kbordson

Still a small "n" and a rather specific population, but I have to say that I'm kind of impressed that there is not a single vote for a "sugar daddy" as insinuated in the thread that inspired my poll. Not to say that those "gold diggers" don't exist or that some women haven't gone to college to work on an "mrs" degree, but I'm just kind of happy not seeing a validation of that assumption. Is it because enough haven't answered, those that did answer lied (either intentionally or subconsciously), or maybe girls just aren't as greedy as some like to portray.

Have a great day!

I initially HAD it as multiple choices, but then changed it because I could just see everyone checking them all... and that aint helpful.

The other thread got me thinking... Guys... if you had to pick one, who would you date? (and lets make the "intent" of the date matter. This isn't just a "random hook up." I'm talking a potentional partner)

I don't see that. Your taste in seasonings is very likely different than mine. If I make dinner for you and you feel that a dish needs more salt, well, that's why there's a salt shaker on the table. I think it'd be rude of ME to expect you to eat something that you think tastes bland when you can make it taste better with a little more salt. And hey, I might even learn something about cooking for you because you did so. Isn't that a more honest way of relating to someone? I didn't say you couldn't add salt. If it needs it... I feel you should be able to add. I don't think one needs to "suffer" through a meal that they don't find appetizing just for the sake of the one that made it. But... I would think it rude to just salt or pepper or whatever without even trying it first.

so a million guns per month for how many years? Look at the graph.

I noticed that too. I would LIKE to think that weren't true... but I fear it is.

Seriously? Perhaps she prefers more pepper in her food than you do in yours. That makes her rude? If that's the case, may I suggest that you never have children? Two thoughts to consider here: 1. Different situations - "making a meal for someone" v. "ordering the meal for someone." One is more personal and should get a little more respect. 2. Did the person that the meal was made for actually TRY the meal as prepared and then add, or was it an automatic reflex to drown the food?

I like that. Nice quote - and should parallel to this situation. First date - "showing off" might display "success" but not necessarily value.

Paranioa and penis extentions, there was no more danger in august than what there was is june or july, just the radical pro gun renecks, feel they are losing the battle. Right wing moronism 'is' losing the battle against common sense. Ummmm. Did you EVEN LOOK at the attached graph? There have been months of sales over a million for over the last 10 years. This August is a representation of a NORMAL increase in sales due to the upcoming hunting season... in fact, I remember reading that [cough] someone else[/cough] was going to buy a firearm for hunting in the coming future.... Maybe he's paranoid too. (not that I'm "fingering" anyone out) This is a NON story. Just drama to be used by each side for nothing. Sound and fury. Signifies nothing

Typically it is related to the hunting season that is coming up. Look at the graph that was included in that link. It shows total NICS background checks on a monthly basis from 1998 to Aug 2009. With examining that, you can see that May, June and July tend have less purchases, August starts the pick up and that trend continues through December. Then it drops off again in January. This is just the "normal" pattern that has gone on for AT LEAST the last 10 years. Over the 10 years, there has been a progressive increase, but that could be more linked to population increases. Now, might there more because of a fear of restriction or future limitations - possibly. Is there more because Americans "fear a collapse" - VERY doubtful. Like just all related to sales pattern. No drama. No panic. Just normal sales patterns. But... it makes good news to try to spin.

Yet again, I must agree. In the 10 post that I have contributed to this thread, I guess that have provided a low pressure influence and one could say that I have just returned the toxins to where they belong. My post volume here does not even put me in the top 5, while others have been far more "arterial" in their contributions. Supplying bounding responses (up to 28 to be exact) to multiple limbs of the discussion, some quite distal from the core of the topic... but I wouldn't classify those as "aortic" entries; considering the language that was spurted and the number of branches, lets describe them as the anterior division of the internal iliac. We've also had our capillary responses (18 with only 1 post, 5 with 2 post, 10 with 3 posts...) Oh... and if you meant "vain" - you have 7 responses to my 9 prior posts. Why wouldn't I be "vain." Ah... but disagreeing is very different from discussing or debating. And even those with differences in political opinions should be able to discuss and debate without becoming vulgar. And... you weren't just "fingered" out by me with respect to the language. There were 53 posts dealing with the topic of the use of that word (26 "against" and 27 "for") from 19 different posters (9 "against" and 10 "for"). I limited my posts on discussing it to 2 (now 3) And my point wasn't "OH HORROR... HE USED THAT WORD".... rather -and ... just to help you with US definitions/ usages of words, typically females are "fingered" by males. Males get a "hand job." "Finger"... "hand"... yeah, they're close. I understand the confusion. Maybe it's different for kiwi's... But I don't really want to know Agreement again (you know... this is the 4th post in the ten that I typed where I am in agreement) OK... on this we don't agree. You can keep your cunts. - Sorry Councilman24... but you knew on post 89 that your thread was well and hijacked.

I wasn't aware that the confederate flag had been flown recently over a government building. But if it had, that would have been wrong. However... if it's been gone "for quite some time" (does that mean a week a month or more?), then you have to admit that the topic of that boycott/protest has little to do with a flag and more to do with noise and fury. I don't think Congressman Wilsons comments were appropriate, but neither do I think that he was being "racist" by calling the President a "liar." I think this "story" is just designed to stir the pot... on both sides. The NAACP is all about "black rights" which often can be seen as "throwing the race card." - that is their job. FOX is all about publicizing drama and selling "news" to their reader base - that is their job. They both are focused on their "jobs" and not fixing real problems.

That would be a step in the right direction. One can hope that politics will grow up.... But, even with the bickering and bad manners, I still don't think that I would say that the "country is coming apart at it's seams."

better living through chemistry.

Hee Hee Hee............ and it doesn't even have to be "good" rum. Even some "rot gut" Black Diamond from Canada RHUM!!!

Oh come on. Just because you gag, doesn't always mean that you don't like something. It could just mean that you need more viscous lidocaine.

HEY!!! She's not supposed to be sharing that premarin!

[outburst in the middle of a very important and very public speech] LIAR!! [/outburst]

(silly edit option... I should have waited the 8hours to make my comment )

Yeah!! I didn't get mentioned! It's cuz I'm good, GOOD, GOOD and you know it

So... just saw MacHEADS I was going to start a new thread... but it kinda fits in with this one too. parts of the movie made me a little embarrassed (only a little)

Getting really back on topic, this entire thread was a poor attempt to justify some redneck twat's use of a common racist slur (blacks=monkeys) against the current first lady. Which has surprisingly passed without comment among the wider discussion. OK. I'll admit being to being ignorant and didn't even get to whom the comment was referring. (Was it mentioned in some other thread or something in the news? Or is it just "common knowledge"?) I didn't see racism in it at all, and if someone called my ancestors monkeys, I still wouldn't be offended. Is it offensive if it's meant as a racial slur? Yes. But then again, so is "democrats" or "neighbors" or other "benign" comments that I've heard that I still don't think are right.

It feels like I have been saying it for forever. I also agree with Rehmwa regarding the amount of rights given to a couple vs. an individual. As a heterosexual in a nine-year monogamous relationship, there is a ton of pressure both socially and lawfully to marry all the time. It really upsets me, as the only reason I see a need for it is medically. Still, we have wills and living wills. I keep meaning to look into whether or not my hunny's family could override anything we have decided and put to legal paper in that regard. The will doesn't do anything for you in regards to medical decisions. I believe you need a power of attorney for that. Not being married does make things a lot more complicated. This is correct. And from a legal standpoint, not being "married" does completely negate your rights to allow your partners wishes to be made.... unless you have that durable power of attorney on file. Otherwise... you have no rights to sign for anything if the other is incapacitated. Personal experience - before my husband and I got married, he fell while rappelling and broke both wrists, messed up his knee and other minor things. I was present, had been with him for the past 4-5yrs, but was NOT allowed to sign for anything. The nurse made him try to hold the pen (with two broken wrists) and scribble something (they SHOULD have just done a verbal and witnessed it... but they wanted to be "legal") If we had had a durable power of attny - we were up north, outside of our home city, unless we carried it at all times.... they STILL wouldn't have honored the "but I promise that I have it at home." Once "married" - I can sign for him and he can sign for me. Even without a DPOA. The doctors and nurses are just "trying" to make sure that they have a "legal" consent so that the person that had the surgery can't later come back and sue them for care that they didn't consent to... called assault and battery. Should the medical field (through government acceptance of marraige) allow you to pass off your consent just because of a bad (good?) night in Vegas? Should they be allowed to deny the desires of a patient as given through a loved one that might not be "married"? (Maybe the answers are buried deep within HR 3200 ) Other factors.... why should two consenting adults that are "married" get better benefits than two consenting adults that are "civil union-ed"? The government shouldn't care either way. That whole separation of church and state thing - shouldn't matter if it was a HUGE Catholic wedding with a church full of ankle biters or a Jewish wedding or a Wiccan ceremony or a wedding on the Reservation or a civil ceremony in the court house. And it shouldn't matter if it's male/female or male/male or female/female or shemale/shemale or .... Benefits provided from the Government should be equal. (That is if the Government SHOULD be giving any benefits for just being married)