100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > misswright
|
Edited by
misswright
on
Fri 08/30/13 05:09 AM
|
|
I was paraphrasing my pops there lol. He and my Mom are still together after forty some years can't say what he told me doesn't ring true. 
Sounds like pops is a smart man! That's awesome they're still together after forty years. My parents would still be if my Dad hadn't passed away. That's how it should be...lifelong love. Cheers to them and that! 
And just to clarify Sweetest...I said "...I just see the amount spent for the ring as irrelevant...". Completely agree with everything you said...especially "the ring should not be the attention getter, the couple should be." 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
First thing people notice
|
|
What's the first thing people notice about you? Well how the heck do I know? Am I a mind reader? You'd have to ask them! 
But really, right now it's that I'm limping around like an idiot with arms flailing trying to walk on a broken foot. Pretty hard to notice anything else but that! 
Normally it's my blue eyes. Or that I'm a sarcastic jerk. Depends on whether I open my mouth or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funny update...
My man was giving me crap last night for having to take the dog for a walk when he got home from work since my foot is broke. I can do it but it hurts and takes me forever so I asked him to instead. This is the conversation: Him: Why do I have to take him out? You're the one that got drunk and broke your foot? 
Me: Yes, honey. I know and you're right. However I got drunk 'cause you pissed me off so it's kinda sorta your fault too. My foot's killing me and I can't walk very fast. It will take you three minutes. It will take me 20 and I'll be suffering when we return. Please honey. 
Him:  Fine. But you really need to quit drinking! 
Me: Or I could just quit wearing high heels!
Him: But baby, you look good in high heels! 
Me: But baby, you look good when I'm drinking! 
I had to walk the dog...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
misswright
on
Fri 08/30/13 04:06 AM
|
|
Well I see why a ring is so symbolic. I believe its supposed to represent the infinite or well really a continuous love that has no end. While I do believe you can't put a price tag on love. I do think a ring and how much you pay for it is "supposed" to be a representation of the effort being put into the relationship. I.e. You put hard work into earning the money for the ring you will put hard work into maintaining the relationship. To put it simply it represents the unbroken circle of working towards a common goal that goal being each other. Agree 100% on the ring being a symbol of unending love, and I dig the last sentence tremendously!
I just see the amount spent for the ring as irrelevant. As long as my guy loves me deeply, truly and always, I don't care if he weaves blades of grass together to form a ring to symbolize his commitment to me. We can spend the money he would waste on an expensive ring on other stuff, like making memories together. A rock is just a rock no matter how much it costs...memories are priceless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Living
|
|
On an uninhabited tropical island!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Obama Care is Not Free!
|
|
As an injured, uninsured, unemployed American, one would think I'd be chomping at the bit for this 'free' Obamacare. Not so. While I haven't read the giant tome of a bill (who could?), I do know that government controlling decisions that should be left up to medical professionals is nothing but a recipe for disaster. I had a job and insurance. I got hurt, not at work, and needed tests to diagnose my back injury. Okay, I have insurance, lets do this and fix me up so I can get back to work. That was 9 months ago. Still haven't gotten tests done. Insurance I had would reimburse after 6-8 wks...test givers wouldn't accept IOU for 8 wks, cash up front ($1,500!) or no tests for you! So I lost my insurance 'cause not working and paying premiums. Still hurt, can't get tests done, lost job after being off payroll for 30 days. Perfect! Still hurt and now no insurance, no job, no income to pay bills. Applied for disability. Need proof that I'm hurt...in other words get the tests done. Explain that I didn't have money for tests which caused me to lose job and insurance, have to apply for disability. They say they'll send me to doc. Think Yeah! Get tests, find problem, fix problem, go back to work, no disability needed, lets do this! Go to their doc...he checks my eyesight, heart rate and has me squeeze his fingers. No x-rays or MRI ordered. Thank you, come again. 
Still waiting for the government to subsidize my health care because I'm hurt. They'll deny me I'm sure, no proof without the tests, so here I sit, in pain everyday and waiting for this same inept government to now impose a fine on me for not having health care. Just dandy! 
'Free' health care is not the answer, not for me or this country. Just my story and my opinion. The Affordable Care Act isn't about putting the government between you and your doctor. It's not even about getting you your reimbursement for the bills you paid. Your problem also appears to be an issue with care that might not be covered with your current plan, but will be mandatory coverage under the ACA. That sucks for timing. Frankly, once the ACA kicks in, next year, your next insurance plan won't be such a joke, and thanks to the elimination of the exclusions for pre-existing conditions, they won't be able to turn you down and your plan would certainly have lower co-pays. I'm sorry about your unfortunate tale, but you really can get the details about the ACA from valid sources. For example, you can get the details from your state's insurance exchange within the next month or so. Actually, with your inept governor, Rick Scott, you'll probably be waiting much longer than most states. Sorry again. Check it out at http://www.healthinsurance.org/florida-state-health-insurance-exchange. With all due respect Mr. Mortman, did you happen to read the bill? Pretty sure nobody on God's green earth could read that thing! Seriously. The thing is how long? How many regulations will be imposed upon us THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS OPPOSE???? I don't watch Fox news, or any news stations for that matter. The media is bias, owned by the same big money that controls our very corrupt government. Why would I trust anything they say? I glean my information from ALL sources...I research on the net and I listen to BOTH sides of the debate. I try to use logic and reasoning on what's best for all parties involved when I look at an issue. What's fairest for the majority, not what's fairest for a select group of individuals. I believe in our country, in the principles it was founded on, and that we should be free to live our lives as we see fit, provided we don't harm others. I don't need to read the entire bill, if such a feat is even humanly possible. I know enough to know that the government should NOT be able to tell me I HAVE TO have health insurance, or whether I can or can't have a medical procedure done. My doctor should be the only one to advise me on my health care. That's simple enough for me. My situation sucks, for sure, I hate it more than anybody! But it doesn't sway my opinion that I should have free health care or that this country should have it. Nothing is free Mr. Mortman. Nothing! Somebody pays. If not us, our children and our childrens' children. Is that the legacy we want to give them? It's not what I want to give my son and future grandchildren, provided the government still allows my son to procreate in the future so I can have grandchildren! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rings and valentine's are only important because jewelers are smart enough to tell women. ....that crap like rings are what makes a relationship real. Love makes a relationship real...not some badly over priced trinket that slaves dig out of the ground in Africa. Well said Krupa!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Obama Care is Not Free!
|
|
As an injured, uninsured, unemployed American, one would think I'd be chomping at the bit for this 'free' Obamacare. Not so. While I haven't read the giant tome of a bill (who could?), I do know that government controlling decisions that should be left up to medical professionals is nothing but a recipe for disaster.
I had a job and insurance. I got hurt, not at work, and needed tests to diagnose my back injury. Okay, I have insurance, lets do this and fix me up so I can get back to work. That was 9 months ago. Still haven't gotten tests done. Insurance I had would reimburse after 6-8 wks...test givers wouldn't accept IOU for 8 wks, cash up front ($1,500!) or no tests for you! So I lost my insurance 'cause not working and paying premiums. Still hurt, can't get tests done, lost job after being off payroll for 30 days. Perfect! Still hurt and now no insurance, no job, no income to pay bills. Applied for disability. Need proof that I'm hurt...in other words get the tests done. Explain that I didn't have money for tests which caused me to lose job and insurance, have to apply for disability. They say they'll send me to doc. Think Yeah! Get tests, find problem, fix problem, go back to work, no disability needed, lets do this! Go to their doc...he checks my eyesight, heart rate and has me squeeze his fingers. No x-rays or MRI ordered. Thank you, come again.
Still waiting for the government to subsidize my health care because I'm hurt. They'll deny me I'm sure, no proof without the tests, so here I sit, in pain everyday and waiting for this same inept government to now impose a fine on me for not having health care. Just dandy!
'Free' health care is not the answer, not for me or this country. Just my story and my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
i want to talk
|
|
I don't understand why someone would come onto a dating site to talk I'm sitting here wondering why they want to talk. I can't hear them. I have good hearing too. I tried talking back to them anyways, even yelled real loud, but nobody responded. Dog just looked at me like I was nuts. Guess they don't want to talk, or maybe it's just me.
I shall go wait for a topic that says "who wants to read and type?" now...this talking thing is no fun at all!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Fast-food protests underway
|
|
Laila Jennings, a 29-year-old sales associate at T.J. Maxx, was eating at a McDonald's in New York City this week and said she hadn't heard of the movement. Still, she said she thinks workers should be paid more. "They work on their feet all day," Jennings said, adding that $12 to $15 an hour seemed fair. As it stands, fast-food workers say they can't live on what they're paid. Shaniqua Davis, 20, lives in the Bronx with her boyfriend, who is unemployed, and their 1-year-old daughter. Davis has worked at a McDonald's a few blocks from her apartment for the past three months, earning $7.25 an hour. Her schedule varies, but she never gets close to 40 hours a week. "Forty? Never. They refuse to let you get to that (many) hours." Her weekly paycheck is $150 or much lower. "One of my paychecks, I only got $71 on there. So I wasn't able to do much with that. My daughter needs stuff, I need to get stuff for my apartment," said Davis, who plans to take part in the strike Thursday. She pays the rent with public assistance but struggles to afford food, diapers, subway and taxi fares, cable TV and other expenses with her paycheck. "It's really hard," she said. "If I didn't have public assistance to help me out, I think I would have been out on the street already with the money I make at McDonald's." What do you say? This is what I say... to Ms Davis... You are 20 yrs old. You have a 1 yr old daughter at home and her daddy, your boyfriend, doesn't work. You get your rent paid for by the state. You have a part time job and are struggling to pay the bills. Welcome to the real world honey. Be thankful taxpayers are putting a roof over your daughter's head for ya. Some of us in the old days had to work two jobs and go without things like cable to pay the rent while we struggled to make our way in the world. Maybe you should have waited to start a family until you could afford to buy diapers. But alas, that ship has sailed, so please tell your boyfriend to put down the X-box paddles and get a job and help support your family! Give up the cable. Switch to cloth diapers...daddy can wash 'em out between X-Boxing and watching HBO on the high def flat screen TV. Get up an hour earlier and walk those few blocks to work instead of taking a cab. Did ya call that cab on your fancy Iphone 5? Please! Really?!? I'm sick of people thinking they're entitled to a life of luxury. Stop whining about how you should get more so you can work less. Enough already. Get me a burger biotch!
Yah, that's what I'd say... 
Damn you ARE miss wright! Where you been all my life girl? 
One correction tho..... not "boyfriend".... it's "baby daddy"
I almost busted a gut!... only because I HAD 'baby's daddy' in there originally before proofing and opted for boyfriend instead to try to curb possible perceived racism in my statement. Thanks for the correction, and the compliment. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Fast-food protests underway
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^ Daum! I love this woman! :
 Awww, thanks.
Sugar coating is not my forte and I tend to tell it like I see it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Fast-food protests underway
|
|
Laila Jennings, a 29-year-old sales associate at T.J. Maxx, was eating at a McDonald's in New York City this week and said she hadn't heard of the movement. Still, she said she thinks workers should be paid more. "They work on their feet all day," Jennings said, adding that $12 to $15 an hour seemed fair. As it stands, fast-food workers say they can't live on what they're paid. Shaniqua Davis, 20, lives in the Bronx with her boyfriend, who is unemployed, and their 1-year-old daughter. Davis has worked at a McDonald's a few blocks from her apartment for the past three months, earning $7.25 an hour. Her schedule varies, but she never gets close to 40 hours a week. "Forty? Never. They refuse to let you get to that (many) hours." Her weekly paycheck is $150 or much lower. "One of my paychecks, I only got $71 on there. So I wasn't able to do much with that. My daughter needs stuff, I need to get stuff for my apartment," said Davis, who plans to take part in the strike Thursday. She pays the rent with public assistance but struggles to afford food, diapers, subway and taxi fares, cable TV and other expenses with her paycheck. "It's really hard," she said. "If I didn't have public assistance to help me out, I think I would have been out on the street already with the money I make at McDonald's." What do you say? This is what I say... to Ms Davis... You are 20 yrs old. You have a 1 yr old daughter at home and her daddy, your boyfriend, doesn't work. You get your rent paid for by the state. You have a part time job and are struggling to pay the bills. Welcome to the real world honey. Be thankful taxpayers are putting a roof over your daughter's head for ya. Some of us in the old days had to work two jobs and go without things like cable to pay the rent while we struggled to make our way in the world. Maybe you should have waited to start a family until you could afford to buy diapers. But alas, that ship has sailed, so please tell your boyfriend to put down the X-box paddles and get a job and help support your family! Give up the cable. Switch to cloth diapers...daddy can wash 'em out between X-Boxing and watching HBO on the high def flat screen TV. Get up an hour earlier and walk those few blocks to work instead of taking a cab. Did ya call that cab on your fancy Iphone 5? Please! Really?!? I'm sick of people thinking they're entitled to a life of luxury. Stop whining about how you should get more so you can work less. Enough already. Get me a burger biotch!
Yah, that's what I'd say... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
test
|
|
OMG! This is why I came back. You all crack me up. Good to see good people still here, still cutting it up, still spreading joy. Awesome!
Thanks. I needed a good laugh!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ouch girl ....hope ya heal quickly... Thanks TxsGal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pffttttt.... I could do it in one step: Put on heels 
Yup, I'm thinking that was the error of my ways. Nope, wasn't the shots of Goldschlager that caused me to be the little dude on the right below...it was the heels...that's my story and I'm sticking to it! 
1 shot, 2 shots, 3 shots more, girl in heels done hit the floor! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Are Morals Real?
|
|
The Little League Motto: I trust in God, I love my country, and I will respect its laws. I will play fair and strive to win. But win or lose, I will always do my best.
Learned it at a ballpark when I was just a little girl. Still holds true today. Life is just my giant baseball field now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isolation by Alter Bridge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Put on high heels to go out drinking
2. Go out drinking 3. Take 3 simple steps in high heels when done drinking And there ya go! Brought to you by BiggestKlutzEVER.DUH  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
registration already requires id voting is a right , once one is registered, they should not have to continue presenting id if they have a voting card,,,, Okay, I'm slightly confused here. 
If I'm wrong, MsHarmony, please forgive me. Are you really arguing AGAINST voter ID? You actually OPPOSE a person having to show a picture ID to vote legally?
You seem to agree you should need ID to register, correct? But yet you don't want them to give you a specific voter ID WHEN you register, one with YOUR picture on it, and YOUR signature on it, so that when you show up to actually vote at your precinct, the officials can compare your picture to your person and verify your identity? Instead you argue that you should just show the ID when you register and get a card that is basically worthless as far as identifying an individual. I could give my card to any female and she could say she was me and how would they know at the precinct? They wouldn't. Not that I would ever do that but with the current system, I could! That certainly doesn't seem right. I just don't see how it's discriminatory to anyone to require ID to vote. I have to show an ID to cash a check anywhere. I have to have picture ID to board an airplane. You're okay with having to show photo ID to GET a non-photo voter card, but not with getting an actual photo voter ID? And I wonder why I work myself into a tizzy trying to figure things out...
bnks and check csshing are not constitutional rights,, they require fees as well as card renewals and fees to vote are illegal as far as a voter id, ,that is not what is being proposed if you are speaking about an id when one registers with their picture on It, I am ALL FOR IT however, what is proposed is photo ids at the EXPENSE and INCONVENIENCE of a voter EVERY TIME they vote in an election,,,,,voters who don't all have convenient locations or finances by which to get to offices like social security or birth/death records, to OBTAIN a photo id from the state we are talking about a RECURRING expense to be able to vote, which is classist and unconstitutional,,,,, an actual VOTER ID, issued when one registers, which has no expiration or renewal fees,,,all for it why don't you suggest that to the people trying to make urban, impoverished, and elderly pay repeatedly throughout life to exercise their right to vote? So just to clarify because I don't want to assume things here... You need to show documents that confirm your identity to get the voter card (birth certificate, passport, SS card, photo driver license, etc.) but then you have to keep these documents somewhere and show them again at the next election to get a new voter card for that election? Is that how it would work under the proposed plan? How does that make it a recurring expense? I'm still not following...you have the original documents you used to get the voter card in the first place so why would you have to go get them again at an additional expense the next year? Sure, you'd have to get a new card but are they asking us to pay for the new voter card each year? They can't make me pay to vote, I'm almost certain of this, but I think it's fair they make me confirm who I am before I vote. I admittedly don't know all the details on the proposed plan and maybe I'm just obtuse but it seems to me that issuing a photo voter ID card when you register would be the way to go. no, picture ids cost money, and they expire,, whether they are state id or drivers license ,, they expire and cost to be renewed the right to vote doesn't have to be 'renewed',,,, that means people will have to PAY to use their right to vote indefinitely,, everytime their state id expires,,, they will have to have the cost of a new id in order to exercise their right to vote contrary to what many believe there are MANY MANY americans who have no ids, don't use bank accounts (Because they are poor) and don't have transportation nor live near places which issue ids,,,, its an exhorbinant obstacle and unfair disadvantage based in class that is not constitutional,, imho voting shouldn't be something we have to keep PAYING for throughout our lives Alright then. We agree on something! "Voting shouldn't be something we have to keep PAYING for throughout our lives" But not everything. Keep the original issued voter photo ID, the birth certificate and SS card and reapply with those three things the next election. No new state ID required. You have the documents and the old photo voter ID already. No new costs. Problem solved. Voting fraud eliminated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
registration already requires id voting is a right , once one is registered, they should not have to continue presenting id if they have a voting card,,,, Okay, I'm slightly confused here.
If I'm wrong, MsHarmony, please forgive me. Are you really arguing AGAINST voter ID? You actually OPPOSE a person having to show a picture ID to vote legally?
You seem to agree you should need ID to register, correct? But yet you don't want them to give you a specific voter ID WHEN you register, one with YOUR picture on it, and YOUR signature on it, so that when you show up to actually vote at your precinct, the officials can compare your picture to your person and verify your identity? Instead you argue that you should just show the ID when you register and get a card that is basically worthless as far as identifying an individual. I could give my card to any female and she could say she was me and how would they know at the precinct? They wouldn't. Not that I would ever do that but with the current system, I could! That certainly doesn't seem right. I just don't see how it's discriminatory to anyone to require ID to vote. I have to show an ID to cash a check anywhere. I have to have picture ID to board an airplane. You're okay with having to show photo ID to GET a non-photo voter card, but not with getting an actual photo voter ID? And I wonder why I work myself into a tizzy trying to figure things out...
bnks and check csshing are not constitutional rights,, they require fees as well as card renewals and fees to vote are illegal as far as a voter id, ,that is not what is being proposed if you are speaking about an id when one registers with their picture on It, I am ALL FOR IT however, what is proposed is photo ids at the EXPENSE and INCONVENIENCE of a voter EVERY TIME they vote in an election,,,,,voters who don't all have convenient locations or finances by which to get to offices like social security or birth/death records, to OBTAIN a photo id from the state we are talking about a RECURRING expense to be able to vote, which is classist and unconstitutional,,,,, an actual VOTER ID, issued when one registers, which has no expiration or renewal fees,,,all for it why don't you suggest that to the people trying to make urban, impoverished, and elderly pay repeatedly throughout life to exercise their right to vote? So just to clarify because I don't want to assume things here... You need to show documents that confirm your identity to get the voter card (birth certificate, passport, SS card, photo driver license, etc.) but then you have to keep these documents somewhere and show them again at the next election to get a new voter card for that election? Is that how it would work under the proposed plan? How does that make it a recurring expense? I'm still not following...you have the original documents you used to get the voter card in the first place so why would you have to go get them again at an additional expense the next year? Sure, you'd have to get a new card but are they asking us to pay for the new voter card each year? They can't make me pay to vote, I'm almost certain of this, but I think it's fair they make me confirm who I am before I vote. I admittedly don't know all the details on the proposed plan and maybe I'm just obtuse but it seems to me that issuing a photo voter ID card when you register would be the way to go. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
