If you claim a political party affiliation, which is it?
|Posts||Subscriptions||Replies||Shoutouts||Tags Followed||Posts Touched||Favorites, Fans, and Friends|
Happy 4TH Of July
my fellow 'Mericans.
1620 - 2020 / 400 years
LIFE IN PRISON
The video sums it up.
YOU'RE A DISEASE NOW
It's being destroyed as we speak.
I've never had a drinking problem but addictions are usually a result of an engrained pattern of behavior.
The accountability you hold is to yourself - ultimately to God in the end, but if He's not going to get in your way, there is nothing AA can do to prevent anyone from drinking.
I'm not going to knock AA, but I liken them to Dumbo's Feather - Dumbo already had the ears to fly, he didn't need the feather.
I also liken AA to pharmacological placebos wherein the belief of the pill itself brings the cure.
As I see it, AA is a necessary placebo program to help fortify a person's accountability for their actions. Through the implementation of spiritual and psychological stratigum, they provide an internal balance of self-control.
So. It's been six years. You need to be sure of yourself and KNOW you have what it takes, X 1,000 to leave the program.
I feel worthless.
But, you're not.
I’m overweight (I just joined a gym and am doing a good job going).
Oh.....so....you're a full figured gal.... Something wrong with that? (bites off a sandwich) I can watch people exercise all day. Keep up the good work!
But, I’ve been having rough days and I use food to make me feel better.
(Takes another bite of sandwich) - MMmm, I know what you mean - I'm feelin' better about myself already.
So...you like food. A man likes a lady who can cook....
I know I’m not the prettiest girl and so any time a guy gives me attention I give up my own values. I am a people pleaser and won’t say no to anyone bc I want people to like me.
- now, this is a problem. "Not the prettiest girl." Pretty? By what standard are you measuring beauty? Hollywood and Esquire magazine?
A good guy will enrich and fortify your morals, not tear them down - only users will do that and you ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO PLEASE USERS....
Even the best people can't always please all of the people. Personally, if you haven't made a few enemies in life it's a sign you're not really living to your full potential.
It's nice to have people appreciate you. It's NOT nice to have the wrong people like you.
We understand there are trolls in every social media forum, but the trolls in life are called "Succubusses," and their sole purpose is to drain the life right out of you - you don't need them liking you.
I’m starting to fall back down the slippery slope of depression and I just got out of that hole.
It's okay to experience defeat, but prepare for a day of success - it only takes one time, just one, then it's forever.
All my best.
your questions always confuse me! now I'm like: "is he talking about the chocolate? or maybe a gold bar? or maybe a bar at Klondike? or???"
over here we don't have the chocolate, and neither gold bars.
bars on the other hand, we've got plenty...
~CaraMia~, Kalinihta, Mya
Come on up...I'll take you to the bar, myself
So, it is a bar?! In Alaska..?
I wend grocery shopping one day. Total was 60-something dollars and change. Paid with exact change in cash.
But when the brainless cashier began counting, she came across....one Canadian quarter...
"I'm sorry we don't take Canadian coins."
I said, "Sure you do -"
"No, sir, I'm afraid we don't."
I said, "If it makes you feel better, I can take my U.S. currency back and leave you with the honor of putting these groceries back...."
She said, "Please wait a minute." She picked up the phone and began talking to her manager. A couple minutes later she hung up.
"We've decided to honor the quarter," she said as she gave it back.
"Oh really?" I said. "Okay, you do that," and then I took my groceries and went out to my truck to put them away.
I sat in my truck looking at this Canadian quarter and I blew my stack. I began fishing around in my change and grabbed a handful of pennies.
I found myself back at the cashier requesting to talk to the very manager she spoke to.
Soon the manager and I met at the customer relations counter and I explained to him that I was a long time shopper that had spent thousands on their overpriced goods. I told him I didn't appreciate how the cashier made a big deal over the foreign quarter.
"Let's just stop the show and make a spectacle of it and waste my time!"
"Well, sir we honored the quarter!"
"You're missing the point. First, she holds up the show over a quarter, secondly she makes a spectacle by making a phone call to you look like a crisis rapeline call to S.T.A.R. and thirdly, you just reduced all the *******fucking money I ever spent here, down to nothing, makinkg me look like a welfare case, by 'honoring' my quarter - but, you didn't even have the decency to keep it." And I slapped the Canadian quarter down on the counter.
"Sir, the Canadian quarter has less value than the U.S. quarter -"
"So you're saying the Canadian quarter does have value, but not as much?"
"Then why give it back? Instead of taking a loss on an entire 25 cents, the difference would have only been 2 or 3 pennies..."
Then a look came over his face, and I continued talking as I laid out three more pennies on the counter.
"I am not here because of a Canadian quarter, I am here because of the ****shit you sent me through over three penny difference and you're looking at someone who is willing to share every moment of this dread with you. Make sure you play this video at your next board meeting and get it worked out."
And pointing at the change on the counter, "Meanwhile, I owe you 25 cents....I suggest you take it."
....And he did.
I'm sorry. What was your post about?😋 Just kidding.
I brought you this story for a reason - you weren't unreasonable. What people dislike the most are those people who always accept the kinks of the system which was decided upon by people.
What all the CEO's and managers would like you to believe is they are a victim and it's outta their hands. But the system isn't a mindless machine - it is decided upon by people every day.
So...what determines a 'bad guy?'
I personally recognize the article was not yours and make no implications regarding you.
I noticed the link only provided an image of the article and therefore I took the time to recopy what the author had wrote and imported it as it was directly related to the subject of your Post. The article was interesting (to say the least.)
There was no real editing that Lano did.
Unrelated question...why am i able to edit this post?
Because that was a primary feature of the old Help website and Roco has seen fit to maintain that ability.
We were always able to edit people's questions? I don't remember that.
Their Post, yes.
As far back as I can remember.
Others who know will also validate this.
Unrelated question...why am i able to edit this post?
Because that was a primary feature of the old Help website and Roco has seen fit to maintain that ability.- written
Last night I was in a debate about these new abortion laws being passed in red states. My son stepped in with this comment which was a show stopper.
It may stop the show in your world but it doesn't even register on my OMG meter.... What are you talking about?
One of the best explanations I have ever read; "Reasonable people can disagree when a Zygote becomes 'human life' - that's a philosophical question.
It's only philosophical when both the moral truth AND science doesn't agree with you.
Question: is the Zygote made of human genetic material donated from a male constituant - yes or no.
Is the Zygote made of human genetic material donated from a female constituent - yes or no.
Is the Zygote undergoing development changes of a predictable pattern - yes or no.
Like it or not, in all cases the answer is yes. As such the Zygote was NEVER "unhuman" to begin with. It's not a question.
However, regardless whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.
-Doesn't obligate a "mother" to- (well, it's a little early to be calling anyone a mother at this point....)
How do you go from questioning the validity of life in a human Zygote to comparing a fetus to an adult, seasoned with the dramatics of "ethics."
Where is the journalistic bridge that delivers the topic to that point?
Zygote - life /Fetus - adult
"Sacrifices" that never existed. The female anatomy is designed to facilitate human life. No child was ever harmed in utero by a uterus - and it's quite apparent the uterus is still there, after birth. The only thing being "sacrificed" is the child and the female's title of "mother."
Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy, protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold vs Connecticut (1965), McCall vs Shimp (1976), Roe vs Wade (1973).
As decided by....no.
Your right to privacy, independence & autonomy existed long before 1965. These court cases are not the foundation (let alone the cornerstone), upon which your individuality is protected. They bear very little to those rights and are exclusive to women only.
Consider a scenerio where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe a plastic anaemia, no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you.
Okay, let's consider that scenario where I'm a perfect bone marrow match to an ALREADY BORN CHILD with a plastic anaemia.....
If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for what ever reason, the State cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent.
I fully agree... No human is biologically designed to readily exchange bone marrow with another human or even blood for that matter. No one should be forced to undergo an extreme proceedure against their will, even if it means saving the life of the child.
The problem most people have when it comes to articles such as this is their lack of discernment.
Comparing a life-saving procedure to a procedure that evokes death isn't going to further the cause of "pro-choice."
Moreover, other than becoming pregnant, you literally have to do nothing (or very little, medically speaking) to bring a child into the world.
It does not matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the ratonale for refusing is flimsy and arbitary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decesion to donate must be voluntary to be Constitutional.
Correct. Nature is/was responsible for the child having a plastic anaemia - it wasn't a result of some man made procedure and therefore I (you or anyone else) is not legally or Constitutionally required to benefit that child from our own physical means -
- but there are laws in place that prevent you, I or anyone else from bringing harm to that same ill child.
This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or how many lives they would save. That's the law.
Again, that is correct - it is the law, it is also a person's unalienable right.
Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily.
If that is the case, a woman volunteers her life giving uterus every time she volunteers for the invasive procedure of ***sex that may result in pregnancy.....
By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just and refusing, morally wrong. That is a defensible, philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees.
I never needed anyone's permission or approval to clarify a matter. It's not going to be a choice of terms, one way or the other, granted by the majesty of - doesn't work that way, never has.
But, legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may chose to carry the baby to term. She may chose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But, it must be her choice and -
Pick one: God, Nature, Evolution and/or Science gave only woman the physical ability to maturate a bipartisan genome. Left in a natural course of events, the decision was already predetermined.
Look around you. Consider all of the things man (men) have invented and/or constructed. Women have had very little to do with that creative force compared to men. This is not saying women haven't had their role in it, but the percentage doesn't begin to reach a 50/50 level by a long shot.
Now, consider the fact there are very few times, on a monthly basis, that the chemistry of a female will spike a level pattern of emotions and thoughts...
Of all the things known in the creative universe, the creation of human life stands at the top of the chart and the decision to bring that life-force to full term cannot be solely left in the hands of one ***sex/gender, especially when that life-force was equally sequenced by two people (both male and female).
protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side.
- but it does not mean the law is exclusively on her side and lawmakers are waking up to the fact it takes two to tango.
Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.
The subject of body autonomy isn't going to be some ultimate solution when it comes to increasing the grounds of abortion.
Bleach the ****shit out of 'em and then go rolling around in the mud for a year. Maybe two.
- and then roll in the mud.
- and then roll in the mud...with two...
Uh....yeah @BigWilly!! What Soco said. The mud looks like the right color and the workers look....skilled.- written
To use this site you must be 13 years or older and occasionally submit your email address. Your email address is only shared with your explicit permission.