I'm no astrophysicist, but it appears virtually there's always a full moon on the interwebz.

Oh, my goodness...is THAT what they're trying to do?!?




Sorry, boyz...fleta and I have been virtual friends and have virtually had each other's backs for waaaaay too long for that to happen.

She's one of a very few group of people I've met online that I would happily meet in person...one of an even smaller handful of people I'd gladly go out and throw back (quite a) few beers with.

She and I would tear up a real-live joint and all the real-live men in it, guaranteed.


Friends like that are rare...and extremely valued.

fleta----> <----mrld

According to The New Rules, because my font's bigger, bolder, AND brighter, I am *righter*.

Doubtful.

Yes, generally speaking, there ARE more females than males worldwide due to factors like (generally speaking) males are more danger-seeking and thus put themselves in harm's way more often, more males serve in front-line military action than females, and male life expectancy in shorter than that of a female.

On the flip side, divorced/widowed men are more apt to remarry than divorced/widowed women.


The *fact* that because there are fewer men than women in the world is what makes women more willing to date married men


reads more like a justification for bad behavior than a statistically proven cause-and-effect of a new-found reality.

Unfortunately, NASA itself has confirmed the rumor is untrue.

More unfortunately, the website huzlers.com (~whoa~ sound THAT out: "huzlers",) which first *leaked* the news, says this of itself:

"Huzlers.com is a combination of real shocking news and satirical entertainment to keep its visitors in a state of disbelief."


http://earthsky.org/earth/nasa-quells-rumor-days-of-darkness-in-december-of-course-not

oH. itS tHe LovE LANg.

<--- nOt fluEnT nD doNt waNnA b



Best of luck to you in your quest, OP...

@ fleta:

Thanks for providing all of that.

I read through EO13603 and I'm just not taking away from it what you got from it. In plain English (and as an example) when I read it, it simply is a bolstering of local forces for times of extreme national distress and defense (think 9/11, hijacked planes, and The Towers) - mobilizing 'local' State forces in response to a localized but national emergency. It seems to address which Directors on a national level will be in charge of which parts of the local emergency response (energy, food, transportation, etc.).

I saw NOTHING that spoke of these local forces providing labor with no compensation; the closest I could get to THAT thought was (again, in simple English) a provision for the ability to withhold taxes when issuing compensation.



As to the article which discussed President Obama's threat to arrest some governors...no offense, but I question its validity. In part from 'considering the source' (a report written to advise President Putin?!?), but especially due to the rhetoric and hyperbolic speech contained within it, as evidenced here:

"...Important to note is that Obama, as President of the United States is also its most powerful military leader known by the term of Commander in Chief..."


The POTUS - ANY POTUS - has always been known as the "Commander in Chief"; this is not new nor is it news. It was specifically worded to read *like*, "President Obama, who really DOES believe himself to be God Almighty, Himself..."

It was deliberately worded TO elicit an emotional and knee-jerk response; it appears to have worked, for/on some.



In none of the citations did I find anything to substantiate your earlier claim that President Obama's EOs "are taking away ALLof our rights", let alone ANY of our rights.


Again, thanks for providing all of that. The bottom line is, as private citizens we'll read into and take from whatever we read, whatever we will. If any of these EOs have done - or even attempt to do - what it is you claim/fear they've done/will do,

there's one or two people on Capitol Hill who are itching for an excuse - ANY excuse - to *get after* this current POTUS. I have faith in them that - IF true - they'll jump all over it. Hell, they were practically willing to move to impeach him simply for wearing a tan suit to a press conference...something NO previous POTUS had ever done.

Thank you, F0X...I always wondered what the difference was between "women" and "womens" and when to use them, *properly*.




"Womens" is used when it's simply a lot more *females* who be biotches.

Actually, you can imagine anything you'd like, but the facts of the matter remain that MANY people (women AND men, alike) DO react when rape victims talk about their rape online with the exact response you "can't imagine". Those who don't, often use it as a homing device, much like sharks do when they *smell* fresh blood.



I am aware that this article was HIS INDIVIDUAL experience; in my first post I addressed what I took away from his writings about HIS INDIVIDUAL experience. You took away something completely different.

By the way, HIS own words when describing HIS INDIVIDUAL experience were being used as a rallying cry to ALL blacks and ALL people, EVERYwhere, to be more aware of black conditions, worldwide.





I didn't say blacks' experience IN THE USA is the same as everyone else's IN THE USA; I spoke to the diaspora, to which you and the author repeatedly referred. If you (and the author) don't know what the word means, perhaps neither of you should use it when attempting to make a point.

Just as I start by feeding my own family , I find it reasonable that instead of allowing the media or the world convince me that I am removed from and distant from my ancestral history, that I embrace and learn about it, and continue to connect with it, even across oceans via learning about the land, the culture, the people and seeing them as family / united by ancestry.

,,otherwise I agree, the experience is not UNIQUE, none really are,, but it is an experience and a perception that I thought was well described by the INDIVIDUAL experiencing it and one I can also relate to,,, especially in terms of how Africa is portrayed, compared to everything else that it offers and all the other experiences people have on its continent,,


It is YOUR CHOICE (which you are free to make and free to embrace) to continue to set you and your people apart in an ever-growing and all-encompassing global community. It is YOUR CHOICE (which you are free to make and free to embrace) to continue to see you and your people as singularly different, unique, blessed and cursed from / above all other peoples.

Since you specifically brought them up, the FACT remains that Jews HAVE been specially persecuted on a worldwide stage, for thousands of years. The FACT remains that peoples of ALL faiths, heritages, and ethnicities HAVE BEEN and continue to be persecuted on a worldwide stage. If, in your mind, it makes you feel better and enjoy life better (both as an individual AND as part of a global community) to ignore the totality of history and just focus on your own people's history, have at. Likewise, feel free to ignore the plight of all OTHER oppressed people, worldwide, and focus on JUST your people's oppression...including *seeing* injustices where none exist, if it bolsters your position and deepens your commitment. Today, a people loses validity when it focuses on the trials and tribulations THEY are going through, while refusing to acknowledge that other peoples have their own trials and tribulations as well and instead insists that EVERYone focus on addressing their issues, first.

To others, it will remain to be seen as hypocritical, self-serving, and self-centered; don't be too surprised if the world, who should be working to stamp out ALL injustices against ALL peoples, doesn't jump on your bandwagon for the one people you hold most dear.


Best of luck in your work...

The minion that will speak for M2 members IS Dave...


...you can tell by his parted-down-the-middle, 2-sided attempted comb-over(s).

If you'd bothered to check the hotlink provided, the wording of EO13529 specifically referred to the "Coast Guard":

"...Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy..."


It was the closest EO I could find that had ANYthing to do with the subject she'd introduced...

...withOUT providing any specifics or any citations when making the claim.



Apparently, part of the Newly-Adopted Posting Rules is that only SOME people *have to* provide citations to legitimate sources when introducing *facts* into a discussion,


while others are provided a free pass...and free rein (reign?).





Thanks for (only) noticing - and responding to! - a post of MINE in the thread you're hosting, again.

Which minion IS it that will be representing all the M2 members?




Is that Dave? Tom? Phil? Jerry?

Unfortunately, I can't admit that, as I'm not seeing where in any of the Executive Orders President Obama's enacted, that there HAS been any "taking away of ALL of our rights", let alone even some of 'em.

I've hotlinked them, by year...perhaps you can draw my attention to the particular orders in which this has occurred?

2009 EOs

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014


As to the claim that the Coast Guard is no longer under States' control and reports directly to the POTUS, that not true; the EO was signed after the Haiti earthquake and tsunami and was worded to allow emergency orders of deployment by the POTUS IF - and only IF - "...when it is not operating as a service in the
Navy..." i.e., when the Coast Guard is inactive.

EO13529




As an aside, if our current POTUS keeps up at his current pace, by the time he leaves office he will have signed 258 EOs.

Several Presidents have signed more - some even WAAAAAY more - than that, during their terms in office: George W. Bush (291), Clinton (364), Reagan (381), Carter (320), Nixon (346), Johnson (325), Eisenhower (484), Truman (907), FDR (3,522), Hoover (968), Coolidge (1,203), Harding (522), Wilson (1,803), Taft (724), and Teddy Roosevelt (1,081).


Hmmmm...what is so uniquely different about this POTUS that he's being accused of signing EOs all willy-nilly-*like*, when


factually-speaking


it's just simply not true?!?


http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

<--- Honestly single

Actually, the Executive Orders debacle is pretty fricken genius.

The POTUS said (before being elected the first time) he planned to come into Washington and *change* the way Business As Usual was run...and that he planned to tackle some of our most pressing issues that NO POTUS (red or blue) has wanted to touch for decades: immigration reform, healthcare reform, social security reform, etc.

When attempting to get things through Congress, he was met with a brick wall and NObody wanted to touch 'em.

Now, with the new Senate AND House majorities, there's no reason why bills CAN'T be introduced; the Conservatives are completely in charge of the wording of any reforms.

President Obama has been real clear: come up with SOMEthing to vote on, or I'LL sign an Executive Order putting reforms into effect.


Congress will either: a) get off their azzes and draft SOMEthing; b) do nothing and be left having to sue the POTUS for "over-reaching his authority".


Either of those is NOT continuing to 'do nothing', now is it? And, skating through and doing nothing about these tough, pressing issues while continuing to take paychecks IS what the Senators and Representatives (for decades) HAVE been doing...and would like to continue to do.



It's all going to get VERY interesting...with the current state of *compromise* lip service buzzing about...

Who knew?!? There's rules to this posting stuff!!!




Does EVERYone *have to* follow these rules before posting...or are the Rules-Makers/Givers automatically exempt?



It's rhetorical...but that won't stop anyone, I'm sure.

Today, I spent the day tearing apart 10 boxes (and four years' worth) of office files, working on a project. Because it was dusty, heavy, brutal, and tedious work, I wore jeans and (really) this exact sweatshirt:






Update: None showed up.

Yup, yup...it sure does appear to be the case.

At the last mid-term elections, the Republicans promised that they were going to completely overrun Congress and steal power back. It galvanized the Democrats and they got out and voted to ensure it didn't happen.

Four more years of the same B.S. from BOTH sides of the aisle and everybody's had just about enough. The votes that WERE cast were probably mostly from the frothing-at-the-mouth diehards who hate anything not *right* and not 100% conservative in all things, at all times.


It's nothing new; it's happened repeatedly when any lame-duck POTUS is finishing his second term, as the article I'd previously cited (and hotlinked) indicated.


Currently, I'm *enjoying* the new Senate leader indicating that he now understands that the American people want compromise, so he'll work to do that. By saying this, he completely ignores the fact that for the last 4 years they've been in the minority and have not been interested in compromise, so it's doubtful they'll suddenly learn how, now.

Likewise for President Obama...he, too, is stating that he now understands the American people want compromise, so he'll work to do that. He, too, is completely ignoring the fact that his party's been in the driver's seat and unwilling (unable?) to find compromise, so coming from a now-weakened position doesn't bode well for sudden break-throughs.


But, IS *fun* to watch, no?

Oh, you're so cute...THAT'S why you called me over here? You thought I was bringing these beers for you MEN to consume???


<--- TRUE "Beer Wench"...they're all for me, dammit!!!

Three times, now.

The six other guests to your thread must feel left out...or that for *some* *reason* you don't care about their thoughts on this fascinating subject.


Factually-speaking, of course.