BethFromVA

I haven't posted here in a while, but wanted to update my fellow Notrious-es! lol I'm down 58 pounds and got my pre-op measurements from my doc's office today (got my 6th fill), and though they only measured neck, chest, waist, hips, both thighs, and both arms (whereas I include a few more areas based on a chart I have), I am down nearly 4.5 FEET of flesh! I've lost 53.25 inches, to be exact. In 10 pounds I will simply be obese on the BMI scale. I started at 290.6 and am now at 233. I have a huge goal in mind, but I'm going to try really hard to get to 200 by my 44th birthday on July 22. That gives me 71 days (including today, I think) to get there. That means I will have to lose about 14 pounds each month plus the little bit extra for the remaining 11 days. I know it may be a stretch, but it is a goal nonetheless. I had a whooptie weekend where anything went, but that is over. Let's see how it goes, shall we? :thumbup:

And David -- omg, wasn't that equal to the weight he lost on the ranch and no more? :thumbup: I hate to say this, but even though Daniel did SO good, his face was cuter when he was heavier. I don't mean that in an ugly way, I promise... Overall they did very well. It couldn't have felt good for David to be there amongst all the losers.

It's been made more than apparent that whenever some idiot starts freakin' out on the news, sheeple follow. I.e. swine flu, "global warming," Obama being president-worthy material and not just some "community organizer"... :thumbup:

Tara certainly looked healthier. Helen looked great in the dress, but yeah, you really saw how thin she was in her weigh-in outfit. She's too thin for her age. And Jerry -- omg, he looked nearly 20 years older than he is! Also too thin.

OH MY FREAKIN' GOD! Lookie at Helen!!!!! She even looks better than Tara!

She turned 13 in February. I actually have her egg in my fridge. lol

Nicole AND her fiance look fan-freakin-tastic!! I'm so excited to see the final three, especially Tara. Well, and also Helen. She looked SO good in her "goal" clothes a couple weeks ago. Hubby just said Daniel may give Jerry a real run for his money.

I have to agree. Poor Jerry almost looks emaciated.

Bird birth? You mean laying an egg? I suppose so, though it's an infertile egg, thank GOD! lol

CC, you know I would have been more than happy running your ass off yesterday instead of you having that chocolate milkshake. But considering this past weekend consisted of wine (with you, of course), beer, pizza, Chinese food, and Ben and Jerry's, I have nothing I can say. Glad I got my fill today. And glad I started my liquids one day early cuz the 4.5 pounds I gained from all the crap was gone as of today. PJTP: My blue and gold macaw laid her first egg this morning. I have mixed feelings -- kinda like, "Aw, my baby girl just had her first period," and "Omg, how do I make it STOP??" :thumbup:

I don't get it... I thought this was a right-wing issue. When shown your messiah said virtually the same thing Miss California did, all you have to say about HIM is two wrongs don't make a right? True, two wrongs may not make a right, but three rights make a left. :mad2:

*snicker* *double snicker*

Would they belong to the same bogus organizations as those few scientists who claim that global warming really exists? :thumbup: By the way, what is stealing from Peter to pay Paul doing for us so far? Sounds to me like Paul keeps squandering Peter's hard-earned dough and Peter just keeps getting more broke.

Actually that was BJean, not Nancy. And I see nobody wants to take a stab at the quote I listed before: "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." So is this simply an issue on the religious right? If so, then can somebody explain why your president said the words above? Also, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which states that: No state (or other or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. Clinton also said: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered." So for those who keep harping that this is a right-wing/religious zealot issue, it seems to me that a couple of your guys did and still do oppose gay marriage. And when called upon to do something about it, they either spoke out against it (and *gasp* the messiah almost said word for word what Miss C did) or, in Clinton's case, signed legislation hindering it.

I guess my simplistic view simply looks at the odds in the numbers. But yes, I agree that they would be fighting an uphill battle.

Because the country is run by thugs and mafioso-types. There is no reason Mexico shouldn't be wealthy in its own right. Until the people of that country decide to overtake IT instead of the US, we will continue to be brought down and the American dollars returned to Mexico will continue to make the rich richer.

Tank ya. I wubs her. :thumbup:

Unless they're the right kind of belly shots, of course: Tequila slurped out of the belly button of some hot Adonis. :thumbup:

So... hater and bigot or somebody justified in what they believe: "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

THANK YOU, Jack! Omg, I missed this. I guess it's because I just can't stomach to thoroughly read a lot of what she says. This guy spent more in the first 60 DAYS in office than ALL PRIOR PRESIDENTS did COMBINED. But I guess she would only read and utilize this information if Bush pulled the criminal antics that the Bama is.

Who is "all," though? People who belong to NAMBLA want to marry little boys. They believe it is within their right to do so because they have a "legitimate" love for children the same as I love men or lesbians love women, etc. I'm not saying that being gay is akin to being a pedophile, but what I am saying is that there are those who believe they are in the same boat as gay people -- misunderstood individuals. It could go on to such extremes as to make one's head spin.

Okay, mostly I'm yanking your chain because you never fail to entertain. :thumbup: HOWEVER, the fact is, marriage was a religious institution before it ever became what some believe is a governmental one. You want separation of church and state, but in THIS case it appears you simply want to redefine a religious institution. AND you want people who believe it to be a religious institution to roll over and let go of our beliefs to appease those who abhor what we stand for. Hm, a bit of a panacea if I do say so. It's not quite fair to scream, "Separation of church and state," but when I say marriage is religious and keep out of it, THEN all of a sudden you want these two entities linked. Bizarre. You don't want the religious to dictate state matters; the same goes the other way. The religious (and even some who don't claim religion but simply adhere to the status quo) don't want you coming into our religious union and dictating how we do this.

Fair enough.

I wasn't here then. But again, it shows that even YOU hold dear to things you find in print -- but only if they are anti-Bush. And you say that we have issues looking at all the information presented us?? Hell, I was ALSO riding Bush for many of the decisions he made and things he did. Yet you apparently don't have the ability to speak TRUTH if that truth goes against your messiah. That's a true shame, and it shows your inability to see what's really going on.

BJean, this is beginning to sound like the skit "Who's on First." There IS NO Constitutional right to marriage. Never has been. Since the beginning of time, people have voted as to what they find socially acceptable terms. However, if you want to spin it another way, I will repeat something I said last week sometime: If you truly want separation of church and state, then the STATE/GOVERNMENT has no right to redefine marriage since it's been a RELIGIOUS institution since the beginning.