BJean

Derick, wait... what? You don't CARE who becomes our next president? Or you're supporting Barack Obama like you suggested above? Eh, never mind. I'm more interested in what you posted over on the Large Penis thread. Necra what?

My DH almost lost his life on the Snake River. Thank goodness for a lodged log. Otherwise I'm certainly with you on your proposal to come up with solutions! Our problems may be the same or similar but our ideas for solutions are undoubtedly different. But right now I feel like that guy who is treed by a rabid dog - he says, "just shoot one of us, I gotta get some relief".

Transformer, my point is that you aren't arguing about policies, you're speaking to the morals and ethics of one man but ignoring the morals and ethics of another. We better be trying to figure out how we can recapture the government as it was under Clinton rather than the one that we have now. If it means that the only way to accomplish that or something better, with this slate of politicians, is to elect Hillary, then so be it. If you're saying you have no respect for the women that you listed, Jack, then I don't think any woman is going to make you happy. Maybe these women's politics are the opposite of yours. That would explain a lot about your view of women in charge. Is it really the fact that they are women or just that they are not conservative/right wing enough for you? Derick it must be frightening to you to think that Black Americans may finally be able to unite behind someone who isn't white or a Republican. Blaming Democrats for keeping Blacks down in this country is what we expect the Republican machine and its' supporters. Yell it to the roof tops. We're onto you. It only makes you look insane and desperate.

I don't think that most Americans are as bitter about Bill Clinton's behavior while in office as you are transformer. And it is astounding that you can go on about him, repeatedly, and then say that what this president is doing or has done is not worthy of discussing. Huh? What? My God, how can anyone brush off the current administration's policies both here and abroad with a wave of the hand? But then rant and rave about Bill's indescretions and lying under oath (about indescretions). That is what puzzles many of us who are appalled at the Bush camp and what he/they have done to our military, our country, our economy, and on and on and on. Instead of spending absolutely no energy pointing what a sneaky bastard Bush is and questioning where our country is headed, you're all focused on Bill Clinton. Amazing. I might add that I do find you to be quite funny and I did get a chuckle out of much of what you posted. (Even though I disagree with your discussion focus.) Jack I completely agree with you about the media's avoidance of the real issues! Isn't that one reason why this thread was started?

Ok already. You've convinced me to buy a lemon and some brussels sprouts or cauliflower and fix 'em up with freshly grated parmesan. I admit that it does sound great. Semper Fi!

Point well taken, green. I can remember one fight she had with my father before school when he threatened her with the hot iron she was using to press her blouse. Actually I can forgive her. I just haven't had any reason to yet. I'm not sure why I would ever want to see her again. She can be extremely harsh and hateful. We definitely saw both of our parents in different ways. I never argued with them or gave them any trouble whatsoever. She was always fighting them about something. She was, btw, always very overweight. I have no idea if she suffered discrimination in the family because of that or if she was so unhappy that she ate to console herself. Whatever the reason things were so rough for her, it really isn't surprising that when my mom became ill, she did nothing to help her. And when she took over my dad, it was to gain control over him and his estate (as insignificant as it may have been). My heart goes out to you green. I just cannot imagine why you were treated as you were. If I were you, I'd probably be hell bent on proving myself to the world. And not just a little angry. You seem like a marvelous person who is very intelligent and enjoys learning about everything in life. Short version... you're tres' cool!

Great input, green. You didn't mention that Obama is a Baptist and has been for years. Which is contrary to that bit of tripe that is circulating on the 'net which states that he's a Muslim and insisted on using the Koran at his swearing in. (People can be such a-holes, can't they!) I do not believe that Hillary's about face on the war in Iraq should be used against her. Many people did the same thing and did not draw criticism for it. I was very unhappy with her at the time as I was with everyone else who thought it was a good thing. I sat in front of my television in disbelief and cried my little American eyes out the night that Dubya rained down "shock and awe" on a country with whom we were not at war. I looked at the people in Congress as complete and utter fools for allowing such a thing. Everyone wanted to retaliate against the atrocities of 9-11. A lot of people thought we should do it to prove to the rest of the world that we are not a nation to be messed with. Unfortunately we didn't even win at that game. As far as Hillary "standing by her man" - I gotta ask you, since when is saving a marriage something to criticize? If I didn't respect Hillary for anything else, I would respect her for that. It was amazing how they got through that torment. Kicking someone to the curb may sound funny and empowering, but it also sounds cold, hard and selfish. When someone has affairs, especially the way Bill Clinton did, it is obvious that they have a personal problem. We aren't supposed to abandon our mates when they have problems, we're supposed to help them - remember? in sickness and in health? I criticize Hillary because I believe that she may have sold out and jumped totally into the middle of the road on every issue just so that she can be elected. That infuriates me. But sadly, it is probably the only way anyone can eventually get elected to the presidency in this country. I do not dislike Obama. I do have misgivings about his ability to handle the tremendous pressures of the presidency at this point in his political career. If he really could unite this country I'd be in his corner. But so far I know he gives good face and can belt out a great speech, I just don't know if he can actually DO the job. When I heard that Dubya had been stopped for DUI, and had dabbled in cocaine, I thought the same thing that I think about anyone who may have been alcoholic or a drug abuser in the past. That is, if someone is fully recovered, there's a good chance they've learned a lot in the process. Their recent and current behavior is what I find of most importance. So I don't find fault with Dubya's dabbling in drugs and alcohol, I find fault with his recent and current behavior.

oooh I find this very interesting, green. I have a middle sibling who took charge of my Dad and did those things you've described. Now I find it very difficult to 1) forgive her, and 2) ever want to see her again.

If the eldest doesn't implode pretty soon, a lot of people are going to be very surprised. Is she a freak show, or what? OMG, she's giving bi-polar a bad name.

I guess we may as well have fun with this, huh? You're pretty funny Transformer - although you don't leave us wondering which party you're partial to. I'm all for someone who is "regular" as opposed to someone who is all bound up, if you know what I mean. It can make you pretty grumpy. I have a feeling that Perot had a few problems along that line... "can I finish, can I finish, can I finish?" But if you can't think of anything humorous about Guliani, you might have your blinders on, huh?

luluc you make some very sound points and have stated them succinctly. Good for you. green, I don't think you should have fewer rights than men in this world although many people do feel that it is the way God intended. That makes it pretty hard to debate sometimes. I also do not think that a woman should be penalized even if she didn't have the presence of mind (for whatever reason) to use birth control. If a woman unintentionally becomes pregnant, does not want to nurture a fetus to term, has no will or desire to have a child, she should not be compelled to have one and it is unfair to a baby for her to be made to have it. Many people here believe that not being born is the worst thing in the world while I know that there are worse things. No one should have control over the fertilized egg in another person. The fact that there might be fewer abortions if it were to be made illegal, is not a valid reason to allow the state to make that decision for us.

There's always a story, isn't there, that has helped us develop strong feelings on this issue: women's choice vs. the government's choice. No wonder you are so passionate about this topic, ash! Sweethot too, I'm sure. But to criticize green for having what she thought was "responsible" sex, is just too much for me. It is easy to say that green or someone else is "selfish" for having an abortion. I just don't see it that way. I think it is very selfish for one person to compel another to have a baby because she thinks she is the only one with the right answer. To some people, making a human being is one of the, if not the, most important thing we can do while we're here on earth. When you can't have a baby, it seems insane to you for another person who is able to conceive, to terminate a pregnancy. That may be understandable, but very single-minded and very selfish in my books. Babies... human beings, are far too important to be used in this way.

green, the best ones have a span of about 5 feet across. It'll take you and a small Army to hang one properly. And be sure to seal that rust so that you don't smudge your strikingly sophisticated grey wall. Derick makes some good points. Either way, let's party... although I will only endorse bikini clad chicks if physically superior, young, strapping, good looking lads in equal numbers to the chicks show up in their second-skin Speedos. Snort, drool.

green I agree children and pets or other animals can tell the difference between quick momentary actions and abuse. There is no book or instruction guide in print that I know of, that condones hitting a pet for any reason. In fact, there are people I've met who have more patience with and treat their pets better than, their children.

ash_ I think that we probably mostly agree here. There's no doubt in my mind that adoption saves lives and is a wonderful thing in many cases. I congratulate your father for adopting you and helping you to become the caring person that you obviously are. Having the government legally force women to have unwanted children is not a position that I think you or I believe is right and good even though we may not agree whether women should or shouldn't have abortions. The main thing I believe we have to understand about this debate is that some people think, because of their belief system or value system or whatever you call it, that women should in every case of a fertilized egg implanting itself in a woman's uterus, she should be compelled, by law, to have that child, no matter what the extenuating circumstances. My beliefs is that it is not a black and white issue and that one person should not tell another person what they must do in every case of unwanted pregnancy, so it obviously holds that the government sure shouldn't make a decision like that. It seems to me, if you believe that women shouldn't have abortions, you have every right to be vocal about it and do all you can to convince women with unwanted pregnancies to go ahead and bring those children into this world and to convince those women to give them up for adoption if that is the best choice for them. Women often need that kind of support and it is your right in this country, with our current laws, to do that. I just am adamantly against the government forcing women to go through unwanted pregnancies and forcing women to deliver unwanted children, which is what making abortions illegal would do.

ash_ I have complete respect for your input and I understand your viewpoint on this topic as you've explained it. I'd like to try to tell you why I believe that women should be able to make the decision of whether or not to have a baby that she became impregnated with under duress. I have a problem with a scenario where a woman is brutally raped, beaten, contracted a veneral disease and become pregnant, and then have the government tell her that she must continue with the pregnancy and grow a baby to term that carries the genes of her rapist and is a constant reminder, for the rest of her life, of her impossibly horrid ordeal. I do not believe that the baby has done anything to deserve death but I also do not believe that the baby has done anything to deserve life either. The baby is an innocent by-product of a terrible act. No woman should be forced to make a decision to have a baby when she is traumatized emotionally and physically by the very act that forced her to be impregnated. I just cannot wrap my head around the concept or belief that God brought a rapist into a woman's life, made her endure a grisly physical act and then expected her to bear a child that He (God) wanted to create in that way. Although I know that many people believe that God has his reasons for everything, both good and horrible. I just don't share that same belief system. I also believe that babies are much too important to say that adoption is always a perfect solution. It is totally unfair to a child with regard to knowing and being loved by his or her biological parents. Adoption can be a wonderful thing for everyone involved, but it should not be the plan of the state for every unwanted child born because the state has forced women to bear unwanted children. I just do not think that is right or good for any child, nor is it a good law for the country we live in. When a woman chooses to have a baby that was conceived under bad or unfortuante circumstances, that is one thing. But I believe that it is wrong for a woman to be forced, by law, to have a baby she doesn't want and can't physically or emotionally or safely deliver. Do we really want the government to be in the business of making a decision of this magnitude for all women in this country?

Lauril- congratulations big time for your weight loss success!!!! You deserve to be appreciated for who you have always been and now for what you've accomplished. What you're feeling is so very normal. Hopefully you can accept those compliments and looks and even flirt a little and enjoy it thoroughly. But I hope that, if you love your husband and children, you won't become close enough to another man to be sexually intimate with him. Flirting and grubbing up on compliments and stares is one thing, having sex outside your marriage is so much more. It almost always brings unbelievable heartache and pain for everyone involved. It can also do irreparable damage to those you care about and your marriage. I don't think a little flirting hurts anyone as long as we realize what we're doing and understand it for what it is: a quick and simple ego boost. Nothing more.

Mark I have a friend (whom I no longer consider a real friend), gave me a fabulous Belgian waffle iron for Christmas. Isn't that a dirty deed for a friend to commit?

Hey you two, I restate my whole hearted support of both of you. You've made some really great points and Mark, I love your take on the potential for healing if either Hillary or Obama were to be elected. Wouldn't that be a grand thing for all Americans? And as for the change theory and the collection thereof, I have some I'll be happy to toss your way. It tends to collect in the center console of my ride and don't ask me why I'm in a position to collect coins in my car. (Drive-thrus are the bane of Americans' existence. That's my campaign slogan, okay?) green when you put your mind to it, you're hilarious and brilliant. marjon9 hell yes! I love reading everything you write. And for your information green, I have never thought of you as an outsider. You're much more savvy on all things American (north and south of our shared border) than practically anyone I know. I have no doubt that you could live in either country and be loved and appreciated by all. However at this point in my diatribe, as a frustrated wonderfully talented decorator living smack dab in the middle of Texas, I resent the implication that a gay New Yorker's taste is superior to mine. Do not tell me that you find giant rusty stars nailed on walls throughout one's home to be in poor taste. Humph! Don't mess with Texas, dudes.

Ok laurend, I sent you Diannah's email address today. Let me know if you don't get it or if it doesn't work.

Btw, I do understand the distinction between a quick swat on the bottom and an all out beating. I never forgot a couple of beatings I was given. They made me disrespect the parent who administered them and my rage and disrespect overrode the fear that they hoped to instill. Thank you Allyson, I appreciate that someone here gets what I'm trying to say.

green, I remember as a child wishing and hoping that my parents would just hit me instead of explaining, ad naseum, why my behavior was unacceptable. The hit was over and done with very quickly (and yes, sometimes forgotten) but the lecture with privileges taken away made a much more lasting impression.

Nowhere did I read that he spanked his child the first time he ran out into the street - I figured that was a given. If the guy normally spanks his child when he gets into a dangerous situation, one could assume he always does. Maybe the child ran out into the street the second time because he wasn't spanked the first time... is that your point? Nowhere did I read that he didn't spank his child the first time. Or did I miss that part? I admit that I sometimes scan postings too quickly. No I don't think this guy was actually being punished for a short, swift, single, harmless (?) smack on the bottom of his little kid's butt to prevent him from doing it again. I think he's being punished for the sins of lots of other people who seriously abuse their children. That's what I meant by the swinging pendulum reference. There will probably be numerous cases where there will be injustices relating to public intervention when some parents discipline their children with corporal punishment in public. There are undoubtedly more cases of horrendous child abuse that can be cited. Society is sick and tired of people abusing innocent children and torturing and killing the little defenseless children. That's why the pendulum is possibly swinging too far. When people think that it is their right and their job to hit their kids, the pendulum can swing too far the other way too. Extreme, unfair cases are never what we are hoping for when we try to solve societal problems. I do not believe in spanking. I believe that spanking is action taken when a parent or adult in charge of a child doesn't have the wherewithall to correct a child in a sensible and more intelligent fashion. I know that is extremely unpopular on this thread. I know there are cases here of kids who are crazed and completely unreasonable and out of control. But we are the adults. We are in charge. We're bigger. We're supposed to be smarter. It's not okay to hit kids. If it's okay to hit out of control children, do you also think it's okay to hit a retarded person who is being irrational and out of control? What about old, senile people who don't understand that they can't just take a walk out of the institution they're living in? I'm afraid I don't understand the difference.

Yes, research has told us that rape is an act of violence and power, not necessarily about sexual release. Although one can't deny that sex of some sort is part of the crime when sexual organs are involved. Castrated or impotent people use all sorts of weapons on their victims in sexual ways. And yes, those perps are very, very sick people. How can we think otherwise? And as for pedophiles, research also says they aren't easily (or maybe ever) rehabilitated. So they should be shipped off to an island somewhere with their own kind. Totally separate from society as we know it. I wouldn't even give them the benefit of the 3 strikes rule. On the other hand, if castration and chemical treatment could change their behavior and thinking, I would consider that as an alternative - but only if it is proven without any doubt that it works. Hmmm. Therein lies the problem. Derick, you're darned funny! I love reading your input on every place you put it in.

If the guy spanked his son the first time he ran into the street and it didn't work, why do you think it should work the second time? I hate the idea of parents being forcibly policed so as not to harm their children, but someone has to speak up for the children. This country has an unbelievable record of abusing and killing children. Maybe the pendulum is swinging too far in one direction, but it is for a very good reason. There has been case after case where a foster parent or biological parent hit a child and after being investigated, the state decided that they were not a serious threat to the child. Only later after the child was horribly maimed and/or killed did the realization hit everyone that the child sure enough was in critical danger. People should not believe that corporal punishment is okay. Too many people cannot control their anger. I don't think that beating dogs is all right either. Do you?