Someone better start translating it to various acronyms suitable for texting .
Then again, the language has evolved . Try reading the Declaration in the original text ;or some classic old English novels .
|
Someone better start translating it to various acronyms suitable for texting .
Then again, the language has evolved . Try reading the Declaration in the original text ;or some classic old English novels .
LLATPOH, dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I have a nearly 400-year-old framed page out of a King James bible, Genesis IV. Did you know Cain flew able?Quote:
Then again, the language has evolved . Try reading the Declaration in the original text ;or some classic old English novels .
I hadn't realized that the translation was already done. Duh At one time I had an acronym dictionary that I c/p'd from the net, and for a while was able to convince my daughter that I knew text language.Quote:
LLATPOH, dude.
If you notice they tend to avoid framing her from the waist down. True its her constitution that she packs it on below the waist. Which from a health perspective is better than packing it on in the upper body, but that's not something you choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
But her yapping about that is like me yapping about why every guy doesn't have six-pack abs. (being I have a bit of a paunch I need to lose)
Oh Hillary has beefy legs... if you are into that sort of thing.
Neither of those two at any point of their lives were what I personally considered attractive (by my tastes). But they weren't all that bad either compared to some.
But if they strike anyone's fancy... more power to them. To each his or her own.
LA schools to remove chocolate, strawberry milk from campuses. I have no idea what they're going to replace it with, probably soy milk. I'm sure that'll be a hit.
The only milk I drank as a kid was chocolate, though I did use plain milk in my Sugar Pops. I also had lots of toast and margarine, bacon, sausage and eggs, peanut butter and jelly for breakfast... I've ballooned to a 34 waist.Quote:
Healthier offerings could cost more, however, and prove less popular, jeopardizing federal funding if student consumption drops. That same concern holds with eliminating flavored milk, although the menu change itself will have no added cost.
About 75% of milk sold is flavored, Oliver noted on the Kimmel show.
What happened to 'choice' in this country?
Cocoa has a high fat and carbohydrate content that is true . But it is loaded with a variety of vitamins minerals and antioxidants/flavanoids . It also increases serotonine levels in the brain which is a positive. Combine that with the fact that many kids do not drink milk without the flavoring and one can only conclude that chocolate milk is an essential part of a balance diet.
Then you have the people with soy allergies... are they going to ban it like they have peanut butter some places.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
San Francisco, the city which has apparently nothing better to do than monitor every aspect of its denizens' lives, is taking up another nanny state ban. Ed Driscoll takes up the issue:
Making a Mountain of a Mohel
Have they banned freedom of religion in San Fran, too?Quote:
“San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision,” Reuters reports. But since the San Fransisco Examiner noted in March that “San Francisco [is] becoming a child-free zone as youth population declines,” and even the Associated Press was forced to report in 2005 that “San Francisco has the smallest share of small-fry of any major U.S. city,” this issue is yet another self-defeating reduction in freedom for the city and its residents.
As I wrote last month, all of this makes you wonder: when the next San Francisco far left loony rails on against the dangers of Happy Meals, Junior ROTC, family-friendly SUVs or heck, circumcision, what’s the point of passing these laws when there are fewer and fewer kids left in the city?
Exit question: How long before progressives make themselves an endangered species?
Didn't they already ban deodorants and women's razors? That may be connected to the decline in births. I know I am less inclined to want to bang a hairy smelly female. Of course in SanFran, you can add pompous and self righteous and assure a near total lack of desire to procreate.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I HATE margarine... Give me BUTTER..
But, I think you're confused my friend... Choice is still with us. I know, cause I had a doughnut for breakfast.. Besides, education doesn't take your choice away. If anything, it enhances it. Course, you people would just rather not know stuff.. I don't know why.
Oh, I just figured it out. Knowing stuff makes you elite. And, for sure, you don't want to be that.
excon
Well, I do know in San Francisco you can CHOOSE all manner of public perverseness, but don't take your kid for a Happy Meal. Maybe if McDonald's allowed gay sex in their restaurants they'd drop the Happy Meal ban.
I know there are a large share of those that would rather bang the cow than eat it.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
So, we've got a trade off happening here... In San Francisco, I can CHOOSE to purchase marijahoochie and not get thrown in the pokey... If I have to give up happy meals in order to do that, that's a trade I'll make...
But, in YOUR neck of the woods, I can get a happy meal, but if I really want to get happy, YOUR nanny state is going to PROTECT me from myself, by putting my a$$ in jail... Let's talk about THAT.
excon
We've already been there, you know I'm not opposed to you gettin' happy. So, if we can allow you to get happy and kids to get their Happy Meals, can you agree that allowing public gay sex is not a good thing?
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Are you kidding? I LOVE public gay sex.
excon
Federal law still prevents anyone from that form of "getting happy". And no elected state peon can change that.
So you are willing to trade-off a mom's freedom to buy a Happy Meal in exchange for your right to get happy and have public gay sex.
Hello again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
So, states rights have NO place in your right wing Tea Party platform? I figured. You want people to be free. You just want 'em to be free to do what YOU WANT 'EM TO DO. I understand.
excon
States don't have 'rights'. States have 'powers' .
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
That about sums it up... But, I'm no bigot. I believe in NON gay public sex too...
excon
You mean like the Civil rights act shouldn't be imposed on the public... etc? Or just those things you don't agree with?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
How about OBAMAcare as the latest gov intrusion?
Fact is the Federal government trumps states rights in many areas... and you can thank the Democrat party for expanding where they can meddle. The Democrat party is the party of big brother... And Obama is the current ringleader for the gov to have their nose in everything you do..
But a hamburger and a toy is off limits?
Unless the kid wants to marry the cow... and bang the toy, in school in the auditorium in front of the student body and call it art.. Then he will have supporters to his cause in SF.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
By the way, next up is advertising. No more Cap'n Crunch, Tony the Tiger, Ronald McDonald, Chuck E. Cheese or Keebler Elves.
I see choice is still expanding in the liberal world.
The deal with the Obots is that they have a hands off policy when it comes to illicit drugs... but try selling illicit foods like... mmmm... milk... then watch out!
Feds sting Amish farmer selling raw milk locally - Washington Times
Raw milk -- why buy it when the chances of also buying e. coli, listeria, and staph are possible. Low-temp vat pasteurization is cheap enough that any farmer can do that.
Perhaps it's an Amish cultural thingy??
It used to be an immigrant German farmer thingy, but my ancestors didn't sell milk to anyone. Only the family drank it. I've drunk raw milk still warm from the cow, but my grandfather took exceeding care with washing the cows' udders and the collection buckets and large vats he poured the milk into. The milk was immediately refrigerated unless some of it was used for breakfast or supper. Do the Amish take such good care? Will you bet your digestive health on that?
The Amish can do what they want with their unpasteurized milk. I'm surprised such a gentle people are so greedy that they are selling it.
Trust me... he wasn't making a living selling it. The Feds sent an agent to fill up a plastic jug . The agent gave him $2.00 for it.
One could ask what is the greater risk . A cup of raw milk fresh from the farm ;or some of the processed foods mass produced even under the most stringent Federal Guidelines ?
Pasturization does a good job eliminating contaminents that's true... then to make it nutritious to replace the nutrients lost in the processing , they vitamin fortify the end product.
There are no other Amish selling raw milk to the public?
What's the harm? Have you ever had an infection caused by e. coli or listeria or staph? I have. I wouldn't want to wish it on my worse enemy.
I grew up on unpasteurized, un homogenized whole milk. From the dairy we got refilled in 1/2 gallon glass jugs we took every week. Right up until they outlawed it and the dairy shut down as a result.
While I had the standard childhood diseases at the time... I actually have not had the flu but twice in the last 40 years... and I'm 49. In fact I made it through Jr and Sr High school without being sick at all.
Shaking it up was a PITA... but it tasted a LOT better than anything in a paper or plastic carton.
Yeah there was always a possibility of some of those... but I never knew anyone that actually had it... and most of my friends, family and neighbors drank the same stuff.
I agree -- nothing better. I've got nearly 20 years on you, so remember it even better than you do. We never got intestinal upsets from raw milk, but then the dairy farmers were very, very careful and we knew them well. I wouldn't trust farmers today, unless I knew them personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
(We didn't shake -- we skimmed the cream off the top for pie, etc.)
Hello again:
Didja see what the nanny state is doing now?? They're actually trying to protect your children from getting cancer. How dare them?
The rules, which go into effect in a year, will also ban sunscreen manufacturers from claiming their products are waterproof or sweatproof because such claims are false. Instead, they will be allowed to claim in minutes the amount of time in which the product is water resistant, depending upon test results.
And only sunscreens that have a sun protection factor, or SPF, of 15 or higher will be allowed to maintain that they help prevent sunburn and reduce the risks of skin cancer and early skin aging.
Can you believe the balls of this government??
excon
Yeah ,I heard they are going to lose the numerical rating and switch to color coding .
Next they will be making sunshine illegal.
As it is there are people who need Vit D supplementation because they douse that stuff all over themselves as if it were marinate.
The chemicals in sunscreen could very well be more harmful to you than the harmful effects of sun rays.(see oxybenzone
PABA and Oxybenzone. What are PABA / Oxybenzone and why are they dangerous. )
As you know ,I favor government regulation of chemicals.
Chemicals, OK. Vegetables, no.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Marijahoochie is a vegetable...
excon
I thought it was an herb.
Hello again, Steve:
It grows. It's green. It's vitamin packed. Herb is the name of my barber.
excon
Have you seen the timeline on this monograph ? The FDA began considering label changes in 1978 , published them in 1999, and waited for now for the major players in the industry to adjust their labelling . It will be the small manufacture /label brands that will bear the brunt of this . Again ,government regulation will weed out the small fry and consolidate the industry for a few major players .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:36 PM. |