wrong with him disciplining her and if he doesnt start it now,she will be out of control.a dentist can be scary,they use big needles and they hurt.try a pediatric dentist next time.main thing use some DISCIPLINE
How to deal with sharing holidays?
My side of the family (9 members) is close. We enjoy family traditions, we talk to each other on the phone often, we get together now and then for birthdays, anniversaries and school plays. Holidays are our primary time though. No exceptions.
My husband's side of the family (25-30) gets together for the SAME events, PLUS anything remotely worthy of celebration- (someone loses a tooth, church fundraisers, free burger day at McD's, etc.), if you catch my drift. Just out of the blue togetherness.
Problem? The holidays are my side's PRIMARY time to get together- otherwise it's very limited. We spend so much extracurricular time together, I just don't make them priority. Not that I don't want to spend any time with them, but we already do SOOO much with them, and I don't see anything wrong with going a little later.
We can't alternate every year, cuz they still see us sooo much, and we are all MY side fo the family has- we ARE the party when we're at my fam!
I'm really sad about it!
How to deal with sharing holidays?
I totally feel your pain. I can't wait to see the suggestions. I've coped by insulating myself from both sides (I have a husband and 3 kids) and creating my own traditions, then trying to see them on days without so much hype or for after dinner dessert instead of the whole shebang. It sucks because I'm starting to get crap about it and even worse, they are now orchestrating get togethers that seem to hinge on my participation.
Reply:You have to take turns with your husband's family. That is the only fair thing to do. How would you feel if he wanted to just do things with HIS family and exclude yours? How about this:
4th of July = his
Thanksgiving = yours
Christmas = his
Easter = yours
Then switch it the next year.
Reply:invite everybody over to your place as when u married eachither so do ur families
My husband's side of the family (25-30) gets together for the SAME events, PLUS anything remotely worthy of celebration- (someone loses a tooth, church fundraisers, free burger day at McD's, etc.), if you catch my drift. Just out of the blue togetherness.
Problem? The holidays are my side's PRIMARY time to get together- otherwise it's very limited. We spend so much extracurricular time together, I just don't make them priority. Not that I don't want to spend any time with them, but we already do SOOO much with them, and I don't see anything wrong with going a little later.
We can't alternate every year, cuz they still see us sooo much, and we are all MY side fo the family has- we ARE the party when we're at my fam!
I'm really sad about it!
How to deal with sharing holidays?
I totally feel your pain. I can't wait to see the suggestions. I've coped by insulating myself from both sides (I have a husband and 3 kids) and creating my own traditions, then trying to see them on days without so much hype or for after dinner dessert instead of the whole shebang. It sucks because I'm starting to get crap about it and even worse, they are now orchestrating get togethers that seem to hinge on my participation.
Reply:You have to take turns with your husband's family. That is the only fair thing to do. How would you feel if he wanted to just do things with HIS family and exclude yours? How about this:
4th of July = his
Thanksgiving = yours
Christmas = his
Easter = yours
Then switch it the next year.
Reply:invite everybody over to your place as when u married eachither so do ur families
What's wrong with Clinton saying Obama can't win?
If she did she's just telling the truth. Clinton can beat McCain %26amp; we know that because we've seen Clintons beat repubs twice already at the national level. Sure the repubs whined %26amp; complained the whole time Bill Clinton was in office, but the point is Clinton still win. It doesn't matter if the opposition compalins, it only matters if U win. I don't know if Hillary can win the dem nom but if she does then she will win the general election. Barrack may win the dem nom but he can't win the gen elec. The reason Obama can win the dem nom but not the general election is that they involve different audiences. It's easy for a black liberal 2 get dem support in the dem primaries because in the dem primaries the audience is mostly black people %26amp; white people who feel sorry 4 black people, but in the general election the audience will be a totally different group of people. If you think Clinton has been hard on Obama wait till the repubs sink their teeth into him.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080403/pl_n...
What's wrong with Clinton saying Obama can't win?
Nothing. It is the truth.
Reply:Never say never.
Reply:There is nothing wrong with saying it. It is her opinion and I think she is right about it.
Reply:Obama can't win and neither with Hillary.
Reply:Bill won. Not Hillary. Trust me, plenty of people who liked Bill, coudl give a hoot abotu Hillary. I like my pizza guy... doesn't mean I want his wife making my pizza.
Reply:I think you better slow down on the caffeine today. :-)
Reply:Hillary "mis-spoke" again?
Doesn't really matter what she said...Obama won't win
McCain will be our next great president
Don't waste your vote on pipe dreams
Reply:Ya, ya, she also said she was running under sniper fire. Who is gullible to believe anything she says? (Could it be possible she's getting Alzheimers??????) OMG!
Reply:there is nothing wrong with Hillary saying that. its probably not true as you suggest, but whatever, we'll find out.
Reply:Nothing. Obama is saying that Clinton can't win.....So we have a tie!
Reply:If she didn't say it, wouldn't we all wonder what happened to her lie a day?
Reply:Well that is a tough one to say. Polls are showing that neither candidate will do well against McCain. I think all of their fighting has turned away many independents to McCain's camp. Those are the voters they should be after but instead they fight with each other. I guess we will have to wait and see.
Reply:The only people who seem to think he will win are his followers. Not everybody is that far to teh left and November will be a surprise to them.
Reply:Any reasonable person would understand that it is the white male vote that elects presidents. That isn't racism; it is the majority expressing their support for which person will best serve their interests, black or white. Obama fails that test.
Reply:Obama can, and will win the general election. He will bring in that many new, and young voters,, and that's all there is to it.
Reply:if she says that shes not politically correct hes black you know
Reply:There's absolutely nothing wrong with her saying that. I pray that Hillary somehow gets the nomination becuase if Barack Hussein Obama gets it, it will be the end of our country.
Reply:Nothing, she's right!
Reply:humm the poll numbers perhaps she cant win democrats or anybody else for that matter
Reply:Its not true! That's why! If she so honest why lie about Bosnia trip! Hypocrite can't be trusted!Obama is beating her,Voters have spoken and will continue to support %26amp; vote for him! Who cares what she says!Except Hillary Supporters!
Obama 2008!
Ebony %26amp; Ivory President!
Reply:Nothing at all. It's fun to watch the Obama supporters get all bent out of shape and say how racists Hillary is for saying so. In the last Super Bowl, the Giants were saying the Patriots couldn't win - and they didn't.
Reply:Who speaks better Obama or Clinton? Obama. Who got in out of skill and Intellect, not because they're smarter husband was president? Obama.
McCain is an old school republican who might even die in office so why do we want him? I don't know.
Reply:Interesting observation regarding the "different audiences". In the end, only God knows...We'll just have to wait and see. Many believe neither one have a chance in hell and that black people are just dreaming. Again, God has the final say.
Reply:it's not the truth
Reply:nothing,let them rip each other apart.both are worthless libs that do not qualify to run the most powerful country on the planet !
Reply:First off your explanation that "black liberals can get the support of black and white ppl that feel sorry for blacks" is racist and very ignorant. If Clinton wins the nomination, McCain will DEFINITELY beat her and win the whole thing--its that simple! Cuz as you said its a diff group of people in the general election...just because Bill Clinton was elected doesnt mean Hilary Clinton will be also--shallow assumptions are not facts sweety!
Obama winning the states he has won has very little to do with the fact he is black (he is actually BI-RACIAL) or even the fact that he has the support of most African Americans. The reason he has done well is because he has ran a decent campaign that has been positive. He could have easily took the negative route but has remained a class act throughout the whole process. Clinton is only being 'hard' on Obama now that he is a serious threat. Actually, he IS still ahead of her contrary to how the media claims the polls are run!
Use facts not opinions to base (or bias) your arguments because it comes off as being quite shallow and stupid.
Reply:Obama is polling stronger than Clinton against McCain. If Obama can't win, Clinton especially can't.
Reply:Sometimes I wonder how people get out of bed in the morning, Obama has the votes, the delegates, and the People to beat McCain. Regardless if he is Black, or a Liberal, He is going to beat Clinton, and I do Like John McCain, But at 71 years old, he is a One term President, if that.. Come on he is the GOP throw away candidate. They know they have no chance this year, and will have to wait 4 years at least, and for that you can thank your Prefect President Bush.. You wanted him you got him, now its time for a real change..
Reply:It is truly racist for you to say that the audience is only people who feel sorry for black people. The best will win and that is all that is needed to be said.
Reply:People just don't seem to see it: the media has an agenda, that agenda is to promote Obama and bash Clinton, so that Obama wins---Remember the very first caucus in Iowa? I heard it on television when one of the repubs that that they would prefer Obama to win the nomination because then they can beat him in November. The owners of the newsstations are all but the rich and super rich, they usually are republican, they set the agenda.....and the staff has to report accordingly. If anyone thought that news coverage was objective and unbiased they're dead wrong....times where you got accurate and unbiased news have disappeared........Clinton needs to beat Obama, even if it is only by one delegate....or we can settle down to 4 more years of Bush policy....and I think that's gonna bring a lot of people to a rude awakening: four more years of that policy and America was......
Reply:Neither of the 2 idiots will win, so it doesn't really matter. They both suck at what they do.
ladies dress shoes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080403/pl_n...
What's wrong with Clinton saying Obama can't win?
Nothing. It is the truth.
Reply:Never say never.
Reply:There is nothing wrong with saying it. It is her opinion and I think she is right about it.
Reply:Obama can't win and neither with Hillary.
Reply:Bill won. Not Hillary. Trust me, plenty of people who liked Bill, coudl give a hoot abotu Hillary. I like my pizza guy... doesn't mean I want his wife making my pizza.
Reply:I think you better slow down on the caffeine today. :-)
Reply:Hillary "mis-spoke" again?
Doesn't really matter what she said...Obama won't win
McCain will be our next great president
Don't waste your vote on pipe dreams
Reply:Ya, ya, she also said she was running under sniper fire. Who is gullible to believe anything she says? (Could it be possible she's getting Alzheimers??????) OMG!
Reply:there is nothing wrong with Hillary saying that. its probably not true as you suggest, but whatever, we'll find out.
Reply:Nothing. Obama is saying that Clinton can't win.....So we have a tie!
Reply:If she didn't say it, wouldn't we all wonder what happened to her lie a day?
Reply:Well that is a tough one to say. Polls are showing that neither candidate will do well against McCain. I think all of their fighting has turned away many independents to McCain's camp. Those are the voters they should be after but instead they fight with each other. I guess we will have to wait and see.
Reply:The only people who seem to think he will win are his followers. Not everybody is that far to teh left and November will be a surprise to them.
Reply:Any reasonable person would understand that it is the white male vote that elects presidents. That isn't racism; it is the majority expressing their support for which person will best serve their interests, black or white. Obama fails that test.
Reply:Obama can, and will win the general election. He will bring in that many new, and young voters,, and that's all there is to it.
Reply:if she says that shes not politically correct hes black you know
Reply:There's absolutely nothing wrong with her saying that. I pray that Hillary somehow gets the nomination becuase if Barack Hussein Obama gets it, it will be the end of our country.
Reply:Nothing, she's right!
Reply:humm the poll numbers perhaps she cant win democrats or anybody else for that matter
Reply:Its not true! That's why! If she so honest why lie about Bosnia trip! Hypocrite can't be trusted!Obama is beating her,Voters have spoken and will continue to support %26amp; vote for him! Who cares what she says!Except Hillary Supporters!
Obama 2008!
Ebony %26amp; Ivory President!
Reply:Nothing at all. It's fun to watch the Obama supporters get all bent out of shape and say how racists Hillary is for saying so. In the last Super Bowl, the Giants were saying the Patriots couldn't win - and they didn't.
Reply:Who speaks better Obama or Clinton? Obama. Who got in out of skill and Intellect, not because they're smarter husband was president? Obama.
McCain is an old school republican who might even die in office so why do we want him? I don't know.
Reply:Interesting observation regarding the "different audiences". In the end, only God knows...We'll just have to wait and see. Many believe neither one have a chance in hell and that black people are just dreaming. Again, God has the final say.
Reply:it's not the truth
Reply:nothing,let them rip each other apart.both are worthless libs that do not qualify to run the most powerful country on the planet !
Reply:First off your explanation that "black liberals can get the support of black and white ppl that feel sorry for blacks" is racist and very ignorant. If Clinton wins the nomination, McCain will DEFINITELY beat her and win the whole thing--its that simple! Cuz as you said its a diff group of people in the general election...just because Bill Clinton was elected doesnt mean Hilary Clinton will be also--shallow assumptions are not facts sweety!
Obama winning the states he has won has very little to do with the fact he is black (he is actually BI-RACIAL) or even the fact that he has the support of most African Americans. The reason he has done well is because he has ran a decent campaign that has been positive. He could have easily took the negative route but has remained a class act throughout the whole process. Clinton is only being 'hard' on Obama now that he is a serious threat. Actually, he IS still ahead of her contrary to how the media claims the polls are run!
Use facts not opinions to base (or bias) your arguments because it comes off as being quite shallow and stupid.
Reply:Obama is polling stronger than Clinton against McCain. If Obama can't win, Clinton especially can't.
Reply:Sometimes I wonder how people get out of bed in the morning, Obama has the votes, the delegates, and the People to beat McCain. Regardless if he is Black, or a Liberal, He is going to beat Clinton, and I do Like John McCain, But at 71 years old, he is a One term President, if that.. Come on he is the GOP throw away candidate. They know they have no chance this year, and will have to wait 4 years at least, and for that you can thank your Prefect President Bush.. You wanted him you got him, now its time for a real change..
Reply:It is truly racist for you to say that the audience is only people who feel sorry for black people. The best will win and that is all that is needed to be said.
Reply:People just don't seem to see it: the media has an agenda, that agenda is to promote Obama and bash Clinton, so that Obama wins---Remember the very first caucus in Iowa? I heard it on television when one of the repubs that that they would prefer Obama to win the nomination because then they can beat him in November. The owners of the newsstations are all but the rich and super rich, they usually are republican, they set the agenda.....and the staff has to report accordingly. If anyone thought that news coverage was objective and unbiased they're dead wrong....times where you got accurate and unbiased news have disappeared........Clinton needs to beat Obama, even if it is only by one delegate....or we can settle down to 4 more years of Bush policy....and I think that's gonna bring a lot of people to a rude awakening: four more years of that policy and America was......
Reply:Neither of the 2 idiots will win, so it doesn't really matter. They both suck at what they do.
ladies dress shoes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)