100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > mylifetoday
|
Topic:
Crushes...
|
|
Whaaat? I like that smiley... 
...and Dean Winchester. I guess I will forgive you ... THIS time... 
Does Torgo know about you and Dean??? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Love It!!!!  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Crushes...
|
|
meanie!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bones I was watching the Office but no Park and Recreration is on- not the greatest show 
Dr. Who is tomorrow when my son gets here again! 
Now I have The Twilight Zone du-du du-du du-du du-du du-du There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call The Twilight Zone. —Rod Serling You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead — your next stop, the Twilight Zone. —Rod Serling You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension: a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas; you've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone.[1] —Rod Serling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just saw it for the first time today.
Pretty good. I like it. Very well done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony all we are saying is that we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws about how people conduct their personal and private lives. Like Muslim women having to cover their faces, not being able to drive etc. are part of the culture of some countries. Men can freely beat their wives for disobeying them. In this country, marriage is defined by religions as a union between a man and a woman. SS marriage is prevented by religious beliefs. Marriage itself is nothing more than a contract that binds two people together as family or legal "relatives." A relative has certain natural and permanent rights. Some couples have even 'adopted' their mate in order to have this legal position and protection as a relative. Just because religions believe that this is "a sin" they attempt to force their beliefs on others when its really none of their business. we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws
You do realize that in saying religious beliefs should not be forced in the form of law is saying that a good majority of our laws should be abolished. Thou shalt not kill thou shalt not steal thou shalt not bear false witness thou shalt not take the Lord's Name in vane. (this isn't a public law, but in a court room you can be fined or detained for swearing in court. You can be arrested for swearing at policeman) The last one aside, religion really has little to do with those laws at all. Those are just basic common sense, we all know it's not good to kill, steal or lie. We don't need religion to tell us that. Well that is Christian and Jewish law for sure. They are religious laws. There is a general thread going here that we need to do away with religious laws and ideas because they are bad. So, we need to get rid of these. Are you now saying that religious ideas are can be good? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to me that most people today that have faith are choosing that. It is actually rebellious today to have faith. The revolution is over. Why does religion need to die for those that don't have faith to feel good about themselves??? Religion doesn't have to die and I don't think it ever really will. What does have to change however, is the idea that anyone could ever possibly have all the answers that are right for everyone. Cultures should be creating civil law around concern for human ethics, and the interconnectedness of all things within our environment; that is what the law should reflect. Every human should be entitled to the fulfillment of certain human needs and the freedom to pursue other needs. But INVARIABLY some people think they MUST MAKE others conform to their personal religious beliefs. Perhaps in doing so it becomes easier for the individual to stay in conformance to their own beliefs as well. Example: If you believe it's wrong to consume flesh in any form, it would sure be a lot easier if everyone believed it. Then you would no longer have to read food labels or worry about prepared foods at restaurants or in other poeple's homes. But that is not how civil law should be determined. Civil law should be determined in such a way as to protect the same freedoms and human rights that ALL poeple should have regardless of religious beliefs. When poeple can set aside their personal beliefs to give all people the same rights and freedoms - that will be when all those of different faiths or no faith can work together in peace and with trust. Until then, those who cannot separate their 'personal' religious obligations from their civil obligations will continue to hide in the thorny bush whose thorns make no distinction between the flesh of believers and non-believers. I don't know what kind of world you are envisioning here. separate personal religious obligations from civil obligations??? How would you do that and still have faith of any kind? All religions teach how to be good civil stewards. so, you would only have your religious faith in your home under lock and key. Whenever you are out in society you would need to denounce your faith and follow the "civil obligations religion." Whatever that is... Could you have your religious obligations in your own home if someone is visiting that is not of your faith? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony all we are saying is that we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws about how people conduct their personal and private lives. Like Muslim women having to cover their faces, not being able to drive etc. are part of the culture of some countries. Men can freely beat their wives for disobeying them. In this country, marriage is defined by religions as a union between a man and a woman. SS marriage is prevented by religious beliefs. Marriage itself is nothing more than a contract that binds two people together as family or legal "relatives." A relative has certain natural and permanent rights. Some couples have even 'adopted' their mate in order to have this legal position and protection as a relative. Just because religions believe that this is "a sin" they attempt to force their beliefs on others when its really none of their business. we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws
You do realize that in saying religious beliefs should not be forced in the form of law is saying that a good majority of our laws should be abolished. Thou shalt not kill thou shalt not steal thou shalt not bear false witness thou shalt not take the Lord's Name in vane. (this isn't a public law, but in a court room you can be fined or detained for swearing in court. You can be arrested for swearing at policeman) If we abandon these, then we should just open our jails as well. Are these laws "religious beliefs and misconceptions?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't remember who or where but someone in one of the threads said that marriage is essentially just a contract where two agree to raise a family. If they don't want kids then technically it wouldn't be a marriage. That was the statement.
In that regard, same sex marriage would be an oxymoron. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds to me like it is stupid bureaucratic red tape.....
We used to train you how to do this. Since we have a system in place to qualify someone to do this, you must be qualified to even attempt it. But since we cut out training, no one is allowed to use common sense and trying to rescue someone. You are violating policy and can be fired for doing so. Chances are if they were injured in the process or died, they would be denied benefits because they violated protocol. It has only been in recent history that we need to have a piece of paper signed saying we are qualified for whatever we are doing. Someone always has to be first. Who qualified the first person to do this? What made them qualified to be an instructor? We have WAY too many rules and regulations today. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Crushes...
|
|
you dont like?? No - it's cool. I like it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Crushes...
|
|
mylifetoday your my only one crush... awwwe ... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My prayers are with you, "luv2roknroll aka Kitten aka YO BIOTCH."
All will be good. You are among friends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Crushes...
|
|
Only have had two real crushes
Alyssa Milano and Sarah Sutton |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing this story talks about is that he flew in and flew out.
The underlying assumption everyone is using is he flew from the office to the game and back again. He left in the 5th inning in the helicopter. Obviously he didn't have time to drive to the game. There is one other possibility everyone is ignoring here. He could have been on his way to a meeting, as evidenced by his leaving at the 5th inning and his sons game was on the way. It is very possible he finished what he was doing early enough to make his sons game (touched down just before it started) but didn't have time to sit through it as he had another meeting. Is it wrong to take a side trip to support your son? The story is implying he specifically took the helicopter ONLY to attend his sons game. It doesn't say what he was doing before or where he was or what he was doing after or his destination. Why is everyone assuming he used the helicopter specifically for personal reasons and nothing more. How many people have taken a company car to run a personal errand as a side trip between meetings??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
I GAVE A BLOWJOB!!!!!!
|
to my dog, and she loved it!!! 
What do you do to spoil or pamper your pets?? I really like this picture. You are both really cute in it. Love your smile!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Come get me! I'm waiting! Sorry, the plane was grounded... 
 damn airlines!
Next time I will try a Train.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bones
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
any verdict that convicts the victim of a crime is not justice. He was not committing a crime. He was trying to prevent a crime that was happening to him. The victim, who was truly not expecting to have a gun pointed in his face, may have overreacted, but he is still a victim. To be charged with 1st degree murder is insane. That is saying anyone under incredible duress should be clear headed and make good logical decisions. He still had his employees in the store that he was concerned about as well... it wasnt JUSTICE to defend himself from harm, be secure and STILL kill someone he acted as a criminal after he chased someone out of his store and then came back to retrieve a SECOND GUN (probably not feeling in immediate harm or he could have used the original weapon he had IMMEDIATELY available to him) or CALLED THE POlICE once he had gotten out of the store, I doubt many head shot victims get up and chase someone in good health,,, thats like saying after someone rapes me, thus making me a victim, and then leaves, I Can get a gun from my drawer and walk out the door after them(PURSUE THEM) with intent to kill thats what we have courts for, we are not jury and executioner I guess what I am saying is, this verdict will make law abiding citizens more reticent to defend themselves when attacked lest someone say they overreacted. It is easy to judge sitting at your computer looking at video that is similar to movies you see every day. It isn't so easy when you are there and the fear is real and you know your life is in danger. I don't understand why everyone thinks the victim of a crime should be able to be rational when they are in an extraordinarily dangerous and stressful situation. And, everyone is assuming since he walked up and shot him later that he his life could not have been in danger and he should have walked away. There is no scene of what the 16 year old was doing at that moment. All you see is a man walk up and point a gun and fire. Why are we assuming that he wasn't dangerous at that point. The kid was afraid for his life at that time as well. The only one that knows what the kid was doing is the pharmacist. He was the only one that could see him. To be sentenced to first degree murder for a lack of evidence of what the perpetrator of the crime was doing is just wrong. Actually, isn't the 14 year old also guilty? Aren't you guilty of murder if someone dies in the process of committing a felony? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
being thinking about you of late missed you but im so wrong for you on some many levels was gonna send you a message to let you know your on my mind .... but i dont wanna complicate things ..... sometimes you have to make sacrifices sadly this is one of them .... take care (((((Kiss)))))
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
