squishyalt's Comments

It's probably a Alpec Sotonic Green Laser Pointer, I got mine at Fry's for about $90.

I really wanted to see the second picture taken where he is explaining why he is in handcuffs and what the FAA is to his daughter.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Yes they should fire them!

They should also fire people with more than one sex partner, people who have had extramarital sex without a condom, people who drink alcohol, people who use illegal drugs, people who abuse legal drugs (oops...there go some doctors), people who speed in their vehicles, people who drive distracted, people who don't exercise regularly, people that engage in potentially dangerous hobbies/activities outside work, people who have expired food in their homes and people who sit too much.

ALL of these HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE people set bad examples for others and raise the cost of healthcare through their careless activities.

FIRE THE LOT OF 'EM!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
ted,

This is most certainly germane to the topic at hand. The topic is whether Bert and Ernie should get married.

Along with teaching tolerance of others (which I wholeheartedly support), for those of Seasame Street age and mental/emotional development, this also teaches acceptance of the lifestyle - a lifestyle which is not the ideal for raising children (something a lot of non-traditional families are trying to do).

As it is not possible at this young age for children to differentiate between tolerance for alternative lifestyles and acceptance of that lifestyle as an equal alternative to traditional families - and as children are not really ready to discuss things like this scientific study at the Seasame Street age - I believe it best if the alternative lifestyle indoctrination is left to things like Glee, where children are more able to differentiate between tolerance and lifestyle acceptance and are more able to understand things like this study and others (like the CDCC study that recently showed ALL sexually active groups declining in HIV/AIDS transmission EXCEPT homosexual males).

It is irresponsible to expose children this young to subjects that they cannot fully discuss or understand.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Leaving the individual morals and opinions aside for a moment...the scientific community has weighed in on the non-traditional VS traditional family subject (although not intentionally I am sure, as the Scientific American Mind article "Maternal Mentality" is primarily about how having a baby changes the minds of its parents).

In Scientific American Mind (July/August 2011), page 36, the section titled "A Critical Link" explores the relationship of offspring Degu rats to their parents.

It reads in part "At a stage of development when most of the brain should be burgeoning with new connections, the pups raised without a father had deficits in the orbitofrontal cortex and the somatosensory cortex. The orbitofrontal cortex is part of the prefrontal cortex, which regulates decision making, reward and emotion. And although it is difficult to extrapolate from rodent studies to effects in humans, it is worth noting that faulty synapses and processing problems in this locale might well explain why we see some kids who grow up without a dad wrestle with occasionally serious behavioral problems."

I know that I have seen more developmental and behavioral problems in children and adults who grew up without a caring father (whether the father was absent or present but uncaring) than in those that grew up with a caring father.

This would seem to indicate that children who grow up without a caring father (whether that be in a lesbian home, an orphanage, a broken heterosexual home or a home where the father has died and the mother did not remarry or some other situation) would be at greater risk of future emotional and behavioral problems.

It seems that the presence of a father figure is vital to proper brain development.

I would assume (as I have not looked for any scientific studies to back this up) that the same goes for rats (and children) raised without caring mothers.

Having watched children raised in an environment where their mother cared more about her own needs and wants than theirs (even telling the children that they were not going to get in the way of her living her life the way she wanted) I can state from my observations that (at least in this instance) children raised without a caring mother are just as negatively affected as those raised without a caring father.

As a matter of full disclosure...the article goes on to contradict itself by saying ""Having two parents is one thing," Wiess points out, "but having effective relationships between parents and offspring is yet something else. It's actually the effectiveness of the relationships [that matters]"."

This statement was not backed up by the previously mentioned Degu rat study, and is contradictory to the information gained from the Degu study.

It would seem, from the evidence that we have, that for children to develop properly, and to their fullest potential, there exists a need for both a caring mother and a caring father.

So, while I do not begrudge anyone their right to marry a same sex partner, all indications are that children raised in such homes are at a distinct disadvantage.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Keep the sexual content the hell out of Sesame Street!

This is the problem with gays and lesbians and such. It's not that they want to be left alone to live in peace...I wholly support that.

It's that they are not satisfied to be left alone to live in peace. They want to force everyone else to place their stamps of approval on their lifestyle.

Being left alone to live as you please with other adults that like your lifestyle choices should be everyone's right (I'll fight for that). But, forcing everyone to place their stamp of approval on your lifestyle choice is NOBODY'S right.

Need an example, do ya? Gay pride parades. Since when did being left alone to live your life as you please dictate a parade?

Not that I don't love a good ol' gay parade, but when breeders talk about having a Heterosexual Pride parade they are called homophobic (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/Latin-America-Monitor/2011/0804/Heterosexual-Pride-Day-in-Sao-Paulo).

You can't expect tolerance if you are unwillling to give it.

And you should know when to draw the line at introducing adult subject matter to children (whether that subject matter be gay, straight or some weird sh!t I have yet to hear about).
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Actually, they saw THREE of them...."After months of scouring remote forests in Borneo, researchers spotted three rainbow toads up a tree, snapping the first-ever photographs of this elusive amphibian species that hadn't been seen for 87 years, scientists announced today (July 13)."
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Rooboy: Then you read "House Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn, the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, on Wednesday blamed most of President Barack Obama's political problems on racism."

Black people in America (in general) do not WANT to be equal. They revel in their self-imposed victim status. They depend on it.

Should their victim status ever disappear, who in the world would they blame their failures on? They'd have to take personal responsibility for their lot in life (just like everyone else has to). They'd be expected to work hard and succeed without government imposed quotas.

There are outstanding black people in America who reject the victim status...like Herman Cain who has just announced his run for president. But, most black men are more likely to play the victim than run the race.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/25/114793/racism-to-blame-for-obamas-problems.html#ixzz1NcJtC78o
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
On the one hand, not hiring someone because they don't have a job is putting people laid off to no fault of their own in a catch 22. They need a job to pay the bills, but they can't get a job because they don't have a job.

On the other hand, the people that usually get fired first are the one least prized by their organizations. And, since all employers look for the best talent at the lowest price, they want to pick from those working, thinking them to be more valuable than those not working.

Beating out both of these is the U.S. government...it will not hire anyone who owes back taxes. Why not? Then you know they are working and you can even garnish their wages if need be. Don't hire them and they may never be able to pay their back taxes.

Real smart Uncle Sam....
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)


Page 1 of 2       next

Profile for squishyalt

  • Member Since 2012/08/04


Statistics

Comments

  • Threads Started 55
  • Replies Posted 0
  • Likes Received 1
  • Abuse Flags 0