MeatballsMom

Oh trust me, I am an ex Sheriff's Deputy in Texas and am ALL too familiar with the petty complaints we had to take!

Lawsuit seeks to take 'God' out of inaugural Lawsuit seeks to take 'so help me God' out of inaugural - CNN.com "Some atheists want Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony to leave out references to God and religion. In a lawsuit, the plaintiffs demand the words "So help me God" not be added to the end of the oath of office. The plaintiffs say they are being forced to choose between not watching the inauguration or watching endorsements of "purely religious notions." "President-elect Barack Obama will use the Bible Abraham Lincoln used for his inauguration." Seriously??? Well I want all rap music to be banned because it degrades women, talks about exploiting others, killing others, doing or selling drugs..etc...etc...Because when I am driving in my car I have to listen to that crap and it offends me--so, do I then decide to drive and be subjected to that crap or stay home, not go to work and live off of unemployment and welfare??? I suppose my question is WHERE IS THE LINE??? Everyone talks about the Constitution and their Constitutional Rights when it suits them, but dismisses other parts if they do not like it.......WTH:cursing:

Thats cool-- I was just curious on some of the double standards I see from society as to what is important what is not, what is worthy of a cause what is not, who/what is more important to protect and who/what is not..etc...etc.. I honestly do not care if a man has two or three wives or if a woman has two or three husbands so long as there are ZERO consequences that come out of those relationships that SOCIETY (meaning US) must spend our time and money taking care of.

So would it be safe to "assume" then that they should not regulate abortions either?

I agree with getting the laws straight with respect to the above and the removal of the children in Texas. I also wonder why it is that our country is so open to accept homosexual marriage but not polygamy (no, I am not a polygamist just playing devils advocate).

And I suppose that was part of my point-The Government medling and or setting tones with certain subjects, ideas etc.etc. where they should not be. The other part was the abuse itself. We spend soo much time and money advocating rights for homosexual marriage, abortions, making prostitution legal or even giving illegal immigrants more rights than their victims, but we fail to help those who are too young and vulnerable to help themsleves. More importantly, they are suffering at the hands of those who are "suppose" to protect them. My hangup is the returning of these neglected and/or abused children to their parents not once, not twice but multiple times after taking them away for one reason or another. When do we say enough is enough? I am very well aware that there is no way in hel* there will ever be laws for one to become a parent, although the other post about adoptive parents having to go through classes, training and background checks kind of touches on that now doesn't it? I am curious though as to what basic rights this would in turn violate? If it violates the basic right to procreate/to evolve, would it then mean we all should procreate and if we do not we are in violation of the natural process, or homosexuals should not have children because they did not "pro create" them themselves? I am pretty sure, but I would have not go back and read that the Constitution does NOT say anything about guaranteeing anyone the right to bear children---however, again I would have to go back and read the verbiage to debate this further. **PS....this is merely a debate about the subject, please do not take my responses as how I view anything, but rather nothing more than a debate about parents whom abuse and neglect their children!

Is Psychological Abuse the Lesser of Two Evils When Compared to Physical Abuse? Ah, the question to ponder even though physical abuse has its hands in psychological abuse as well. I suppose the difference is the mere thought of "being simply" (not used lightly) psychologically abused versus the physical/ sexual abuse and the psychological torture that comes with it. Then again, when you are born into a family of not only physical but sexual abuse, do you simply look at the plain psychologial abuse as "nothing" and thank God your not being beat or sexually abused? When you date a guy in high school who beats the hell out of you for 3.5 years, are you doing it out of desperation of love or the conditioning of your behavior/life when you were younger at the hands of a parent(s) who is suppose to nurture, love and protect you? Is this merely a pattern of what is to be? With that, should there be laws for those who wish to "become" parents? Seems abusrd, right? But in a day-of-age where we are legalizing gay marriages and attempting to legalize prostitution, does it not or should it not call into question why one of the most difficult and meaningful JOBS in this entire world be given some type of QUALIFICATIONS? Why not, we legalize and put laws on everything else, right? I suppose that question should be best asked of the 896,000 children last year that were atually found to have been victims of abuse or neglect out of the 2.6 million reports filed—an average of more than 2,450 children per day, or how about the nearly FOUR children that die EVERYDAY due to abuse and/or neglect-they cannot even speak for themselves anymore. Why do we seek to spend so much time and money on the things that or less important and not a guarantee in this country's constitution, yet we fail to spend as much if not more time and money on those who cannot defend themselves?

Well with the argument, drug addicts and alcoholics are every day people with kids and families as well as someones son, daughter, sister or brother; so should we legalized current illegal drugs and driving under the influence for the sake of them getting home in time to either be their for their families or get some rest before work tomorrow? The argument I expect in return is that driving under the influence can injure and possibly kill that person and others, that taking drugs can kill that person and possibly others around them. Really? Having sex with a prostitute is like play Russian Roulette with ones life as well as others. No amount of government regulation is going to keep that under control and we the tax payers will end up footing the bill for it ALL in the end-whether it is the legalization of prostitution itself or the medical bills that those infected with diseases will incur due to sex with prostitutes. Please keep in mind that legalizing prostitution is not just for women, but men as well and one of the largest "spreaders" of HIV/AIDS and many other diseases is through sharing of needles and homosexual intercourse (no, this is not a bash to the gay community but rather mere facts). How many unsuspecting wives or husbands will have unprotectected intercourse with their spouses AFTER he/she had sex with a hooker? Many, and many have contracted diseases because of this. Again, there are many consquences for legalizing this "industry" without looking into the moral aspect of it all and in the end, ALL of it will be at the expense of the taxpayers in some fashion: Establishing offices and highering workers to montior the industry ACROSS the nation, setting up free or low income clinics for the testings of the prostitutes, criminal fees when one person finds out another gave them a disease because he/she had sex with a prostitute and decided to take the law into their own hands, medical bills related to those who contract diseases but do not have health insurance to pay for their health care or meds as a direct result of this behavior, etc..etc...etc... in the end WE the TAXPAYERS will end up paying for it and I for one do not feel compelled to pay for someone else having sex!!!

I have to agree with Plain on the above comment-As a former police officer, prostitution is not just about doing what you want with your own body, it is what you inflict on another person or what another person may inflict on you. It is a matter of the actions and behaviors that surround the prostitution "industry" and the havoc it brings to the rest of society. If we ask for the goverment to step in and control this "industry", who in the heck do you guys think is going to pay for that? TAXPAYERS, and most prostitutes even with legalized prostitution will NOT pay taxes in a cash based industry, or pay very little!!!!! You see, the goverment will have to setup office in all major cities, higher and train workers on this new "Legalized Industry", setup MORE free clinics or low income clinics to test all of these hookers for their "checkups" to make sure they are clean to screw every Tom, Dick and Harry and then fill out reports, have someone else keep up with the statistics, studies and reports. I sure as hell do not need to see more of my hard earned money go down the toilet because someone want to have sex for money---that is absurd! There was another post that said "how will the government regulate health checks, it is not like someone is going to wait 3 days for a clean bill of health check on his/her hooker and then have sex with her/him. Yet another stupid and costly reason why it should not be legalized. For the Netherlands comment on legalized prostituion-Do you think that even in this most liberal country they might just have hookers who do not follow the laws and health codes to the T? I know they have them, MANY of them and a lot carry some of the most nastiest diseases--not something I want or better yet, not something I would like to be "accidentally" exposed to by whatever means. BTW....Do you think the "health inspectors" over there get paid off like they do over here?? My answer: YES! So much for protecting the greater good! Another post stated if the government legalized it, then they would have more control over it.....LMAO, really??? Come on, the goverment has control over one thing, yours, theirs and my money and that is only if we report it!! How many waiters, bartenders, taxi cab drivers, etc. etc. get paid in cash and do NOT report it or report 100%??? Wild guess, a HELL OF A LOT do not repot all of their earnings, therefore what makes you think the hookers are going to do this? Better yet, when men and/or women pay for their prostitutes, it will be done on a cash basis and even the businesses will hide this under the table, because who in the hell needs a receipt for paying for sex? I suppose we find ourselves stepping on that slippery slope between past societal expectaions and the degredation of our current society; Where prostitution is being advocated to be made legal, where juvenile crime rate is disgustingly high, where material possessions are more important tha human life, where the rights of illegal immigrants are held at a high standard than he death of the person they killed, etc...etc.. Why stop at legalizing prostitution? We should go ahead and legalize all abortions (those in the third trimester as well), legalize ALL usages and sellings of any type of drug to anyone---I mean hey, what the heck do we need pharmacist for when we can hire some illegal thug to give us the drugs we want for less or the current illegal drugs for a rock bottom price compared to the guy standing on the other corner?! Then we can progress into polygimast marriages and men/women can marry people as young as 16 years of age, I mean come on we trust them to operate a half-to-one ton vehicle while talking and texting on their cell phones, they sure as heck should be able to have sex with and marry anyone, right? I suppose my point with all of this is as follows: This is nothing more than a domino effect---it starts with something simple and harmless, then progresses with spead, intensity and harmful consequences. To end: I voted undecided---I can see both sides of the arguement, like gay marriage and abortion, I do not agree with it morally but it does not hurt the rest of society however unlike gay marriage, legalizing prostitution does pose a number of consequences on society!

Tapshoes~I believe it depends on how the Publishers actually promote/advertise the book. BUt most importantly, if Oprah is going to try and make a show therefore make money off of another persons work, SHE and her STAFF should verify that what they are promoting/talking about is in fact what they say! It is called RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM (Yes, that goes for TV talkshows as well).It was Oprah's responsibility, period!

She's an overpaid muppet with a box of Ho Hos under one arm and a list of fake books under the other. OMG... That is the funniest thing today!! I agree, she is a totally friggin fuk*tard and if any of you listened to her foam at the mouth about Obama (whether you are for him or against him is IRRELEVANT), she talked about how she had a friggin poster of him in her bathroom and everytime she took a bath, she prayed he would get elected one day. Then, she said she realized that one day could me any day, that she wanted him elected in 2008, so she prayed while taking baths that he would be elected and then, he was elected. I suppose "The One" was elected because the ALL MIGHTY Oprah prayed for it in her bathtub-naked!

Well, I originally was banded April 29, 2008 and had to have the port replaced November 6 2008. Nothing like going back under to be cut open again, but hopefully this will work. I was at 5cc on a 10cc band and when I went in for the surgery, it was down to a little under 3cc's. I was under the impression however that my surgeon was actually going to move the lapband up as well, not just replace the port. When he gave me 4cc's there was no restriction at all, I could even eat bread and pastas if I wanted to, but my main concern was that I could eat a rib eye, mashed potatoes and aspargus with ZERO issues. Keep in mind that nothing of what I ate above is bad, but it was the quantity of what I could eat, and I should not have been able to even eat half of it let alone all of it. He bumped my band up to 6cc's, but I could not even swallow water, yet at 5cc's I could still eat the same dinner above. Again, it just seems that if the band were positioned in the right place, I should not be able to eat as much! I have not lost a single pound since surgery and for over 3 months I watched my diet to the T and worked out daily on the treadmill of 4 miles @ 4.5 mph, light weights and cycling classes. I understand that some of the lack of weight loss may be due to muslce gain, but seriously no weight loss at all and I am now 8 months out of surgery. I had major knee surgery in September 2008 (old sports injury that just deteriorated) and revisioned port surgery November 2008---so, working out has been very minimal to say the least over the past 3 months. Therefore, even if we argue that 3 monthsbe forgiven due to surgeries, I still should have lost something with the fills, even just a mere 10lbs!!!! I go in for my first REFILL January 6, 2009 and am wondering if I should ask him to start at 5cc's seeing as the lapband itself is not in a different position. Any advice would greatly be appreciated because I am lost as to what else to do.