torn asunder

you know what i'd love to see, that would throw the political world into upheaval and maybe finally bring about some change? outlaw both the democrats and republicans. anyone who is currently in office and registered as one or the other of these, (or who had previously served as either) would be out, unelectable, and the people would get to vote for the candidate of their choice from any other party, or an independent, based on whom they felt aligned the best with their views. right now, people are afraid to vote for anyone else, for fear of "throwing their vote away". of course i know it would never happen. it is, however, what i'd *like* to see...

i'm thinking it's a beautiful day for a cycle ride - i'm also thinking it would be a lot nicer if i had someone to share it with. can't have everything, i guess...

bed! ZZZZzzzzzzzzzznnng.....

i've actually managed to meld both together - i'm very comfortable with physical contact and affection, even long for it a bit now & then, but i'm also perfectly cool with being on my own, doing my own thing. it's a surprisingly diggable place to be! and yeah, that means i'm still single, probably like i said before, until i move...

i'm feeling frustrated that i still have a pretty big crush on someone who's completely spoken for... damn it all ta hell!!

for people who don't want to clicky-the-linky!!

1) it's *not* ok - name calling isn't allowed on the board, and the term "tea-bagger" is an obvious insult. it needs to stop. 2) debating the main points of the tea party movement is what i'm trying to get back to, as opposed to the rhetoric that seems to be flying around. i think this could be an interesting discussion, if we could stay away from all the knee-jerk reactionary conclusions/statements. in that spirit, i'm going to quote your original post below, after i make one last comment... 3) i'm not much of an active politic, but i'll see what i can find online, regarding the *message* of the tea party, as opposed to the wildly varying personal belief systems the members seem to have. unfortunately, one has to take personal beliefs into account, especially if those beliefs are close-minded, or hate-centered. and i'm not saying that as a blanket statement about tea party members at all, but a party has to be careful not to become associated with such, if they want to be taken seriously. it only takes a few bad apples to turn a barrel, so to speak, you know? gaf posted the following in his OP - let's discuss/debate these items. gaf, since you seem to be the resident tea party "spokesman/expert", (for lack of a better term) would you mind elaborating on these, so we have some "meat" on the bones of this topic?

eternal, you've been asked not to use this term, as it's obviously derogatory in nature. i'd like to stress this point - please stop using it in this discussion. and people, let's try to stop using generalities here, and discuss the actual topic. this seems to be degrading into a big pile of stereotype-bashing. let's play nice, ok? show a little respect, or stop posting in this thread.

ah, good point. i guess i didn't realize that was the original intent of the thread - thanks for directing it back that way! btw, as far as that goes!? yeah, i got nothin...

sitting here wondering if i lifted too heavy tonight to go for a run. wondering what i should eat. it doesn't help that i had to stop watching the new star trek movie (yeah, i'm a bit behind, sue me!) 30 minutes in, to work out, and i want to finish watching it.

way to exclude all of us ugly ones!!

i can't tell you how many times i almost got killed in the last few months, probably at least once a week. in my car, on my cycle (of course, every time on a cycle could be your last - got to accept that), out for a run. hell, there have been times where i've had 3-4 close calls in a single day! i'm simply not meant to be gone yet - i figure i must still have something to do. and honestly, it never really phases me. there's nothing i can do beyond paying attention, so i don't sweat it. i'm looking forward to living a long life (if i have my way, i'll live for centuries!) but i have no ultimate goals in life, no pressing issues i simply *must* attend, so if i go, i'll go with no regrets. (well, maybe one, but... well, nevermind.)

if you're dehydrated, the meds won't work. make sure you drink plenty of water while taking them!

he sighed; she'd never know just how much that one gesture really meant...

cool! wasn't aware of the anapest for limericks, thanks for the clarification! i'm always happy to learn something new in poetry forms/meter! as for my example, the line that's short one syllable is just a feminine ending. i tend to use them in a lot of my stuff.

since i just finished my workout, i'm gonna head out for a run...

i'm heading over a little early tomorrow (saturday) to drive through some of the areas mentioned. if anyone wants to join me, send me a pm & we can exchange #'s. figure i should be there around 3pm. i might also be able to do some "scoping" later sunday afternoon... and thanks for all the input, gang! i really appreciate it!

i have the beginnings of two short stories written, but i have zero imagination as far as plot twists, and interesting happenings go. if i were to finish them, there would be a massive cry of "that's it!?" every time someone finished reading them!

hey, gaf? since i really don't know (and i'm sure a lot of other people don't either) can you explain the difference between a cert. of live birth, and a birth cert.? seems to be that they're the same!? also, it's my understanding that the records weren't sealed originally, but that it was done because there were so many people requesting copies through the freedom of information act, that the (records) office was overloaded. the idea was to limit non-official requests so as to unburden it. (as i said, that's my understanding of it, can't say for sure...)

get your hands out of your pants, phee!!

i'm feeling very disappointed in someone...

dude, really? done with this bullshit? nowhere did phee say he didn't believe there were people who don't want to see a doctor. are we reading the same thread? even though it may be true that some people don't want to see doctor's, there is still a (moral) obligation to contribute to the greater good. people without insurance run a greater risk of developing a serious medical issue, that, with early detection (by seeing a doctor regularly) could have been greatly lessened or even cured before it got too bad. in general, people without insurance don't go to doctors unless it's an emergency; i've yet, personally, to see/hear of an uninsured person paying cash out-of-pocket for a routine physical or screenings. shit, most uninsured people i know don't even go to the dentist! it just doesn't happen. my point with all this is, uninsured people let things go until they can't avoid it anymore, by which point, things are too serious. cancer, heart disease, etc. can be treated with early detection before they develop into major (and costly) medical treatment. it costs much less for preventive treatment than it does for late-stage. and who do you think pays for the uninsured people who end up in the hospital with a terminal late-stage disease? the people who are paying taxes. forcing people to pay for insurance is a good way to get a majority of people on a preventive-care regimen. you will have the option of opting out of the insurance program, from what i understand, but by opting out, you are being required to contribute to the "medical expense pool" (for lack of a better term), so that when you come down with something serious, there will be money there to help treat you. personally, i would be ok with an opt-out clause whereby people aren't required to get insurance *or* pay the penalty, if they are ok with signing a document that states something of this nature: that if they develop a serious medical condition of any kind, and have opted out of the medical establishment, they have no legal recourse when the medical establishment refuses to treat them. so let me pose it to you this way - if you had gotten your way, and neither bought insurance, or paid the "penalty" tax for not doing so, would you be cool with every doctor in america denying you treatment if you developed some form of cancer, or other serious terminal disease? would you sign a release document saying that you specifically decline treatment for any illness, even if it's one that's terminal without treatment, but easily curable with? if so, then i could see having an opt-out clause. but it would be permanent and binding; one couldn't just say, "oh, i know i haven't paid into the system for 20 yrs, but now i changed my mind & want treatment." at that point, it would have to be "well, tough - you didn't pay, you're not getting treated. you signed a legal document saying you were ok with that." is that what you're looking for?