Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: When Children Try To Kill Their Parents, Would You Forgive Them?
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 16 (view)
When Children Try To Kill Their Parents, Would You Forgive Them?
Posted: 10/1/2015 11:53:48 AM
I think there's a lot more to this story. The parents refer to both boys as 'teenagers' and say they had a 'bad moment", but one was 22 and they seem to have done some pre-planning; methinks there is some denial going on here. 22 is not a teenager, and while I might be able to give a bit of leeway to a 17-year-old who perhaps did loose control, that doesn't actually seem to be the case here. I would probably be heartbroken were it my children, and I might continue to love them as I remembered them to be, but I'd want these kids to face full legal penalties (and rehabilitation if it actually existed in prison), exactly as I'd wish for any other murderer or potential murderer.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 58 (view)
Cats or dogs in relationship? CAn they sleep in bed?
Posted: 9/24/2015 12:35:12 PM
I was against dogs on the bed or couch for most of my life - unless invited for snuggles, and obedient about getting off when told so my BF's dog had to learn to stay on the floor when at my place. Then I got this scared of everyone and everything dog, and it became a goal to help him gain enough confidence to go into the bedroom at all, then another goal to get on the bed/couch for snuggles. Once I could get him on the bed or couch, he'd jump off anytime anyone moved so then I worked to get him comfortable with being on the there if people moved. Kicking him off at any time would have meant he'd never try again - told him once to stay out of the kitchen, and he's never set foot in there again in five years. Anyway, getting him on the bed and to stay there over night was, in my mind, key to gaining his trust - animals don't sleep where they don't feel safe. It took about three years from start to finish, but now he sleeps on the bed all night. BFs dog still sleeps on the floor, though, because even she can tell it's too crowded when she gets up there. Probably too hot for her too.

So, there are times when I wish I had a different dog and could have the whole bed to myself again, but there's no way I'd kick my dog off now - its one of the few places in the world where he does feel totally safe and comfortable. I probably wouldn't date a man who didn't understand this, so its a good thing I'm with my BF because he totally gets it. :)
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 162 (view)
Should Davis, the Court Clerk, Be in Jail
Posted: 9/15/2015 8:43:08 AM

I have only heard a FEW Jehovah's witnesses talk about the 144000. No other group that I know of believes that.

It's what they're all taught, so presumably they all believe it whether or not they talk about it.

Very few other religions attach importance to that number, but the Skoptzists, Unification Church and Islam all do, as well as a few New Age churches. (From Wikipedia - the font of all knowledge, more or less accurate).
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 148 (view)
Should Davis, the Court Clerk, Be in Jail
Posted: 9/14/2015 3:01:40 PM
^^^ It was just a light-hearted response to the message #153, based on conversations between my sister and myself comparing Islam to Christianity. So, all good questions ... no good answers here. :)

Actually, the only question I can remotely answer - based on the fundamentalist Xtian group I followed for a time is this one:

How many people have died since the beginning of time? Probably in the billions. And out of that, how many had some sort of Christian type of faith?

God knows what is in each person's heart, and they didn't necessarily have to be "Christian". Thus God is able to pick the 144,000 very special people, and these people are indeed, few and far between. As for the rest of the 'saved', the earth - properly managed and blessed by God - would be able to comfortably support even more people than currently live on the earth. Not to mention, 1000 years after the 'final battle', Satan would be let out of the void, for a final 'test' - those that failed and chose to follow him would then die, and that would be it. X number of people live forever on a perfectly restored earth, overseen by God and the 144,000 forever more unto eternity, Amen.

And this one:

When guys die, do they get to pick the best looking virgins, or are they assigned virgins ahead of time?

Just cause it's a kind of an interesting tidbit, these virgins are called "Hoors" (aka maiden). Anyway, these "Hoors" are all more beautiful than any woman on earth - so probably picking 'the best looking one' would be kind of moot. However, the Muslim wives/mothers who go to Paradise are made even more beautiful than the 'Hoors', if you can believe that, but they're only interested in trinkets, not sex, so too bad for the guys - they have to stick with the less beautiful virgins.

It's all very amuzing, eh?
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 146 (view)
Should Davis, the Court Clerk, Be in Jail
Posted: 9/14/2015 1:05:27 PM

No, at least according to the Christian Bible, only 144,000 get in. So I'm thinking it's already full. Even if it's not the odds that I'll make the cut even if I fully convert and go to church every day are vanishingly small.

So, you may want to consider Islam. Islamic paradise gives you rivers of milk/honey/wine, plus the virgins, who are available for sex. (Muslims can't drink wine on earth, but apparently Allah wishes to make that up to them in paradise). Women get all the same benefits as men, except for the sex bit -- because, as everyone knows, women are not as horny as men; they do, however, get jewels and adornments which is what they really want. There appears to be no limit on the number of people paradise can accommodate, so no worries for you there.

For your Christian option, to be absolutely accurate, the 144,000 go to heaven; the rest of the blessed remain on earth - at least, that's the story I was given during my hard-core, fundamentalist Christian days. The Christians who go to Heaven get to sit at the right hand of God, and have no need of earthly things such as food/drink or sex. If you are one of the blessed remaining on earth, you'll get the food/drink, but still no sex since there's no longer any need to fill the earth, as we already have plenty of humans. But at least it offers gender-equality. :)
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 12 (view)
Liberal african americans versus conservative african americans
Posted: 9/11/2015 12:40:28 PM

First of all I made this profile so that I could come to the forums and have adult conversations

I don't know about that. When you start a thread by making a sweeping generalization that liberal-minded people are lazy criminals who have too many abortions, and live off the State, I'm just not sure how you expect that to morph into an 'adult' conversation.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 115 (view)
Posted: 9/10/2015 3:20:31 PM

What is alimony / palimony?
I hear these terms in American movies but I have no idea what it is.

Alimony/palimony is money paid to an ex-spouse so that they can continue to live in the style to which the marriage accustomed them to - it's also called spousal support. Traditionally, men paid their ex-wives because men usually made more money. In law, either gender has the right to spousal support, but there is still bias toward women in courts.

In 2 1/2 men he was writing alimony cheques but surely that was for his son.

Child support is different from spousal support. However, many men fail to see the difference and assume that any money paid to the mother is actually being spent by her for non-essentials, while the child/children are neglected.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 345 (view)
No spark/chemistry is women code word for I don't know what I want
Posted: 9/9/2015 11:47:02 AM

Sex is the glue that hold you together when you hate his mother. It is the glue that holds you together when cant watch ANOTHER football game. IT is the glue that keeps you from cheating. DAMN he is fine BUT I dont want to loose that good junk I have at the house.... so I looky no touchy.

My life experience tells me that love is the glue that holds you together through in-laws, football games, economic downs, illness, etc., and that personal ethics along with love/respect for the other person is what keeps one faithful. Not saying that sex isn't important, but I don't see it as glue so much as icing.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 146 (view)
Violence and Women
Posted: 9/8/2015 4:34:51 PM

but MOST men are not perpetrators and MOST men have more to fear from other men than women have to fear from Men. That may not be the topic of this thread, but it is still a fact.

Hmm .... so this ^^^^ is off-topic, but you still had to throw it in?

From "Urban Dictionary"

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 141 (view)
Violence and Women
Posted: 9/8/2015 3:21:56 PM

Even the bogus research posits that they include "being in an uncomfortable situation" as counting as sexual assault

Over four generations in my family, this is what the women have experienced:
Age six - molested by a repairman while mother was out of the room (1940s)
Age ten - Older neighborhood boy told me that he/his father/brother all took sexual advantage of his sister; seemed to think this was perfectly normal (1960s)
Age 12 - molested by a family friend; told mother, was advised not to go there again. Several other girls in the neighborhood were also molested, and given same response. The man was reported to police only once, by a particularly forward-thinking mom, the police came and advised parents not to let their daughters go there. He was never arrested or charged. (1970s)
Age 16 - molested by best friend's father; no idea what to do or who was at fault (1970s)
Two girls, aged 6: Molested by 16-year-old babysitter, girls gave very good description of activity, but "Not enough proof", said police. (1980s)
Age 28: Raped by 'traveling salesman' on threat of having 4-year-old daughter harmed. No clue who he was, so how could police find him/press charges. (1980s)
Age 26: Raped by date, after some kind of drug administered. Too embarrassed/confused to press charges (1980s)
Age 16: Raped by friend, scared to take action because of prevalence of bullying on social media, fear of police, confusion about her own role/rights. (2012)

I haven't even had to do an in-depth study of all the women in my family to know this, and it really only covers about half my family - who knows what's happened with the other half of the women.

At least until the 80s/90s, the expectation that men would force themselves upon women seemed to be something like an accepted fact of life - ugly, unfortunate, scary, but something that you just had to deal with. The men who assault/rape may be the minority, so perhaps the majority of men who believe it's simply unacceptable find it hard to believe that it happens with such prevalence. Sadly, it does and while things are improving, its still mighty hard for a woman who is assaulted or raped - especially by friend/family - to seek justice.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 87 (view)
Europe's Refugee Crisis
Posted: 9/6/2015 6:29:13 PM
Vatican says it will take in two refugee families:
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 85 (view)
Europe's Refugee Crisis
Posted: 9/6/2015 4:08:32 PM
Posted on my FB page by a friend from the Middle East, a video of a Syrian kid in a hovel with no furniture, though oddly some containers that look like gas cans. He's asked if he's hungry (Yes); when was the last time he ate (two days ago); what is he eating (grass); what would he like to eat (bread); when was the last time he had bread (a long time).

Another friend, Canadian, posted this poem,
"HOME," by Somali poet Warsan Shire:

no one leaves home unless
home is the mouth of a shark
you only run for the border
when you see the whole city running as well

your neighbours running faster than you
breath bloody in their throats
the boy you went to school with
who kissed you dizzy behind the old tin factory
is holding a gun bigger than his body
you only leave home
when home won't let you stay.

no one leaves home unless home chases you
fire under feet
hot blood in your belly
it's not something you ever thought of doing
until the blade burnt threats into
your neck
and even then you carried the anthem under
your breath
only tearing up your passport in an airport toilets
sobbing as each mouthful of paper
made it clear that you wouldn't be going back.

you have to understand,
that no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land
no one burns their palms
under trains
beneath carriages
no one spends days and nights in the stomach of a truck
feeding on newspaper unless the miles travelled
means something more than journey.
no one crawls under fences
no one wants to be beaten

no one chooses refugee camps
or strip searches where your
body is left aching
or prison,
because prison is safer
than a city of fire
and one prison guard
in the night
is better than a truckload
of men who look like your father
no one could take it
no one could stomach it
no one skin would be tough enough

go home blacks
dirty immigrants
asylum seekers
sucking our country dry
s with their hands out
they smell strange
messed up their country and now they want
to mess ours up
how do the words
the dirty looks
roll off your backs
maybe because the blow is softer
than a limb torn off

or the words are more tender
than fourteen men between
your legs
or the insults are easier
to swallow
than rubble
than bone
than your child body
in pieces.
i want to go home,
but home is the mouth of a shark
home is the barrel of the gun
and no one would leave home
unless home chased you to the shore
unless home told you
to quicken your legs
leave your clothes behind
crawl through the desert
wade through the oceans
be hunger
forget pride
your survival is more important

no one leaves home until home is a sweaty voice in your ear
run away from me now
i dont know what i've become
but i know that anywhere
is safer than here.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 33 (view)
Should Davis, the Court Clerk, Be in Jail
Posted: 9/5/2015 12:15:20 PM

div class="quote"> If she had to take an oath to God to get her job, wouldn't her religious views have some merit?

As a Christian taking an oath before God, I would expect she'd be even more dedicated to carrying out her job duties, as a way to bring glory to her God. As it is, she's not now not only breaking a secular oath, she's also breaking an oath she made before God.

I wonder if the "so help me God" part is eliminated for non-Christians when they are hired? Regardless, what if that non-Christian held a 'sincere' belief that homosexuality was wrong, because they are Muslim, Sikh or Jewish - or even just because they thought it wrong, no religious belief needed? Would there be any expectation that they should be permitted to avoid doing a part of their job?
Just saw an update that she will stay in jail till Kentucky changes the law so county clerks don't have to issue marriage licenses. Which would be easier - the state to change the law, or the county to impeach her?
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 30 (view)
Should Davis, the Court Clerk, Be in Jail
Posted: 9/5/2015 11:20:20 AM

What stopped the judge from just ordering the others to issue the licenses in the first place?

From what I have read, Davis was using her supervisory position to prevent the other staff members from issuing licenses. Given that they seem happy to issue the licenses now that she's gone, perhaps that's true.

Is this another power grab of the federal government over state concerns? Domestic Relations, Elections,

Looks more like another 'grab' from the Federal government to avoid allowing *religion* to dictate law. You know, so all of America doesn't become subject to Christian (Sharia) law.

What would you have done?

What would I have done if I were ...
The judge: I would have cited her for contempt, but put her on house arrest - that would have frustrated the "Christian Goes To Jail for Beliefs" aspect of it. House arrest isn't that tough. Or maybe just a restraining order keeping her from within 500 yards of her workplace and her co-workers.
Her employer: Impeach, since apparently in this situation she's not able to be fired. In the meantime, suspended her since impeachment can take some time.
Davis: I'd have been convinced that I had the right, due to my 'belief' to deny non-believer's their legal rights. I would have ignored the Bible teaching of being subject to secular authority, and the one about letting one's good works glorify God's name, and demonstrate His glory to non-believers. Other Christians may applaud Ms Davis' stand, but non-Christians are not persuaded to see God's righteousness, mercy or glory. Instead, they are moved to ridicule her and dismiss Christianity as being irrelevant and populated by ignorant fanatics. Good job Ms. Davis. (Though I suspect she's being well-compensated for her 'Christianity' by the organization that is supporting her.)
(quote]Will the state legislature amend the law to accommodate people like Davis or force them not to run for such offices?
As long as people are accorded their legal rights, I don't really care what State legislatures do to accommodate such religious objectors, as long as people's legal rights are protected, and not subject to the moral whims of Christianity or any other religion.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 56 (view)
Europe's Refugee Crisis
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:19:06 PM

Maybe all the people who think that they ought to should contact the State Department or UN and volunteer to take in and support a "migrant family."

Just in passing, I read that's already happening somewhere in Europe and maybe Canada? Can't recall details.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 54 (view)
Europe's Refugee Crisis
Posted: 9/4/2015 2:46:25 PM

If presidential candidate Gov. Scott Walker has it his way, he would have a wall constructed along the entire U.S./Canada border. (don't recall how many thousands of miles that would be). It makes me wonder if he wants the wall up to keep Canadians out of the U.S., or to keep Americans from escaping the U.S.

I'm beginning to see the sense of this idea. The US has a very large prison population, who need something productive to occupy their time - why not a wall, nearly 9 thousand miles long? And, we're going to be having a lot of stoners over on this side (if the next gov't isn't the same right-wing-religious Conservative we have now) and they could perhaps paint a mural on it - get them outta their moms' basements a few hours a day. Not only are potentially thousands of persons gainfully occupied, the Americans won't be able to escape the coming GOP-ocalypse, and we won't be getting all your Liberals over here mucking up our land.


Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 48 (view)
Europe's Refugee Crisis
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:42:03 AM
Y'all think it's bad now ...wait'll climate change refugees start ...

While the estimates of future migrants vary widely, from tens of thousands to one billion, there’s little question that an increase in climate refugees is on the way.

Already in 2008 Srgjan Kerim, president of the United Nations General Assembly, warned global warming could cause up to 200 million refugees worldwide -- per year.

But today, increased displacement due to more frequent large-scale natural disasters is challenging an already stressed international humanitarian system. As recent floods, storms, and droughts have showed, the current system is ill-prepared to effectively respond.

British Columbians, brace yourselves for a possible mass migration of Californians to our coastline. According to several scientists, the Pacific Northwest is one of the safest places to live as far as climate change is concerned.

I think I better start a movement now to prevent those nasty, dirty, lazy Californians from ruining my wonderful Canadian lifestyle. No f'ng way should I be bothered to help those caught in less fortunate circumstances. ;p
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 45 (view)
Europe's Refugee Crisis
Posted: 9/4/2015 9:15:59 AM
I live in Canada, in the same metropolis as the aunt, and saw her interviewed on local TV last night. She tried to sponsor a different brother. She was also planning to sponsor this particular brother, but hadn't yet submitted the application.

You can carry on with your inaccuracy, or you can say thanks for the update.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 42 (view)
Europe's Refugee Crisis
Posted: 9/4/2015 8:45:37 AM

I notice that the wee bairns who died had a request to go to canada turned down.

Just in the interests of accuracy: the aunt tried to sponsor a different brother.

Carry on.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 223 (view)
American Exceptionalism=Mass Murder Study Says...
Posted: 9/2/2015 2:56:47 PM

It is just really boring in Canada

Better boring than dead.

because all things PC prevailed and there is nothing to deride people for

Yes, I agree -- we are pretty nice people, overall - though we do have a few racist, ignorant whackos. Not nearly as many as does the States and they certainly don't get to a position where they have some support for leading the country.

or attempt to feel superior about anymore

Well we do actually feel superior because you know, we have regulated gun ownership - and a lot less gun death than the States, so we don't have to suffer regular mass murders, have our kids mowed down while they're at school or movie theaters. And, we also tend to feel superior about our tax-supported medical system. We think it's important to make sure all our citizens benefit from the wealth created within our nation .... although sadly, we are following in the US path toward more income inequality. Possibly the upcoming election will change all that, we'll see.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 217 (view)
American Exceptionalism=Mass Murder Study Says...
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:52:43 PM

What if, the solution isn't to reduce everyone's freedoms, but to work toward reducing the conditions that lead some few to initiate force against their fellow humans?

I entirely agree with this. At the same time, limiting access to guns also limits 'spur-of-the-moment' decisions when one is under the influence of anything from drugs to anger to despair.

in a world where technology enables one to print up a working gun that is ready to fire within a few hours I don't see that more rules are going to do much to curtail the behavior of those that don't care about rules

True, and nobody is claiming that regulations eliminate behaviour. Nonetheless, ease-of-access makes a difference. The reason cigarette smoking rate has declined is because access is limited, due to cost and because of laws limiting where one can smoke. One of the biggest objections to legalizing marijuana is that it will increase marijuana use among the population, and especially among kids.

Someone very close to me was attacked a year or so ago; the attacker used a knife because in his words, he wasn't able to get a gun, which he would have preferred. My friend survived the attack, barely, because it was a knife that was used instead of a gun. If getting a gun was easier in Canada, my friend would have been dead that day.

Perhaps we should be focusing on why people choose to kill others, instead of what means they choose to do it.

In my friend's case, the attacker had a variety of reason - some of them contradictory. He is currently in a psychiatric hospital. Even 'addressing the reasons' isn't a foolproof method of eliminating violent behaviour, but it would certainly help.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 209 (view)
American Exceptionalism=Mass Murder Study Says...
Posted: 9/2/2015 10:31:24 AM
^^^ Yes, I did miss your attempted contribution to rational discussion.

So you think the title of this thread isn't bashing the USA? "American Exceptionalism=Mass Murder Study Says".

Honestly, no. Admittedly, provocative - but not bashing. If the last two words weren't "Study says", I might be more inclined to see it your way.

don't you think the USA makes a convenient scapegoat for other Governments to dodge the blame for failing their own citizens? IMO that is a lot of what is really going on.

No. I think people see what the States does (or doesn't do) and they draw their own conclusion, irrespective of what their governments tell them. Many governments consider themselves American allies, yet their citizens wish desperately that their country wasn't quite so ready to fall in line with American goals and policies. What you say may be true for *some* countries, but nowhere near universal, IMO.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 206 (view)
American Exceptionalism=Mass Murder Study Says...
Posted: 9/2/2015 9:30:31 AM

You can understand my mistake, no one had ever proposed any new regulations on this thread. Just a lot of talk about gun deaths and which country has the most guns, what people did and what they really meant in 1787.

Not really, since the 'more-regulation' crowd has been saying, repeatedly "This isn't about banning guns, its about better regulating them." The 'less-regulation' crowd responds with "YOU CAN'T BAN GUNS, IT'S A SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT!", and then someone repeats "not banning, regulating', and then it's "THAT'S THE FIRST STEP TO BANNING and I don't care about stats or the tragedies of others, or that it's been demonstrated in other countries that regulation reduces violent death overall, and gun death in particular, I want unfettered access to guns".

I thought this was a "let's slam the USA and start a fight thread".

Perhaps you are overly sensitive. It might be a 'slam gun-nuts' thread, but not the whole entire US of A. As a matter of fact, overall, slightly more USA citizens support increased gun control than those who do not, and support for stricter gun control has been slowly growing over the past 10 years.

I have a curious question: It feels like everyone in the world wants to question USA policy, laws, culture, regulations, but citizens in the USA seem to not care at all about what happens in other countries. Why is that?

Hah! The US made an example of a Canadian citizen as part of their 'war on drugs'.
"American authorities charged Emery and co-defendants Gregory Keith Williams, 50, of Vancouver, BC and Michelle Rainey-Fenkarek, 34, of Vancouver, BC with "'Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana", "Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana Seeds" and "Conspiracy to Engage in Money Laundering". Even though all the alleged offenses occurred in Canada, Canadian police did not lay any charges.[117]"

US regularly interferes in other countries, either subtly through political pressure, or more directly through sanctions or with guns/bombs. Generally, the claim is that they are making the world "safer" or "more democratic", but I bet the people in the parts of the world where the US is applying pressure sure don't feel safer, and how many of those countries have actually become 'more democratic'?

If only the US really did not care at all about what happens in other countries!
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 199 (view)
American Exceptionalism=Mass Murder Study Says...
Posted: 9/1/2015 4:06:35 PM

Perhaps Canadians will take the lead in a worldwide ban of alcohol production and consumption, the third leading cause of death would be eliminated, and gun violence would decline.

For your edification, from online dictionary:
Regulate: control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations - "Guns should be regulated, which will help reduce death from gun violence".
Ban: officially or legally prohibit "Republicans should be banned from government, which will help reduce stupidity in the news and on internet discussion forums".

See, two different meanings. The current discussion is about "regulating" guns, not banning them, so, in the context of this discussion, I'm pretty sure you meant to say "... Canadians will take the lead in a worldwide regulation ... "

You'll be happy to know that's already been done. Canada has alcohol regulations, the States has alcohol regulations, I believe even France does. Regulations are already around the world, so Canadians' work is done, in that regard.

However, we're on the verge of making marijuana legal, so we can regulate and tax it - this is the next worldwide movement we Canadians are starting. When ya'll get your wall built, you won't be getting any good BC Bud, that's for sure. :p
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 4 (view)
I don't get it
Posted: 9/1/2015 2:27:49 PM
Worked for me. Worked for a couple of my girlfriends, too. It does work.

Anyway, people aren't obligated to answer your emails. They saw they got a message from you, checked your profile, decided you weren't their type, and also decided not to read your message. Happens to all but the hottest people, I imagine, so best not to take it personally.

Took four years of patience for me to find someone compatible. You need to practice not taking things personally, and retaining your sense of humor and perspective.

Good luck.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 23 (view)
Cheating boyfriend.
Posted: 8/31/2015 3:37:53 PM

I have to mention here that I have been thru the wringer with an ex, so I have some trust issues. Don't judge me yet.
So one morning, since I am an early riser and he likes to sleep in, I get up and make coffee and go and sit to watch the news. His phone is sitting on the coffee table INCHES from my coffee cup. The temptation is too great. ......I snooped thru his phone.

I do understand that urge, though I've never looked through someone else's phone, I have checked emails.

I was quite angry, and just deleted the texts and her contact info, and figured I'd wait and see if it happened again. I did however, keep her phone number. I sent her a text message via the web so she could not see my number and alert him, and told her to get lost. And why. He never said anything about the missing text message.....what could he say? I also played it cool and just sat and waited to see if it would happen again.

I would have asked him about her, and checked to make sure we were on the same page as regards relationship status.

Two weeks later, there are more messages on his phone. One he was smart enough to delete, so only a portion of it showed up in his search function from the home screen of his iphone. The other ones were her asking him to go out with her to see Trooper when they were here in town

This is where I would have been gone.

Ok.....I message her and introduce myself as his girlfriend(i was actually very polite :) ) and she disappears. That problem solved.

Wrong. She was not your problem and you ought to have realized it by then. Anyway, if she wanted him - why not let her? He's obviously not worth keeping.

TWO WEEKS LATER......I make arrangements to have a message sent to his POF which is supposed to be hidden. He wound up responding to it and introducing himself.

Why? You already knew, why bother with this?

I told his family what a POS he is, as well as all of my friends, and got very, very clear on FB about what happened to me with him because I knew he'd read it. .... I hope he dies of embarrassment. Everyone now knows what he did and what an ass he really is.

His friends/family are going to think what a psycho you are. He's got a big sob story going, and you are the bad guy. Sorry, but it's true.

I'd like to know if any of you have ever done the same thing.

I have never and would never tell a woman to stay away from my man. That's his job, not mine. I have tried to warn/tell others about an ex's behavior, but it did no good - that's how I knew not to do it the next time.

I know it hurts to be lied to and cheated on, but all the drama you created with your actions does not help. It really doesn't do much to ruin his standing with his friends, and it does make you look bad - unfair as that seems. As best you can, you should just walk away with as much dignity as you can muster.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 14 (view)
The difficulties of finding simple companionship
Posted: 8/31/2015 3:03:45 PM

I am in the 27th year of my life and my incessant shyness has kept me from seeking out any kind of relationship casual or other.

I have a friend who was incredibly shy, as well. He decided to do something about it - he started just by smiling and saying "Hi" to people he passed on the street. Nothing more than that. When that felt ok, he would try a very brief conversational gambit - something like "Nice weather". By taking small steps, he was able to become comfortable enough to have brief conversations with people - store clerks, baristas, etc. His conversational skills continued to improve, and eventually, he got married -- then divorced -- then married again. It's true that sometimes he still finds socializing difficult, but he got himself from unable to talk to anyone to actually having friends and relationships. You could do that too; even if you start by just smiling and saying "Hi" as you pass people on campus. You don't have to have a conversation, be brilliant or anything. Just say hi. :)
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 141 (view)
American Exceptionalism=Mass Murder Study Says...
Posted: 8/31/2015 12:38:16 PM

Take drugs illegal to take it or sell it. Being illegal has not prevented either

Everybody knows that making something 'illegal' doesn't prevent it. That doesn't mean we should just give up on all laws, from jaywalking to murder. As an argument against gun control, this one is not very good.

It can only be an exercise in terrorising law abiding responsible owners

How does gun control 'terrorise' law abiding citizens?

That would no longer be able to defend themselves against crime:)))

The problem being that the likelihood of successfully defending oneself against crime because one has a gun isn't really that high. As a matter of fact, a bunch of people owning and carrying guns make everyone less safe, overall, not more safe. Imagine a theatre shooting: it's dark, the perpetrator starts his rampage - he doesn't have to aim, just point and shoot. A few well-meaning law-abiding citizens whip out their guns and start shooting back -- but they have to aim for a moving target, in the dark, amid all the confusion of the attack - panic among theatre goers, noise and confusion. How accurate are they going to be? If Person A sees a muzzle flash and shoots back at it .. is he aiming at the 'bad guy' or at one of the other 'good guys'? Even one 'law abiding' citizen trying to be John Wayne in that scenario could end up shooting the wrong person, or several wrong persons.

Law-abiding people with guns regularly shoot themselves, their family or innocent bystanders.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 138 (view)
American Exceptionalism=Mass Murder Study Says...
Posted: 8/31/2015 12:05:02 PM

no I'm not saying that~ I'm saying what starts out as reasonable, with good reasons to lobby
Ends up as ~ taking away choice ~it will end with people not stopping smoking~but buying them in secret:)))

Actually, the more stringently access to cigarettes is controlled, through laws and through cost, the more smoking rates go down. Yes, there will always be those who'll smoke no matter what, but overall reducing access to cigarettes reduces cigarette smoking. No idea why people think the same thing wouldn't happen with guns and gun violence (and it did in Australia), but there you go.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 136 (view)
American Exceptionalism=Mass Murder Study Says...
Posted: 8/31/2015 11:52:11 AM

"One failed attempt at a shoe bomb, and we all have to take off our shoes at the airport.
31 school shootings since Columbine and no change in regulations of guns."

Yabbut shoes and bombs are about TERRORISTS! Guns are about AMERICANS! It should be clear that Americans have the right to kill other Americans however/whenever they want; obviously, non-Americans (as we know all terrorists are) must be prevented from doing so.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 74 (view)
American Exceptionalism=Mass Murder Study Says...
Posted: 8/29/2015 5:40:14 PM

Why would the USA take on the problem from a medical standpoint and provide a better level of care for those in need and save billions of tax dollars, when a small group of people really really need that money?

Sad when things so cynical ring so true.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 12 (view)
American Exceptionalism=Mass Murder Study Says...
Posted: 8/28/2015 4:42:31 PM

If someone has decided to commit a violent act and there isn't a gun available, there are plenty of other tools, knives, hammers, baseball bats, rope at their disposal. Should we not sell knives, that's probably the next most popular weapon.

Someone I know was attacked by an individual with a knife. The attacker made the comment that if he could have gotten a gun, he would have used that. As it happened, the attacker was not successful with the knife, after something like 17 wounds he seemed to run out of energy, mental or physical. Then he just waited for my friend to die, which fortunately didn't happen because someone showed up in time. I'm in Canada, and I really do appreciate the fact that this guy was not able to get a gun and kill my friend.

Laws generally do not deter someone who has decided to commit an unlawful act.

The point of gun control isn't to solve issues of violence; it's to save lives. Even ignoring the use of guns by career criminals, making guns less available would also reduce killings by people who are drunk, angry, stupid or careless.

since the people who are intent on doing that will obtain the guns ILLEGALLY, which is probably much easier in the first place.

I don't believe this is true. I live near the US border, and criminals bring in guns from the US. If it were so 'easy' for them to get guns illegally in Canada, why would they bother to go across the border? Because the US makes it easier to obtain guns for everybody - lawfully or not. If it were harder to obtain guns through US sources, we'd have less guns over here.

No matter how stringent or complex the laws are, it mostly affects the availability of guns to the LAW ABIDING citizens,

The law abiding citizen is more likely to be killed through the actions of himself or another drunk/angry/stupid/careless law-abiding citizen with a gun. So why should a law-abiding citizen have free access to a gun just because he happens to be law-abiding? He's really a risk to himself and others, regardless of his intention or lack of criminal record.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 10 (view)
American Exceptionalism=Mass Murder Study Says...
Posted: 8/28/2015 4:21:33 PM

Out of 71 mass shootings between 1982 and 2015, 43 (62%) were perpetrated by white males, and 1 by a white female. Next biggest racial group was black (11, 15%) followed by Asians, Latino, Native American (includes the only other woman) and "unknown". These figures are somewhat correlated to population sizes, although gender is a larger factor than race. So, back to your question ... if the races were segregated, would there be mass murders? Looks like the answer is yes.

When 90% of all inter racial crime is black on White ,

We are discussing *mass murders* specifically, not inter-racial crime. Mass murderers may choose a demographic, but it's not necessarily race - could be gender, or age. Mostly, though, they just seem to target whoever is nearby.

you need some supporting links

I provided a link to support my statement that white males are the most prolific mass murderers. Blacks are second, albeit a distant second. Perhaps, if you disagree, you'd like to provide some links?

What is going to be your defense when the social services bottom out?

I have no idea what the h3ll you are talking about here. Or how its related to mass murders in the States.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 6 (view)
American Exceptionalism=Mass Murder Study Says...
Posted: 8/28/2015 2:59:12 PM

Does this type of thing happen in a self segregated community? Guns are irrelevent

Most mass murderers are white males, and they seem to be happy to kill anyone of any race/gender/age - so I very much doubt segregation would matter - it's not like they're picking and choosing certain people to shoot in their neighborhood or movie theatre. Although that one kid did travel to a different neighborhood to victimize a black church, so there is that.

But hey, if we all self-segregated (I am assuming we'd have walls/barbed wire/checkpoints etc, to ensure no mixing of the races), at least the white mass murderers would just be killing off other whites. And then you wouldn't have to ask such silly questions. :)

Self segregation is essential for the preservation of western Civilization

Maybe us whitey's in Western Civilization don't deserve to be preserved. Given our track record, we aren't very nice people, what with our arrogant racist attitudes, our world-wide war-mongering led by the US, our corrupt financial system - which caused significant hardship to millions of people outside our borders (well, US borders), our destruction of the earth's environment so we can all drive big cars. Maybe some other race would do better, hmmm?

Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 153 (view)
Sen. Bernie Sanders, Where can we begin?
Posted: 8/28/2015 12:12:18 PM

Hey Ms 4's, Good to have you back.

Thank you, Irish, and it's good to see you still here too.

The middle class with discretionary income does drive the economy.

Yeah. You'd think that would be evident to even the most obtuse, but there is the whole schtick of "if you work hard ... ". Some people do get rich, through hard work and some lucky breaks, just like some kids get drafted right out of college and go on to make millions. But to claim that every other person - the vast majority in fact - simply didn't or don't work hard enough is ludicrous.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 152 (view)
Sen. Bernie Sanders, Where can we begin?
Posted: 8/28/2015 12:01:54 PM

Curious why anyone would believe that the "evil rich" would sit idly by while 90% of their income was stolen. If you were being robbed of nearly everything you made...wouldn't you relocate or quit working?

Perhaps they didn't consider it stealing? Alternatively, maybe they did and that's why the taxation rate went down? In any case, the point is that high taxes on the rich do not spell economic death.

An interesting Ted Talk I watched recently, where a billionaire talked about corporations have lost their 'soul'. In previous times, including during times when the rich were very highly taxed, corporations also gave higher amounts to charity and were more actively involved in social and community support. I can't remember the name of the billionaire or the talk, but it was interesting in that the decrease of this type of social responsibility by corporations has coincided with the increase in financial inequality in society.

Mandating higher wages on private industry merely forces an employer to fire people. .... Higher "living wages" also has a chilling effect on employment opportunities among those just starting out in the labor market. ..... Etc.

This is a study done in Canada on minimum wage, covering 10 provinces. It addresses all of your points ..

A couple of pertinent quotes, in case you do not have the time/inclination to read the document:

Claims that higher minimum wages will inevitably cause measurable negative consequences (especially for young workers and those
in low-wage industries) are not consistent with empirical evidence from the Canadian provinces. Minimum wage regulations do not have
important consequences on employment outcomes in either direction. Not surprisingly, employment outcomes depend first and foremost
on the overall level of spending and macroeconomic activity.

Specifically regarding employers hiring less/using machines to replace 'expensive' workers, downsizing or going out of business entirely:

The problem with this simple analysis is that labour is not like any other commodity, for many reasons. Most fundamentally, employers never purchase labour as an end its own right. Employers hire workers in order to produce a good or service that is then sold into a product market (in hopes, in the private sector, of generating a profit for the business owner and/or shareholders). The demand for labour is thus a derived demand, which depends entirely on the final demand for the product that labour produces.
Many factors affect product demand and employment, including overall macroeconomic conditions, business profitability (if a business is unusually profitable its owners may choose to expand), export sales, and other factors. One important demand side factor is the level of consumer spending in the economy. After all, consumption expenditure is the largest single component of GDP by expenditure, making up around half of all expenditure in the economy.

In the current sluggish macroeconomic environment, many economists have noted the negative effects on labour demand of the long-run squeeze on real wages that has been experienced in the wake of anti-worker policies (including restrictions on collective bargaining, wage freezes, and other wage-suppressing strategies). Given the weak outlook for many other components of aggregate demand (including government austerity, an uncertain outlook for exports, and perpetually disappointing business capital spending), the importance of consumer spending to the overall macroeconomic outlook cannot be exaggerated. Low or stagnant wages also exacerbate the problem of high consumer debt-to-income ratios —after all, incomes are just as important in the denominator of that ratio as indebtedness is in the numerator—which has created public concern, financial uncertainty, and consumer caution.

The collapse began in earnest March 16, 2008. Given the fed's obsession with protecting the bond market I believe it will end with a currency crisis.

Could be true, too.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 135 (view)
Sen. Bernie Sanders, Where can we begin?
Posted: 8/27/2015 3:56:36 PM

INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY - Socialist policies attempt to drag "the rich" down, they do not lift the poor up. Doesn't work.

Actually, it probably does work. During the 50s and 60s, the very richest people paid upwards of 90% income tax. The economy boomed. As tax rates on the rich decline, so does economic health and income inequality grows. You should watch "Inequality For All", a documentary by Robert Reich, available on Netflix. Its quite interesting. But even if you don't, take a look at this ...

A LIVING WAGE - Who's going to determine this? Who's going to pay this? Minimum wage laws must be abolished.

Consider this: Out of a neighborhood of 20 people, 1 person has unlimited wealth, 16 have enough to get by and 3 are starving. A single grocery store serves the entire neighborhood. Who do you suppose supports that grocery store? The single rich guy? The 3 people who are starving? No, it's the ones in the middle - they support the grocery store, and in the larger world of capitalism, the middle-incomers support the economy. The rich can't buy enough stuff because they lack the numbers, the poor can't buy enough stuff because they lack the funds - that only leaves the middle class. Supporting the middle class is really kind of important to the economy. Growing the 'rich' and the 'poor' on either side of the spectrum isn't a good strategy for long-term economic health.

Of course, the rich among us are quite happy for the pee-ons to believe that the raising of tax rates on them, or insisting on a living wage is bad for the economy. Perhaps, though, you are one of the rich ones? Or merely one of their flunkeys?

In any case, humans/society being what they are, I have little doubt that a major economic decline is inevitable (perhaps even begun?).
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 29 (view)
Cats Rule... Dogs Drool...
Posted: 8/14/2015 4:16:07 PM

Actually the feline species is second after primates in intelligence in certain categories.

I'm pretty sure that "A" is smarter than "B" in certain categories could be said about almost any two species.

Cats are much smarter than dogs, they actually can learn by WATCHING us. That is why you have to hide food from them because they can figure out how to open cabinets from watching us. They also learn to use a toilet seat same way.

That's very interesting. There are people who've taught dogs to learn by mimicking us, not quite the same thing I know, but still interesting.

Of all the mammals, a cat’s brain has memory and emotional mapping most comparable to our own.

Recently, MRI scans of dogs' brains has shown very similar emotional mapping to humans and that they are particularly attached to humans, their own more than others of course. The studies that are being done now suggest that dogs feel empathy, and that they have a 'theory of mind' so they understand that individuals have different beliefs, intents, desires. Aside from humans, they are the only animal that looks at the left side of people's face, because that is the side that expresses emotions in humans. If success is 'intelligent', dogs far outshine almost any other species, since they are wildly successful around the world due to their connection with humans.

Cats use tools, figure out mazes and puzzle boxes, and display long term memories, especially those involving spatial configurations, their specialty.

Dogs use tools, as well and they certainly do have long term memories. It's true they can't find their way around (or out of) a maze but they can learn to navigate city streets and public transportation, either for themselves (eg: Russian Street dogs) or to aid their human captives .. er, captors. :) Maybe cats can do the same thing, but as you say -- they just don't see a reason to.

Most people I have seen who insult cats do so because they don't understand them .They think a cat who refuses to learn tricks is dumb but being solitary predators they have NO reason to do what we ask.

I've seen cats learn tricks, and there's a You Tube video of a cat running an agility course. Cats can learn tricks, just have to find the right motivation. :)

Dogs mostly full fill their role in the Dominant Submissive society and therefore there is a control structure.

This is a pretty common misunderstanding. Dogs aren't actually so much into 'dominant/submissive society' as they are into well-functioning 'social groups' - canines are pre-programmed to cooperate within their social group, and defend it from intruders. Feral/wild dogs will follow a 'friendly' dog sooner than they'll follow a 'dominant' dog (though who is 'dominant' tends to change with each interaction between two individuals). Humans have shaped many domestic dog breeds to be very, very accommodating, but more primitive dog types tend to be more independent - somewhat like cats - and its with those more independent dogs that you discover the ability - even a requirement - to build a relationship of equals-but-different. (Although, humans have the food and can open the door -- so that does give us an advantage). Ultimately, dogs do what we ask of them because 1) we have food; 2) they do love us and 3) it works. Not sure which is the most important reason at any given moment. :)

I might be a bit bias since I helped found and run a well known non profit rescue/TNR/ shelter that deals with cats. I have seen them at their best and worst.

I have an independent-minded feral/primitive dog who taught me that I had to treat him with respect if I wanted his love, loyalty and obedience. He figured out how to play fetch by watching me try to teach the other dog what I wanted (she wasn't getting it), showed me he could do it, then just as quickly let me know that this was a pretty stupid game, in his opinion. He does tricks for me, but if he doesn't feel like it, no amount of bribery will sway him. If he's into it, the reward is irrelevant - though appreciated. He's been quite an eye-opener in many ways.

My wife actually once sent a report refuting something scientists claimed. Namely that only primates understand they are seeing a reflection in the mirror. Our cat (kitty)was observed using a wall mirror to view moving objects for playing purposes. He would watch the object in the mirror and spring at it where it really was. He knew it was a reflection.

I think dogs know it's a reflection of themselves/others, but they just aren't terribly interested. Maybe they don't care if they have a smear of paint on their fur; certainly, they don't mind smearing all kinds of stuff on themselves. :) In the book "Merle's Door", the author described his dog watching and preening himself in a mirror, and my dog has looked at me in the mirror, and responded to facial experience.

As for fetch, actually some cats do learn to play fetch. Cats don't do things they don't want to do so they need motivation. If you reward the cat he will even do things he doesn't want to do. Slava a famous Russian performer is VERY good at training cats!

I grew up with barn cats, inbred and perhaps not the brightest, and that colored my thinking about cats for a very long time. But I've come to see them as quite fascinating and one day I hope to also have a cat to get to know.

if you ever see a non sedated cat drooling over itself it probably has dental issues! lol

My dog never drools and never licks my face, though sometimes my hand. I like that about him! :)
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 138 (view)
Has Anyone Here Found Love on POF?
Posted: 8/12/2015 3:50:37 PM
Still with the same guy I was with in 2011, when I first posted to this thread ... message #57. :)
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 511 (view)
So many desperate 40+ women out there...
Posted: 8/11/2015 1:52:27 PM

my Secretary of Defense Adventure Joe and ladies on here - what do you make of the "generous" part?

You pay for the birth control. And dinner.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 37 (view)
I'm rather confused as to why people seek relationships.
Posted: 1/10/2014 4:02:44 PM

Some ways are dumber in certain societies, which is why they fail or change into something else over time.

"Dumber" is an opinion, not a fact. Just because things change over time doesn't mean the previous way was "dumb".

There's no proof that "being married" leads to longer lives, for instance, as it could be and is likely just a correlating factor of "healthier people tend to get married."

Again indicating that pair-bonding is a natural function of healthy people. In any case, life-satisfaction is generally greater among people who are happily married, than people who are single - or unhappily married. I can only assume that the same would hold true if the pair-bond was common-law, or temporary.

Humans didn't pair bond until relatively recent years

Yeah, pair-bonding has been part of human life for a very, very long time - maybe even forever. I grant you there are different forms of pair-bonding, such as between mother and child as opposed to lovers. Someone who has not pair-bonded in some particular way might not quite get what all the fuss is about.

The thing that is fairly recent is trying to make the sexual/romantic pair-bond into a permanent arrangement through marriage and monogamy. Permanent pair-bonding does work for some people, just as it works for some animals, but certainly not everyone.

But whether permanent or not, some might think that having good friends, plenty of money and regular sexual partners is pretty much the same thing as romantic/sexual pair bonding. In my opinion, they are extremely wrong.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 34 (view)
I'm rather confused as to why people seek relationships.
Posted: 1/10/2014 12:47:16 PM
Relationships as they exist as a majority ARE pretty much a dumb societal concept that gradually evolved over time due to survival of the species.

I don't agree with this. Every culture has had some form of regulation for the purposes of "survival of the species', and one way is not inherently dumber than another.

Similarly, much of what people actually "get" from relationships emotionally comes from society breeding them to be that way from such a young age that they don't even remember and just think "that's the way it is."

If you're referring specifically to the romantic notion of one-lover-for-life-or-your-a-failure that is so prevalent, I agree that this is somewhat of a societal thing. However, humans do have an intrinsic need and desire for pair-bonding, else why would people have ever sought out relationships beyond sexual, let alone progressed to making rules about them? And while romantic love isn't necessarily the greatest basis for long-lasting relationships, it's an emotion that has been around about as long as humans have been; it wasn't 'created' by society.

It's also been proven that from a strictly biological viewpoint, humans who develop strong relationships tend to do better overall than people who do not. This isn't to say that individuals can't be happy entirely on their own, or that someone with a strong social group can't be unhappy, but generally speaking love of family, friends and partners is important to people beyond any societal constructs.

The prior group, at least in their 30s, tend to be relatively successful, creative, have multiple people who actually want to be in a relationship with them, that they turn down, can get laid any time they want, and have a large group of friends. Without the worry of being alone and not feeling lonely, due to good friend groups, while being financially secure enough not to need to pool resources, it fulfills all of the "needs" that relationships are supposed to cover, and they realize that it's not even necessary or a worthwhile endeavor for them.

Uh huh. I don't know about this. I think there is something special about having a "special someone", although I don't agree it has to be the same someone for life. While those happily single may strongly disagree, I think they are missing something important if they really believe financial security and a good group of friends provides the same things as pair-bonding. Pair-bonding is an inherent part of what humans seek, and almost anyone who's ever been part of a pair-bond knows whats lacking in 'just friends' and getting 'laid whenever'.

Also, why would it be important to mention that these people "have multiple people who actually want to be in a relationship with them, that they turn down"? Are relationships for these people some kind of power-brokering deal?
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 19 (view)
What to do, go in or back off?
Posted: 12/31/2013 10:45:02 AM
Why are you waiting two weeks to ask her out? How are you putting your dignity on the line by asking? I never thought letting someone know you liked them was undignified, unless of course you literally threw yourself at their feet, wrapped your arms around their legs and begged them to go out with you. But a simple "I like you, and I'd like to spend some time with you/have a date" or something along that lines certainly isn't undignified. She might say no, but if that possibility is going to stop you from asking, then you aren't going to get very far in romance.

Good luck.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 20 (view)
Advice needed
Posted: 12/20/2013 10:48:33 AM
OP, I read your initial post and skimmed the rest. I think you have already gotten good advice. What I would lilke to say is that all this "waiting" on him to make the moves is outdated. Why don't you invite him to your home and offer to help pay. Or, ask him directly if he sees a future with you, and if so, how he sees that working out - who moves, changes jobs, etc. If he is still vague then you should cut your losses and move on. Personally, I agree with the poster above - he's probably married and just keeping you around for the next wedding trip to New York.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 29 (view)
I overheard this
Posted: 12/18/2013 2:14:37 PM
I agree with Cindy, it was nothing but venting. And really, the question is silly - if someone is in a great relationship, they aren't going to trade it in for anything.
If they're in a relationship thats toxic, they won't be (or shouldn't be) looking for an inducement for getting out.
If the relationship is going through a rough patch, it's perfectly natural to biatch to their friends about their SO, without any intention of actually losing that SO.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 13 (view)
Joe Boxer Commercial from K-Mart
Posted: 12/18/2013 1:18:42 PM
I agree with the poster who called it peurile. I wasn't offended, but I didn't find it humorus or interesting, more weird than anything. And, as someone else pointed out, if it were women out there shaking things up in their underwear, someone would be insulted and complaining. It'd probably be a media event along the lines of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 4 (view)
Christmas Question
Posted: 12/17/2013 2:38:15 PM
Yeah, who told you it was lame? Was it someone who has intimate knowledge of your BFs likes/dislikes? Even if he didn't want to use it as a mouse, he might like to just have it around, as a fun novelty and a reminder of you. Unless it was your BF telling you it was lame, I think you should just go with what you feel is appropriate. It is, after all, another way of learning about each other.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 5 (view)
Update: Pregnant and Hurting
Posted: 12/6/2013 3:01:15 PM
Thanks for the update, and I'm glad things are going well for you. Hope you all have a great Christmas, and many happy years.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 639 (view)
Would you date someone who is on welfare?
Posted: 12/4/2013 1:59:30 PM
" I have never met a person on welfare that was not a democrat/liberal"

I am not aware the political leanings of most of the people I know, unless they are pretty close friends. How can you be so sure that you've never met a Republican on welfare?

Would I date a man on welfare, good question. I'm currently dating a man on disability, so my guess would be yes. But it would be unilikely I'd ever meet a single man in that situation, since they only get about $600 per month, and if they aren't sleeping on a friend or family member's couch, they're giving up half or more of that amount for a place to live. After paying for food, things like phones and transportation may be well out of their reach, never mind dating. Not to mention, people who live with such low incomes typically face tremendous hurdles in terms of self-worth and depression, even if they don't have other health and/or addiction problems.

A single parent with one child can get a whopping $900 per month, plus tax credits, which might make dating possible - but I would not be interested in a man with dependent children, so that would be out.
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 29 (view)
what does this mean?
Posted: 12/4/2013 10:46:06 AM
I've had two very powerful dreams that were explicitly about seeing people as they really were, and letting go of them. Most of my other dreams have been pretty irrelevant, though I have to admit I've woken up with the remnants of the emotional impact of the dream still fresh. Kinda fun to turn to one's SO in the morning and say "I had a dream about you last night, and boy am I ever pissed/happy/horny."
Show ALL Forums