jerryskids

I was primarily in tech sales. Finance approved whatever deals I proposed, and paid me well for bringing them in. So I appreciate them for that, I guess.

Bosses count beans, but you aren't a boss, at least at the level you are implying here. If you were, you'd have bragged about it already. You are part of a finance team that proposes budgets.

And count beans! For a company that uses tech$#@!

If I didn't do it already, I've thought about proposing that we take Scheffler off the table. Obviously not for the Masters with a draft about to start, but if anyone is interested in the concept, we should probably discuss it before a future tourney. The guy is just too money these days.

I did not know the bolded. Is this true everywhere? If so, that says a lot about what the "gender care" supporters truly care about.

Yeah, stuff like the TikTok trend of punching women in the face in NYC. I've told her to just look alert, walk heel-toe (i.e., with confidence) and those losers will wait for the next girl. Hopefully I'm right.

I gave you a very polite, thought-out counter theory to that idea, and you called it dumb. So I had moved on to addressing that comment, not the one about respect.

My daughter works on the 21st floor in the fashion district, she said she felt it but it was mild, she wasn't scared.

I never said "respected." "Accepted" or "understood," more like. That being said, this idea of "well, if boys can do it, girls can and should too" is poor logic. Males and females approach a myriad of situations differently, both physically and psychologically. But somehow, people think they should approach one of our most fundamental behaviors the same? This is foolish.

What's dumb is to take a valid argument which explains WHY we, deep down, feel the way we do about the body count of different sexes, and say things like "but we have the pill now!" And yes, basically, to your second paragraph. You are free to think sex is exactly the same to both sexes; if so, you have either successfully fooled yourself that it is the case. For most of us, this isn't the case. A boy in puberty will fock a sock, a canteloupe, a toilet paper cardboard cylinder, anything that can be focked. Perhaps you didn't experience this.

"Health equity," except for babies of drug addicts, who are expendable I guess. In a normal world, it wouldn't matter if the mother were White, Black, or Green. If a mother is taking drugs while pregnant and delivering the infant while high on crack, it should be reported as child abuse. That person is not fit to be a mother, and the child is at terrible risk. But what about DEI? If we report these incidents, it will give people the impression that Black women are more likely to be drug addicts, and that is not a nice fact to have out in the world. The spin is that this is for the good of the infants, whose mothers may be seeking treatment and will be good mothers. Of course this is bulls**t, because a report to child services doesn't mean that a child is removed from a home; it means the situation will be investigated. Advocates for children appear to be on board, believe it or not, because this is after all Massachussetts. Fatal overdoses tripled. So let's quit testing mothers for addictive drugs when they come in to give birth. Make it make sense. Babies are not disposable, whatever leftists say. This is about protecting adults, most of whom are addicted and at the very least need treatment, and about juking the statistics to hide an inconvenient fact. Whenever you hear the word "equity," assume something evil is happening. It almost always is. Child welfare? Nobody cares. Abortion up until birth is already the law in many places, so why stop when the child gets out of the womb? https://hotair.com/david-strom/2024/04/04/boston-hospital-will-now-ignore-infants-born-with-drugs-in-their-system-n3785882

Wrong. Limiting drug testing has the effect of ignoring the possible drug effects for those children, so those children will go untreated. The title doesn't say "every". So it is accurate, you semantic dooshnozzle.

Wrong

Whereabouts is the spot? We did the Verde RR twice in the past few months (super cool and informative train ride) and we love the Cottonwood area (starting to itch for some land up there).

I'll give a different perspective; an evolutionary viewpoint I heard on a pod a while back (forget which one). Men are programmed to have sex with multiple women, to propagate their genes. They are also, however, less interested in women who sleep with multiple men, because then they don't know if the baby is theirs. Women, conversely, are programmed to NOT sleep around, for the above reason, but also because each sexual encounter brings with it the risk of pregnancy, which for her means 9 months of gestation then years of child raising. That is why women are programmed to be much more selective in their mates. Now, as you pointed out, we as a culture have decided we don't like this programming, so we make comments like "that is so early 2000's $#@!" and try to convince women that it is in their interest to sleep around. I believe that women are in general not happy "swiping right" often, and that history will show that this was a bad idea.

Ah, gotcha. That's not how I read it. My sense is that he would be good with more kids, based on past posts (his wife stopped at 3, he wanted more). Also that he believes that women in that age range will be open to a guy who is open to or wants kids, regardless of age. And that that would be easier than convincing a 35 yr old divorcee done with kids that she should marry his fat ass.

Isn't this what the MA hospitals are doing?

I don't understand this post. Nobody wants to need a caretaker. What they want is for somebody to love who will be their caretaker, if it is needed.

Dang, this saddens me. My initial reaction was to dismiss this, but you are about a decade closer to the younger generation than I am so... anyway, I will just say that my son used to be somewhat like 90s in his "never get married" beliefs, but he seems to have met the woman of his dreams, and I would be shocked at this point if they don't get married. He is staunchly conservative BTW. I'd like to think he is not alone in this attitude. It probably helped that he saw me going through a life-threatening illness and realized that he will not live forever, and that having someone to share life's challenges with is a good thing. Most young people don't understand their own mortality. This is not a new thing.

Thanks, I'll copy and paste my OP into that thread and delete this one.

Sorry, didn't see it. Where is the thread? Nothing in the titles is leaping out at me on the first page.

He's not personally pro-gay, he just reads the words that his speech writers give him that say pro-gay things.

Oh, no doubt. Whenever I start to kick myself about a stoopid decision I made (which is often), I think that in the giant karma of life, picking her as my wife outshines anything negative I'll ever do.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/100-percent-cancer-remission-of-patients-in-monoclonal-antibody-trial-facts-matter-5620254?utm_source=Enews&utm_campaign=etv1-2024-04-03&utm_medium=email&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa%2Bc5ZwpCztPd4LIuuWhYArg0yEwD%2BTwvt3acngPVaRuLrk%2FaLA%3D%3D From the original study: The immunotherapy I took, Keytruda (pembrlizumab), is also a monclonal antibody which also works on the PD-1 pathway. Small study but, eesh, 12 out of 12 complete clinical response. Also, this was limited to "A subset of rectal cancer is caused by a deficiency in mismatch repair.", whatever that means. Still, very promising.