My DS is a tick magnet. He has already had two this year that attached, and I check him for ticks, like he is a smart phone with messages. I hate ticks. He already had a minimal pallet, if we lose meat, it would be hard to keep him alive. We are heading to Massachusetts on Saturday, and I am already dreading the ticks there who are far more likely than southern ticks to have lyme, at least in the area we are staying.
The good thing about Lyme is if you catch it early, you just take antibiotics and you'll be fine. If you're always checking him, just keep doing that and you should be good. If he gets bit, you'll quickly see the bulls-eye and you'll be able to take care of it. Lyme is scary if you don't catch it, but if you're paying attention, it's easily treatable.
He doesnt care that his approval ratings are low because he said he is here for the people who voted for him. Among them he still has an 80% approval and they think he is doing a good job and would be doing even better if it wasn't for this witch hunt. He is going to run in 2020 and thanks to the electoral college and the Dems having no viable unifying candidate, he will win again.
I am not ruling out the possibility that he could get re-elected, especially with the electoral college, but it's super premature to say that the Democrats don't have a viable and unifying candidate. Yes, Barack Obama was on the radar of political junkies at this point in 2005 because of his 2004 convention speech, but he was hardly a household name and certainly wasn't considered a front runner.
If we've learned anything from the last few cycles, it might be that the Dems are better off going with someone new and less well-known. Being known and experienced was not helpful for McCain or Clinton.
I was at the DNC in 2004. Obama was the upcoming dem everyone was talking about even before his speech. Hands down the hardest button to get because everyone was obsessed. It was 100% clear to me he'd be the democratic nominee in 4 or 8 years. So sure, he wasn't a household name, but I don't know that there's anyone with the buzz he had at this point back then.
A frequently cited condition is stable. Typically, stable is not a condition on its own; it is usually a qualifier applied to an aforementioned condition. It is commonly used to denote conditions where a patient has a favorable prognosis or stable vital signs. The American Hospital Association has advised doctors not to use the word "stable" either as a condition or in conjunction with another condition, especially one that is critical, because a critical condition inherently implies unpredictability and the instability of vital signs.[1] Despite this, "critical but stable" conditions are frequently reported, likely because the word "critical" in mainstream usage is often used to denote a condition that is severe and immediately life-threatening.
The hospital just came out saying he was in critical condition in the last 15-30 mins, they didn't say stable but critical. It seems to me that in a situation like this the hospital would be saying stable, but critical if he was actually some form of stable.
Post by PinkSquirrel on May 19, 2017 12:56:04 GMT -5
The one jury I sat on was horrifying. They gave zero shits about the jury instructions. I literally dragged all of their asses back into the courtroom so we could have the judge repeat shit and they STILL didn't get it. Basically, it was a drug trial. A car with a hidden compartment had been pulled over and drugs and gun were found in the compartment. The driver was not the owner and the only evidence to support the person knew about the drugs was a drug notebook that was in the disaster of a vehicle and was not in the defendant's handwriting. In order to convict, the defendant had to not only know the drugs were in there, but also had to have intent to sell them. Only knowing they were in the car wasn't enough.
After the prosecution rested everyone was horrified by how corrupt the cops seemed (they were currently on desk duty based on unrelated actions) and no one believed them. Then the POC defendant got up, was nervous and they alllll decided he definitely did it. Except. There was ZERO evidence presented that he intended to do anything with the drugs let alone that he was aware of them. Luckily, I was in it for the long haul and bullied everyone into actually following the law and not voting based on their god damn feels. The jury foreman almost died that day. If he said "So, do you think he knew about the drugs?" one more time I was going to murder his ass dead.
Post by PinkSquirrel on May 11, 2017 10:41:19 GMT -5
Most of my friends in open relationships aren't into marriage as an institution, but they absolutely have primary relationships, buy houses, have kids with one person and date other people for years on the side. If I'm being perfectly honest, they're some of the best relationships I've seen. The level of communication necessary for relationships like that to work is impressive and that level of communication tends to extend beyond the bedroom.
Post by PinkSquirrel on May 27, 2016 9:09:04 GMT -5
I'm a smoker - I do not smoke on the beach because I think it's rude. If no one is around I would, but if there's anyone else there I walk to the sidewalk and smoke there.
It's scary stuff. For me, the effects were so intense but somehow it was so easy to pop, like candy. I've taken it like 3 times in my life, twice for shoulder surgeries and once for wisdom teeth. Docs always prescribed more pills than I needed. What's wrong w/making a patient pick up the phone 4 days post op and explain why they need something stronger than three Advil at that point.
You got Oxycontin for wisdom tooth extraction?!?!?!?! Are you sure you didn't get Oxycodone (Percocet)?
Post by PinkSquirrel on Mar 8, 2016 16:18:02 GMT -5
It was the most painful experience of my life-Seriously, f'ing terrible- but I haven't had a throat infection since, which is pretty much a miracle. It was bad, but 100% worth it.
Also, socks make the best ice packs to put around your neck.
I agree that women are judged more harshly on their attire, but this is a bad example.
A skater skirt is not equivalent to slacks. A cardigan is not equivalent to a blazer. A tight, low cut shirt is not equivalent to a button down or sweater. If she had gone with a pencil skirt, button down, and blazer (the equivalent of what the male example is wearing IMO), then she wouldn't have had an issue (attire-wise anyway).
Why is a pencil skirt the only appropriate skirt? Who made that rule? Figure skaters are fancy dammit.
The reality is that, all of the rules for business attire were created by and for men. Women are just expected to figure out how to mash ourselves into a male mold rather than expanding the mold so it works equally for both sexes.
Let's pretend this isn't JT. If this guy shows up for a tech job interview, no one is going to ding him on attire.
This is about 50 times nicer than what most men show up wearing when they interview for software engineering positions at my job. No one has ever commented on what they come in wearing. No one would have batted an eye at what she came in wearing here.
Post by PinkSquirrel on Feb 6, 2015 11:26:36 GMT -5
Samoas hands down. I'm grateful Keebler decided to make a pretty perfect knock off because I really hate only being able to eat them a few months a year
No, a volunteer position is just that, a volunteer position. Legally, volunteer positions are something specific to non-profts. You can not volunteer for a for profit company, you can volunteer for a non profit.
LOL so because there are help wanted signs around you, no one is having trouble getting work? That's why the unemployment rate is 0? Oh wait, no, it's not because it's not as simple as if you want a paying job just find one that pays. That's not exactly how it works. It is not that easy for everyone and just because you feel it would be easy for you does not mean that every single other person out there has your same life experience. Legally, an employee is entitled to a minimum compensation, that doesn't mean they want 4 million dollars and it is fucking disgusting to suggest that people who expect to be paid minimum wage for hours worked is asking for 4 million because someone else got it.
So, to be clear, you have issues with any company that uses any type of volunteer? Because those volunteers are taking work away from someone who could be getting paid
No, a volunteer position is just that, a volunteer position. Legally, volunteer positions are something specific to non-profts. You can not volunteer for a for profit company, you can volunteer for a non profit.
So you picked on spindle92 to get to mags when mags wasn't even part of the group? I mean come on. You can be sorry you said something $hitty, but it doesn't excuse the behavior. And to continue to personally attack spindle92 is $hitty and immature.
Spindle inserted herself into shit that had nothing to do with her and got attacked by me because of it. I wasn't picking on spindle to get to mags. Seriously, what are you talking about?
If spindle wants to stop tossing daggers in my direction I will have no reason to toss them into hers, it's as simple as that, but if she wants to make a jab in this thread she should know from experience that I'm likely not going to treat it with kid gloves when I see it
I actually didn't put words in mags mouth. Mags responded to me at least three times in that stupid vaccine thread without saying that my understanding of what she was saying was wrong. The only thing mags has ever corrected me on was that she is not actively trying to encourage others to do the same thing she does. If mags feels differently she had multiple opportunities to correct me and she didn't. You tried to come in light her knight in shining armor and get involved in something that had nothing to do with you. I had made the comment on FB assuming mags would see it, would come in, would have yet another opportunity to tell me I misunderstood her and we'd move on. Instead, you got yourself in the middle of something that had nothing to do with you so yes, I told you to fuck off and wasn't nice.
Mags didn't correct you because she didn't owe you an explanation. Funny how you accused Spindle of putting words in your mouth, but you DID the exact same thing to me. I think you used the word "implied." I would not give you the satisfaction of giving you anything after you came in here guns blazing.
You knew very well I wasn't part of the FB page, so how would I see it?
I'm glad I had a friend who defended me. She had my back because she knew I wouldn't see it. I would hope your friends would do the same for you if they heard people talking shit behind your back.
She knew and understood what I meant and tried to tell you one more time. That's what good friends do for each other.I certainly wasn't going to keep the conversation going with you because you insisted you knew what I meant.
I don't think anyone called you names, or cursed at you. I think you started that ball rolling, and I still haven't seen anyone one use derogatory names directed at you. You didn't just tell her to fuck off, you got hit below the belt with the cheerleading thing. There is a big difference and you know it.
I knew you were asking to come in and I had no intention of actually stopping you from being let in and I'm being completely honest when I say I very much expected you would see it and it would give an opportunity to clear shit up. I did and still do find the way you framed your statement in the vaccine thread problematic regardless of what your thoughts are and I certainly wasn't going to change my thinking on that based on someone else defending something you chose not to. I most definitely do have friends that will defend me, I just don't ask or expect them to because I handle my own shit.
I never at any point claimed to know what your intent was in the vaccine thread, I just claimed that you hadn't defended yourself and it was clear what my assumption was and that until you corrected it, not a damn thing was going to change that assumption.
I've said a number of times the cheerleader comment was out of line. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to say.
It doesn't affect me because I too am a privileged little shit who can afford to work for free on the side if I so choose. The problem is that when a job legally should be paying someone min wage, but they can get away with not paying min wage, the owner of said business is going to learn that they can get away without paying people min wage and will only hire people that will work under the system that isn't fully paying. That then removes a job from the job market for people who actual do need to be paid for every hour that they work
Correct, but there are plenty of jobs out there that WILL pay you for every hour you work. I can't tell you how many stores, restaurants, etc. that I frequent that have help wanted signs. No one is saying that you HAVE to take a job that won't pay. It boils down to choice.
Should I start telling my boss I want 4 million dollars a year because that is what Joe Star basketball player makes? Or should non-profits go out of "business" because they have to start paying their volunteers?
LOL so because there are help wanted signs around you, no one is having trouble getting work? That's why the unemployment rate is 0? Oh wait, no, it's not because it's not as simple as if you want a paying job just find one that pays. That's not exactly how it works. It is not that easy for everyone and just because you feel it would be easy for you does not mean that every single other person out there has your same life experience. Legally, an employee is entitled to a minimum compensation, that doesn't mean they want 4 million dollars and it is fucking disgusting to suggest that people who expect to be paid minimum wage for hours worked is asking for 4 million because someone else got it.
I actually didn't put words in mags mouth. Mags responded to me at least three times in that stupid vaccine thread without saying that my understanding of what she was saying was wrong. The only thing mags has ever corrected me on was that she is not actively trying to encourage others to do the same thing she does. If mags feels differently she had multiple opportunities to correct me and she didn't. You tried to come in light her knight in shining armor and get involved in something that had nothing to do with you. I had made the comment on FB assuming mags would see it, would come in, would have yet another opportunity to tell me I misunderstood her and we'd move on. Instead, you got yourself in the middle of something that had nothing to do with you so yes, I told you to fuck off and wasn't nice.
So this makes it okay to personally attack her? This is really messed up.
I'm not even sure what you're talking about. I said on FB that I made a low blow, apologized and owned up to it. She is the one who chose to bring it back up in this thread and take a jab at me. I haven't brought it or her up again and have no intention to unless I'm brought up.
Right, but her taking that cheerleading job for less than minimum wage means that the system can continue because there are people willing to do it for free.
But if people are aware they are working for less than minimum wage, and do it simply because they enjoy it, it is their choice. Why does this affect you? If you don't want to be a NFL cheerleader for less than minimum wage, don't become one.
Do you have issue with free plays that people put on in the park? Because hey, they are putting Broadway out of business. Everyone should have to pay for a ticket!
It doesn't affect me because I too am a privileged little shit who can afford to work for free on the side if I so choose. The problem is that when a job legally should be paying someone min wage, but they can get away with not paying min wage, the owner of said business is going to learn that they can get away without paying people min wage and will only hire people that will work under the system that isn't fully paying. That then removes a job from the job market for people who actual do need to be paid for every hour that they work
Actually, no, I made a comment about someone else and you came at me in. That person could and still very much can speak to me themselves if there's anything to clear up. You keep starting shit with me and then act shocked when I'm an asshole back. I am a raging bitch when provoked, but I didn't know you from a hole in the wall when you came at me on FB and never would have had a damn thing to say about you if you hadn't tried to get in my face.
Excuse me, you specifically told me to fuck off and then proceed to call me names and question my intelligence because I was a former cheerleader.
This started because YOU put words in mags mouth about vaccines and I clarified that she did not say that.
I actually didn't put words in mags mouth. Mags responded to me at least three times in that stupid vaccine thread without saying that my understanding of what she was saying was wrong. The only thing mags has ever corrected me on was that she is not actively trying to encourage others to do the same thing she does. If mags feels differently she had multiple opportunities to correct me and she didn't. You tried to come in light her knight in shining armor and get involved in something that had nothing to do with you. I had made the comment on FB assuming mags would see it, would come in, would have yet another opportunity to tell me I misunderstood her and we'd move on. Instead, you got yourself in the middle of something that had nothing to do with you so yes, I told you to fuck off and wasn't nice.
No, I take issue with people who work for less than minimum wage because they have the means to not care about a paycheck. Completely, different things.
How do you know that they don't have other jobs? I knew a NFL cheerleader and her gig was her side job. She worked another job to support herself. She did cheerleading because she enjoyed it.
Right, but her taking that cheerleading job for less than minimum wage means that the system can continue because there are people willing to do it for free.
As was her comment about me. I would much rather be called a little shit than have someone suggest I think people deserve to work without pay for whatever reason.
Yet again, I would have said zero words to spindle if she didn't chose to come at me first
You have a very short memory because YOU came after me first on fb.
Actually, no, I made a comment about someone else and you came at me in. That person could and still very much can speak to me themselves if there's anything to clear up. You keep starting shit with me and then act shocked when I'm an asshole back. I am a raging bitch when provoked, but I didn't know you from a hole in the wall when you came at me on FB and never would have had a damn thing to say about you if you hadn't tried to get in my face.
This is totally uncalled for, I don't know or understand why you are personally attacking spindle92. I understand your beef with the issue, but personal attacks are not necessary and pretty $hitty IMO.
x2.
Also, do you take issue with everyone who is underemployed? Plenty of people just work for funsies.
No, I take issue with people who work for less than minimum wage because they have the means to not care about a paycheck. Completely, different things.
Let's not put words in my mouth, ok? I take massive issue with the NFL and the way cheerleaders are compensated. That's also why I take issue with privileged little shits like you who willingly accept a job that pays you less than minimum wage because you can make it work not really getting paid. When you do that you contribute to the perpetuation of a system that takes advantage of women and more specifically uses their bodies as a commodity that they're never really compensated for.
But hey, it's all good, you were just having the funtimes, you don't need a job for money, so why would anyone else?
This is totally uncalled for, I don't know or understand why you are personally attacking spindle92. I understand your beef with the issue, but personal attacks are not necessary and pretty $hitty IMO.
As was her comment about me. I would much rather be called a little shit than have someone suggest I think people deserve to work without pay for whatever reason.
Yet again, I would have said zero words to spindle if she didn't chose to come at me first
Good article. Even though we are/were "employed" by the NFL, each specific team had their own set of rules and bylaws.
In MN we were never treated like a piece of meat. In the article it mentions having to jump around to see if anything wiggles. That is ridiculous. I never experienced anything like that. The pay was pennies, but that is not why women do this.
But then again, some people think that when you are a professional cheerleader, this makes you stupid so you deserve what you get.
Let's not put words in my mouth, ok? I take massive issue with the NFL and the way cheerleaders are compensated. That's also why I take issue with privileged little shits like you who willingly accept a job that pays you less than minimum wage because you can make it work not really getting paid. When you do that you contribute to the perpetuation of a system that takes advantage of women and more specifically uses their bodies as a commodity that they're never really compensated for.
But hey, it's all good, you were just having the funtimes, you don't need a job for money, so why would anyone else?