part of that downfall began when we started holding campaign ambitions to the definition of a 'promise' in the first place

changing that perspective would erase alot of that 'disappointment'

a government is hundreds of people who have to work together, not just one politician

upon consideration, I find it hard to fathom that the creator of such beautiful NATURE could be 'bad'

but I do find it easier to fathom that jealousy for that creators love could cause one to be 'evil' and vengeful in their actions

so the devil being 'bad' is not hard for me to fathom

although I dont label in such a manner anything but actions and words, and I think the Devil would defintely be one who strives on behaving badly and inspiring others to do the same,,,,

to each their own, I dont consider it intimacy,,,ID save my money

its just as 'intimate' to have phone sex or skype and stimulate with the voice, and thats probably much cheaper than this device.

people with the money have the right to buy any legal product they wish

I just of the opinion that they should SAVE their money instead of purchasing THIS PRODUCT

if their men need an 'orifice', its more a toy for the man than it is the woman anyhow,,,,

from the op description there is nothing particularly spicy about this product, it seems like a way to have a long distance hand job (excuse my french), and I personally think a man can do that for himself better than anyone else can

before Barry, which nations governments were considered 'terrorists'?

how many 'counties' are there in america?

incredible,,

living in a time where WE decide the gender we are instead of nature,,,,


and can force others to pay for our appearance to match our feeling?



I dont necessarily agree that inmates need to have to break rocks every waking hour , but I think this measure goes beyond humane treatment and into special treatment

thats why Im glad the USA is so big,, every body has their thing snd someplace they can go to live it

I would never live in Texas,,,,but thats my thing (valuing life)

oh and about the op

even with a gun, you are still a 'victim', the crime just has the word 'attempted' placed in front

I think its ingenuous to describe the pov as that of supporting being a victim as a means of self defense

its more about what TYPE of victim is better,, one in which there is a defendant and plaintiff left to live another day

or one where someone dies unnecessarily,,,,

I somehow am suspect of WHO conducts these studies trying to correlate gun ownership and crime and WHAT criteria they use

just for hits and iggles, I randomly selected some data to see how it could be used

the criteria were 1 strict gun laws and 2 violent crime per capita


I have to note that I couldnt find a CONSISTENT standard for rating what constitutes 'stricter, strictes' gun laws but that is why I mention this is done randomly, from

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/L-External-publications/2000/2000%20OSI%20Gun%20control%20US.pdf

top five states for strict gun control

mass
hi
ca
ct
md

bottom five for strict gun control
Montana
Tx
ALaska
Louisiana
Maine

comparing their violent crime per capita , according to the census ranking (number one being highest rate and descending from there)

from http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html

(states with strictest gun control) M

mass 20
hi 36
ca 14
ct 37
md 8


(States with less strict gun control) L
Montana 41
Tx 15
ALaska 23
Louisiana 5
Maine 50



If I list them in order from worst violent crime to better

we have this

Louisiana (L)
Maryland (M)
California (M)
Texas (L)
Massachusetts (M)
Alaska (L)
Hawaii (M)
Connecticut (M)
Montana (L)
Maine (L)

IN this list, many observations can be made
the state with worst crime rates is one with less strict gun laws
the state with the best crime rates (of the list) also has less strict gun laws

the bottom five (better crime rate) has two states with stricter and three states with less strict laws

the top five (worst crime rate) has two states with less strict gun laws and three states with more strict gun laws

in this random sampling, it seems there is a very slight difference in the crime rates in states with more strict laws than in less strict

,,,,what that actually PROVES, due to the randomness of the sample and slightness of the difference

is anyones guess

I personally believe it means next to nothing, but Im just showing how to pull random sampling and numbers and use them to seem to s upport one side or the other

I dont really think its all about having more gun restriction or less, its more about the culture (which can vary from region to region and state to state) in which those restrictions occur,,,

to play devils advocate, I didnt think he implied that women using contraceptives were sluts, I think he implied that if you have sex so much that you cant AFFORD The contraceptive, you may be a slut

which may not be far off in some cases, and may be completely off base in others

ON THE IDIOT accusation....

Im not sure if it figures that those who become rich cant be business idiots

people have handlers and managers,,,etc,,,who are often helping them a great deal in the decisions that amass those fortunes

sometimes they have handlers who are idiots , but smart handlers can amass an idiot quite a bit of money,,,

back to the point though, I think he is paid to be crass, that has been his job, that has been what the bulk of his audienced depends upon from him, and that is what he delivers

some people are actually paid to BE IDIOTS,, but I dont know him personally to know he is an idiot,, he just plays one on television,,,,


lol

I have to go with the majority here, it would have to feel like actual 'self defense'

ID have to see that the risk of harm happening to my loved onesif I Didnt go was equal to or greater than if I stayed

otherwise, Im not going anywhere

I just read this review

http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/06/04/specials/bell-well.html

it sounds delicious.. I think its the first one I will get

thanx for the recommendation

IM going to order them now...have you?

if you did, were you considering the POV Of the author, having worked in MISSISSIPPI as a civil rights lawyer in the SIXTIES?

BRAVA

its been this way a while now,, IM sure the vast majority of political ads address 'why you shouldnt vote for.....'

than they do 'you should vote for me because I....'

I agree. A Man who worked beside the likes of Thurgood Marshall, as council for the Legal Defense Fund, who worked in the civil rights division of the US justice department, worked in Mississippi during some of the most racist and unjust civil years since slavery, a tenured professor at Harvard ( I guess they must have found him to be a fair model as well...), Dean of oregon school of law

yeah,, President Obama did seem to have decent instincts about people during his TWENTIES,,,,,when he would have been at Harvard,,,

and probably still does,,,

but Im sure since Professor Bells work was in civil rights and diversity during some of the most segregated times and in some of the most segregated areas of the country,,,,,there will be plenty of 'editing' to make it look like he must have been some america hating, whitey hating, fringe lunatic bent on destroying the country......

lol

I have always thought two weeks was very respectful and I Agree it 'should' work both ways. But this is an employers culture, not an employees,, and its gonna be about whats best for the EMPLOYER. So, its actually becoming expected to look for a job while you are already in a contract to work for someone else.

I dont quite understand it, if I were an employer looking at an applicant with that situation, it would be like a single woman looking at someone that was already married,,,,but thats modern culture for ya..lol

I know some wont understand and others wont try to understand but the analogy to explain the pov of the 'be a victim' (highly paraphrased) explanation

is ,,'better a live chicken than a dead hero'

many agree, many dont
I think the walk away with your life rather than escalate it into someones death argument is valid,,,