Might that invasionary act be the first EVIDENCE OF EMINENT DOMAIN? Take what you want when you want why you want because YOU want? Screw the owners who were there long before you?
There were minstrel shows and no one thought twice about it. I didn't know years later I'd be upset retroactively about how African Americans were treated. I didn't know about the ... moreThere were minstrel shows and no one thought twice about it. I didn't know years later I'd be upset retroactively about how African Americans were treated. I didn't know about the underground railway. I heard about Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves but I didn't know that was why he was assassinated. i didn't know any better when I was a little girl. I didn't know a lot about a lot. I grew up and changed a lot. But growing up and changing a lot doesn't always affect everyone in the same way. I wonder why that is? Do you know why that is? less
Quoting what people said 25 years ago and applying it to the person they are today is a stretch don'tcha think? I mean how do you KNOW today whom you will be 25 years hence (provid... moreQuoting what people said 25 years ago and applying it to the person they are today is a stretch don'tcha think? I mean how do you KNOW today whom you will be 25 years hence (providing you're still alive)? Should there be a statute of limitations on such things? I don't have a solid answer but I just wonder how fair it is to do that? Whatcha think?
Sometime ignoring, putting off, neglecting is the best thing you couldda done. You didn't do it because you are so smart. You did it for whatever reason you gave yourself at the ti... moreSometime ignoring, putting off, neglecting is the best thing you couldda done. You didn't do it because you are so smart. You did it for whatever reason you gave yourself at the time AND IT WORKED OUT! Weird isn't it?
Once again despite all the empty rhetoric the gaslighter-in-chief again exhibits the exact same pattern as those he vilifies. You see whatever he says is true for you b... moreOnce again despite all the empty rhetoric the gaslighter-in-chief again exhibits the exact same pattern as those he vilifies. You see whatever he says is true for you but not for he. Every lie he tells you that you bellieve strengthens his resolve to lie some more since you are so willing to believe them. Encouraging enabling facilitating a liar.
Laughable. If I approach a well-known-to-me area from a different direction it looks different and I panic. I dunno why. A friend NEVER GETS LOST. He has an inborn direction ... moreLaughable. If I approach a well-known-to-me area from a different direction it looks different and I panic. I dunno why. A friend NEVER GETS LOST. He has an inborn direction finder. I wonder why some folks like me don't have any? Is it because folks like my friend already have all that is available? GPS is great. Looking up maps on Mapquest is great. Trying to figger out how to get "there" with old-fashioned maps was better than nothing in the olden days but I was always apprehensive when I had to go somewhere I had never been before. And having ME give directions to others? Fuggeddaboutit! SIGH. less
Make a fool of himself once again!The first meeting he came back empty handed with alleged assurances that Kim would denuclearize.So what will this second FOOL'S ERRAND cost us? Ho... moreMake a fool of himself once again!The first meeting he came back empty handed with alleged assurances that Kim would denuclearize.So what will this second FOOL'S ERRAND cost us? How large an ENTOURAGE will the gaslighter-in-chief drag along THIS TIME?Wouldja rather he keep doing this? Going out of the country to solidify his hold on being a masterly buffoon on the world stageOR staying at home in his jammies during his daily Executive Time tweeting insult/lies watching FAUX NEWS and riling up the troops? Which is costlier? less
1. If true that LAWYERS are officers of the court who should not knowingly allow a client to lie but should report it to the court (right or wrong?)2. If true that EVERYONE deserve... more1. If true that LAWYERS are officers of the court who should not knowingly allow a client to lie but should report it to the court (right or wrong?)2. If true that EVERYONE deserves a good defense including those who are guiltyHow can a lawyer IN GOOD CONSCIENCE provide a good defense to someone whom he/she KNOWS is guilty of a crime? How is that ever reconciled? Do all lawyers advise their clients to NOT TELL THEM THE TRUTH so they can pretend they are defending an innocent woman/man? Is conscience a removable piece of their being that lawyers take off to do their jobs and put back on when they are feigning integrity? How many HONORABLE lawyers are there? By honorable I mean those who will NOT defend the guilty or allow them to lie? How can they be officers of the court who are supposed to uphold its integrity and also provide their clients with a good defense, some of whom they know are GUILTY? Okey doke. Let me have it! :) less
Some folks persist in religiousizing or politicizing everything all the time. They can't get beyond their limitations and fascination and obsessions. Why is that?
How many words do we use that have no real value? She is pregnant. She is VERY pregnant. WHAT? He is EVIL. He is VERY EVIL. How does "very" ever matter? He is stupid dumb. He is VE... moreHow many words do we use that have no real value? She is pregnant. She is VERY pregnant. WHAT? He is EVIL. He is VERY EVIL. How does "very" ever matter? He is stupid dumb. He is VERY stupid dumb. See my point?
Ingredients are there for a reason. Especially in baking. You can toss anything you want in the pot if you are making soup. There is nothing critical about it. In baking it is crit... moreIngredients are there for a reason. Especially in baking. You can toss anything you want in the pot if you are making soup. There is nothing critical about it. In baking it is critically important to respect the recipe. Things there are there for specific reasons. Sometimes they act as catalysts. Do you have great success when you substitute? If you do?
Multiple-part question:1) Are laptops going the way of their predecessors, the desktop dinosaurs, and have now been replaced by the proliferation of smart phones?
2) If... more Multiple-part question:1) Are laptops going the way of their predecessors, the desktop dinosaurs, and have now been replaced by the proliferation of smart phones?
2) If I do consider a new laptop, what's a general price-range to consider? Between $150 to $299, $300 to $450, or up to $599?3) Are Chromebooks, Notepads, etc better options?~
For instance, for several years now, my wife and I have frequently eaten at a particular restaurant that seats about 100 to 120 customers, so it's quite large. We have... more For instance, for several years now, my wife and I have frequently eaten at a particular restaurant that seats about 100 to 120 customers, so it's quite large. We have had various waiters and waitresses serve us during that time, some of them more than once, and my wife has gotten to know some of them. She developed a habit of tipping them at about three quarters of the way through the meal instead of waiting until the end. Have you heard of this custom before? Do you participate in it? Either way, what are your thoughts about it?~ less
Fearing tough questioning from House Democrats, President Donald Trump’s Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker has come out with a bizarre strategy to sabotage his own pub... moreFearing tough questioning from House Democrats, President Donald Trump’s Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker has come out with a bizarre strategy to sabotage his own public testimony: He told the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday afternoon that he would not appear at Friday’s closely-watched oversight hearing unless he receives a written assurance he won’t be served with a subpoena.
The threat for Whitaker not to testify comes after the House Judiciary Committee voted earlier Thursday to authorize a subpoena for Whitaker ahead of his Friday testimony — which House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said he would use only if Whitaker did not appear or would not answer the committee’s questions, including about conversations with the White House involving special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.
But Whitaker is facing a no-win situation. He can show up and testify honestly in front of the television cameras for the House Judiciary Committee on Friday, alienati... less
