Awww, c'mon now...the Grand Ol' Party loved it when they offered up their poster boy for the 2012 elections.

Let's not engage in revisionary history now, 'kay?


http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203914304576627683818892932

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0929/Romneycare-vs.-Obamacare-Lessons-for-today-s-shutdown-debacle-video

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/27/why-the-right-turned-its-back-on-the-individual-mandate.html


There's plenty more to satiate your curiosity; simply Google (as I did) "Did republicans back romneycare?" There's a wealth of information one only need know HOW to find to become better informed of things they were once oblivious to.





Oh, and...thanks for noticing my post.

Stan's coming? Cool! I haven't seen tha...errr, him...in awhile.

I had no idea the KKK was so eco-friendly.



What a great bunch of guys they are!!!

I retract what I'd posted earlier.


This is, truly, the only way one can ever REALLY know.

With one, he might detect flabby knees and/or a rear end that's descended. Because this is a PG-13 site, I won't even suggest what he might see if he turned around and bent over in front of it.



That's a sight intended for only the most loving of a woman to *enjoy*.

And you won't find any "buddha belly" on me, either, though I no longer include *proof* pics on the internet.


That's probably why BOTH of us used the qualifer "many", huh?


I'm sure with careful examination we'd BOTH find traces of gray, deeper lines, and things that have moved from their original positionings when we were 26 years old, though.


ONE of us appears to be A-OK with that *fact*.

I've heard of loosening one's belt after Thanksgiving dinner, butttt...


you and rock are gonna strip down naked while dessert's being served?!?

You've got a verrrrry progressive family, there, fleta.







Got room for one more for dessert?

How do I show that I love someone? By doing the things that make them feel loved; that varies from man-to-man.

How do I know that someone loves me? By doing the things that make me feel loved.


Buying gifts for someone can be a nice way of showing that you care about them. However, buying them something because that's what 'you are supposed to do' (like a box of candy on Valentine's Day) doesn't prove anything, except that you pay attention to ads on TV.

Going places and spending time together can be a good way, if you're both truly happy to be there AND being together. Just going through the motions doesn't really *prove* anything. As a matter of fact, it can leave an even emptier feeling than not doing anything, at all.


Best of luck to you.

I feel very sorry for - and at the same time very envious of - many older men,



being able to go through life never owning - or ever using - a full-length mirror.

?!?


I did not know that "claustrophobic" was code for "OMG...he's soooo hot, I've got to have him, right nowwwww!!!"






I, too, would like to be "claustrophic". Before year's end would be fantastic.

Don't know that it's so much about the "gift giving" at the holidays as it is the increased time with family members and family traditions.


Subjecting someone unfamiliar with my family and our ways and who is unfamiliar TO my family and our ways (and having to do the same in return for that other person) when we're just getting to know each other seems like it falls more towards the "setting ourselves up for failure" than at any other time of the year.


Nope. I'll go (it) alone for the holidays, thankyouverymuch.

Link's broken.


If it's accurately summed up in one sentence, it must say:

"It was the neatest thing since sliced bread when it was called Romneycare!"

I want a unicorn that poops marshmallows.

~pfffftttt~ You girls just don't even know what "having fun" is.






OP's gonna take me to Disneyland!!! Woo-hoo!!!

Yes, you were wrong to tell her, after she just shared with you her thoughts and feelings on a matter, that she is wrong. You may tell her you disagree with her thoughts and feelings on a matter, but you can't tell her she is wrong with 100% assuredness. Unless, of course, you are God.

If you ARE God, we have much bigger problems than sorting out who's right and who's wrong in your disagreement with another...which, if you ARE God, you wouldn't care what we think, anyway, because You'd already know that You're right.





Welcome to M2, by the way. Best of luck on this site.

The news coverages I've been watching have been showing numerous black community leaders who've re-dedicated themselves to changing the existing laws, as they realize that's where the problem is.


President Obama, as THE representative of the FEDERAL government is powerless to change individual State's laws, as are all the [black] Representatives and Senators in Congress.


It is (AGAIN) unfair to lay this at his feet, as everyone is wont to do.


Oh, and by the way, my original post WAS on-topic; just because I don't agree with your OP's conclusion, doesn't mean it's OFF-topic.



It would be rude of me to ignore others who take particular interest in MY posts and simply MUST say something at me, as many are wont to do, as YOU well know.

~sigh~

...On its face, Missouri law still follows the old common law rule that it's lawful to shoot and kill a fleeing suspected felon, even if the suspect doesn't pose an immediate danger to the police or the public. That rule was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court nearly 30 years ago, but Missouri hasn't yet revised its statutes to reflect this.

"Because of that Supreme Court ruling, the grand jury in this case was instructed that - under current Missouri law - Wilson could have legally shot and killed Brown only 'if Wilson reasonably believed that [Brown] was attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon or would endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay, and [Wilson] reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to effect the arrest of the offender,'to quote the standard jury instruction used in the state.

"It appears the grand jury accepted Wilson's account of the encounter. Even though Brown was unarmed, the jury concluded that Wilson had a reasonable belief that Brown would kill or seriously hurt him or someone else if Wilson didn't arrest him immediately. Furthermore, the jury found it was reasonable on Wilson's part to believe that shooting Brown was necessary to stop him from evading arrest..."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/24/ferguson-s-grand-jury-bought-darren-wilson-s-story.html



No reason to click the hotlink; I've already checked it. I never once questioned the validity of the information, as it was presented during CNN's coverage of the decision last night,


by a black college professor of law, who'd been called in to serve as a legal expert as the news stories were unfolding.



Hopefully, THAT little factoid will allow YOU to accept it as The Truth, now...since me stating it as so - coupled with your inability to check it on your own - wasn't good enough.


After all, I DO have a habit of making schtuff up, ESpecially here on discussion boards...in addition to never knowing whatthehell I'm talking about,


huh?


~pfffftttt~


WORK TO CHANGE THE EXISTING LAW. Anyone who doesn't, DOES want more "of our children killed." <---YOUR words, NOT mine

What DID happen to the KKK?!?


Did they make a wrong turn at Albuquerque? Get stuck in a midwest snow storm, en route? Did the peaceful protestors' roadblock stop 'em?


Gosh...with all that huffing and puffing, one would expect a little more from them, no?






Perhaps their skirts got stuck in their car doors and they couldn't break free in time to make it to the ball.

You are being deliberately obtuse. "Police accountability" would have come into play if the officer hadn't used whatever force was necessary - including shooting-to-kill - to stop a fleeing suspect; that's THEIR law.

THAT'S THEIR LAW, which *you* want to be ignored. How can *you* ask the Grand Jury to ignore the law when holding an officer "accountable" FOR following their law?!?


WORK TO CHANGE THE LAW THAT SAYS IT IS OK - NAY, EXPECTED AND DEMANDED - THAT AN OFFICER SHOOT-TO-KILL.




THIS is why there will be no "Change"; people can't figure out, en-masse, where TO make the change. Instead, they'd rather throw blind punches, while kicking and screaming, hoping they'll take out SOMEthing...ANYthing...


and never, actually, accomplishing one damned thing.

A failure within the legal system is a failure within the legal system, no matter WHERE within that process it occurs.






STOP being color-blind; it invalidates your position and makes your future *arguments* suspect.