|
http://www.flagsoncars.com
about us:
We specialize in Promotional American Patriotic Products and our exclusive patent September 11th commemorative flag products.
We pride ourselves on supplying our customers with only the best American patriotic products available. Our commitment is to provide flags and patriotic products to our customers in a timely fashion. We participate with many fund raising organizations and charitable events such as Parents Teacher Association, Girl Scouts of America and the Special Olympics. We also work closely with many professional sports promotional organizations.
I am pleased to announce that Americas & Americas Inc. has been nominated for 2003 Florida’s Outstanding Business Award sponsored by Ernst & Young, USA Today, CNN and The Nasdaq Stock market. We thank you for visiting our web site.
Sincerely,
Robert Real
PresidentPissed off and :  satisfied Posted by: Richie and Syreeta |
|
McNews
|
Feb. 27th, 2006 @ 10:04 pm
|
|---|
|
http://www.usatoday.com
http://www.gannett.com
about us:
Gannett Co., Inc. is a leading international news and information company. In the United States, the company publishes 91 daily newspapers, including USA TODAY, and nearly 1,000 non-daily publications. Along with each of its daily newspapers, the company operates Internet Web sites offering news and advertising that is customized for the market served and integrated with its publishing operations. USA TODAY.com is one of the most popular news sites on the Web. The company is the largest newspaper publisher in the U.S.
Newspaper publishing operations in the United Kingdom, operating as Newsquest, include 17 daily newspapers, more than 300 non-daily publications, locally integrated Web sites and classified business Web sites with national reach. Newsquest is the second largest regional newspaper publisher in the U.K.
In broadcasting, the company operates 21 television stations in the U.S. with a market reach of more than 19.8 million households. Each of these stations also operates locally oriented Internet Web sites offering news, entertainment and advertising content, in text and video format. Through its Captivate subsidiary, the broadcasting group delivers news and advertising to a highly desirable audience demographic through its video screens in office tower and select hotel elevators.
Gannett’s Total Online Internet Audience in December 2005 was nearly 21 million unique visitors, reaching about 13.5% of the Internet audience, as measured by Nielsen//NetRatings.
Complementing its publishing and broadcasting businesses, the company has made strategic investments in the online advertising business through its subsidiary, PointRoll, which provides online advertisers with rich media marketing services, and through several important partnership investments, including CareerBuilder for employment advertising; Classified Ventures for auto and real estate ads; Topix.net, a news content aggregator; ShermansTravel, an online travel service; ShopLocal, a provider of online marketing solutions for local, regional and national advertisers of all types; and 4INFO, which provides mobile phone search services.
Gannett was founded by Frank E. Gannett and associates in 1906 and incorporated in 1923. The company went public in 1967. It reincorporated in Delaware in 1972. Its more than 238 million outstanding shares of common stock are held by approximately 10,500 shareholders of record in all 50 states and several foreign countries. The company has approximately 52,600 employees. Its headquarters are in McLean, Va., near Washington, D.C.Pissed off and :  ditzy Posted by: Richie and Syreeta |
|
http://www.bankofamerica.com
Key Statistics (As of September 30, 2005)
US Consumer and Commercial Banking - 29 states and District of Columbia
US Banking Centers - 5,844
ATMs - 16,714
Active Online Users - 14.3 million
International Offices in 35 countries supporting clients across 150 countries
Associates (employees) - 177,236 (full-time equivalent)
Bank of America loses a million customer records
By Robert Lemos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: February 25, 2005, 5:03 PM PST
TalkBack E-mail Print
A "small" number of backup tapes with records detailing the financial information of government employees were lost in shipment to a backup center, Bank of America said on Friday.
The tapes contained information on the customers and accounts of the U.S. government's SmartPay charge card program, which has more than 2.1 million members and annual transactions totaling more than $21 billion, according to the General Services Administration. Reports have pegged the number of cards affected at 1.2 million.Pissed off and :  drained Posted by: Syreeta and Richie |
|
Thank you photobucket for helping us learn how to, uh, use computers.
http://www.photobucket.comPissed off and :  curious Posted by: Syreeta and Richie |
| » Rick Santorum! |
|---|
Okay, so this morning, I was listening to NPR on my way to work, and I heard an article about the senate race in PA. Senator Rick Santorum is running against State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. The article was basically about how tough this race is going to be, and how close it could be, in this "light blue state" of Pa, which is pretty weird, because both the candidates are so-called pro-life (what kind of life is it where you can't make decisions about your own body?) You can hear it here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5227717
Anyway, this race is fucked up and scary for many many reasons, including the fact that, as usual, there is basically no choice whatsoever here. Two mean, grumpy, uppity, superior (might I add rich white male?) fucks fighting over who should get to tell poor people, women and homosexuals what they can and cannot do.
This whole system is so scarred. Are we seriously fighting over gay marriage? Is the issue of equal rights actually up for debate? Is this some sort of elaborate joke?
No, obviously, this is the smokescreen that we fall for everytime. I'm so busy fighting for my RIGHTS, that I don't notice that they are ALREADY mine. I shouldn't have to ASK FOR THEM!! That's a free society. Is Santorum actually serious that consensual activities between adults that don't infringe upon the rights of anyone else should seriously be ILLEGAL?? Also, is it really okay to tell Americans, "Hey, don't worry about poor people! It's not your responsibility..."?
Here
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/04/22/national1737EDT0668.DTL
is where I found this bullshit:
An unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. Words that couldn't be heard clearly on the tape are marked (unintelligible).
AP: If you're saying that liberalism is taking power away from the families, how is conservatism giving more power to the families?
SANTORUM: Putting more money in their pocketbook is one. The more money you take away from families is the less power that family has. And that's a basic power. The average American family in the 1950s paid (unintelligible) percent in federal taxes. An average American family now pays about 25 percent.
The argument is, yes, we need to help other people. But one of the things we tried to do with welfare, and we're trying to do with other programs is, we're setting levels of expectation and responsibility, which the left never wanted to do. They don't want to judge. They say, Oh, you can't judge people. They should be able to do what they want to do. Well, not if you're taking my money and giving it to them. But it's this whole idea of moral equivalency. (unintelligible) My feeling is, well, if it's my money, I have a right to judge.
AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?
SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.
AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?
SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.
AP: What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.
AP: Well, what would you do?
SANTORUM: What would I do with what?
AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe —
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.
What a fuck!
From ontheissues.org:
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 25% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Are you serious, Rick Santorum? The flag is like 80 times more important to you than women and minorities?
Of course, here's the alternative:
Bob Casey, Jr. Democratic candidate for US Senate from PA
Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned. (Dec 2005)
Right to Privacy means contraception, not unborn. (Dec 2005)
Opposes Woman's Right to Abortion. (Nov 2004)
Opposes Tax-Funded Abortion. (Nov 2004)
Supports Legal Protection for Human Life from Conception. (Nov 2004)
Opposes Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage. (Nov 2004)
Opposes Increased Regulation on Firearm Ownership. (Nov 2004)
(from ontheissues.org)
I guess my point is just that I'm sick of being distracted and I'm sick of being ignored. Both of these idiots think they have some sort of say over what I do or say or feel or regret. They both don't trust that I'm smart enough to make my own decisions, or strong enough to deal with the outcome of those decisions. They both have zero faith in Americans. They both think of themselves as giant daddys to a big baby population.
So, why should I trust either of them?
This sucks!
PS check this out:
http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/
Feb. 22nd, 2006 @ 05:32 pm
|
| » Diary of a Concerned Citizen |
|---|
We have yet to set the tone for this journal, so bear with me.
How's this for tone?
Our government is trying to kill us.
Over the top? Too direct? Alright, uh...
Our government is irresponsible.
Too passive, I think.
Our government is dangerous.
Too mysterious.
Our government is out of touch with the plight of the common man.
Too general. How's this?
Our government, designed to give power to the masses, has done just that. But how do an elite few neo-con bigwigs seem to always get their way? How do they seem to escape major criticism and avoid prosecution for their evil deeds? It's the classic sleight of hand. While they're blatantly plotting and executing their international domination schemes with the left hand, they're soothing us, coddling us, brainwashing us with the right. They give us fancy electronics from China. They give us mundane mainstream entertainment. They give us minimum wage. They give us one vote a year. They give us automobiles and kitchen appliances. They give us gasoline at whatever price they please. They give us propaganda called news. They give us crack. They give us hope. They give us rights and then take them away. They keep us sleepy. They keep us safe. They keep us afraid.
That should keep us distracted from the left hand, right? The one that sought war with Cuba by attempting to convince the masses that Fidel Castro shot down a plane full of American college students. The same left hand that exterminated Jack Kennedy when he refused to go along with that plan. The same one that muted the voices that disagreed with the findings of the Warren Commission. The hand that armed Iraq with chemical weapons and then invaded once they were destroyed. The hand that waited way too long to secure the levees. The hand that passed the bill into law, thereby making it illegal to dissent, mutinous to speak about the evils of the absolute power.
Fuck the Patriot Act.
Yeah, there's the tone.
I am the masses, but I can't speak. It's too loud in here. The masses don't speak, really. With our rights to debate those in charge stripped away, our debates have turned inward, turned toward each other. The squawk of desperation drowns out the call to arms. We, the people, have been disenfranchised. Compartmentalized. We've been silenced, in effect. And though we are still considered, these magicians are far from considerate.
Their consideration is clear. How can they spin the story just enough to keep us satisfied? As the stories get worse and harder to swallow, the distractions get bigger. And just as lies tend to, it spins out of control and the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing anymore. So they start killing us. And let us kill each other. And let us kill our selves.
We are consumers, the work force to an empire, the lemmings on the terrain of democracy, on a journey toward a craggy horizon, situated at the edge of sustainability, above a murky cavern of unknown horrors.
My wife laid out a list of three concerns of mine in her first post. She did an excellent job. But the biggest concern of all is our inability to stop injustice. Even those of us who haven't been forced into complacency by 24 hour news and junk food and poverty and crack and AIDS are silenced. We only have power as an undivided whole, and we the people, are conveniently split. The machine likes us this way. So we give them our money, we give them our trust. And they give us fast food and cheap fear.
That's my concern.
I'm also concerned that half those "hijackers" from nineleven are still alive. And that the hole in the Pentagon was made by a missile, not a plane. And that the steel in the twin towers could only have melted the way it did if there were bombs in the building. And that WTC 7 fell to the ground even though it sustained no damage from a plane. And that cell phones don't work at 30,000 feet.
And that the 9/11 Commission report didn't mention a word of this.
I'm concerned that the lifeblood of our industrial planet is waning. I'm concerned that we're worried about the wrong things. I'm concerned about my mother, and what would happen if in a few years, her heating bill has tripled because the resources are so scarce. We're going to freeze to death. We're going to starve. We're going to wish we had learned to conserve. We're going to wish we hadn't been so distracted. That all the lemming consumers had shouted with one voice in outrage.
I'm concerned that all the shops on my main street will close. And then my town will be desolate. And there will be no money for art, and no ambition. And we will only be alive to stay alive, and it will be very lonely indeed.
And we will have to hunt quail without a license just to stay alive. But we will get drunk at lunch and accidentally shoot a lawyer. And then we'll wait four days to explain our selves.
Sounds like Hell doesn't it?
I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said before, and by now, the weblog is just another chatter from the masses. My careful ones and zeros add up to nearly nothing in this digital age. The conspiracy theories are just another little part of the whole story, just as I am another little part of the machine, an economy feeder. A taxpayer. One vote a year, and that's it. I have the right to....fill in the blank.
This is the diary of a concerned citizen.
Feb. 19th, 2006 @ 01:17 pm
|
| » We have landed. |
|---|
Richie and I are planning to keep up with this. It's a place where we can record these first delicate months of marriage, of being sure, and always right, and opinionated. Much of our relationship is based on the mutual love of talking talking talking complaining bitching and revisiting. We are trying to make our lives better, more productive, more useful. We are trying to learn how to make our days important.
Right now, Richie is directing a high school musical, teaching drama at said same high school, making subs at a friend's shop, teaching doctors a thing or two, and I am helping kids not go nuts at a variety of locations. We are trying to make plans. We are trying to be adults. We are trying to not spend all of our time snacking in our underwear.
Here are the top three things that are worrying me:
Women's Rights (Alito, the present administration, etc...)
The end of oil.
Big business and what it's doing to small towns.
These issues are really getting at me, getting to me; they are in my town, my home, my body. I am trying to make sure that I address these all the time, live my life according to my principles. It was easier in college, when I didn't have to pay for anything or make true decisions; it was easier when I felt invincible. But now, I'm feeling vincible, if you know what I mean.
These are the top three issues bothering Richie (I think):
The end of oil.
9/11 and other such related tragedies
The absolute power of those in leadership.
I could be wrong, but he talks about this stuff a lot. He has a lot of really complicated theories. Some people might call these conspiracy theories, but I really think they have some truth to them. These theories, as crazy as they may be, are at the core of our marriage; this ability we have to discuss in the abstract, to worry, to theorize. We worry that it's not fair to bring children into this world, and then we worry at how miserable we would be if we didn't have a family.
So, anyway, that's my crazy introduction to this thing. Good luck.
Feb. 15th, 2006 @ 03:09 pm
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
combscannaday's journal