Leaderboard

I will say the last few years where bad there but a lot of GOOD people where there at one time.And a lot of those good people came here.Knock dpf all you want but Tommy did a lot of good for all of us.

Its fun to listen to people like BoTox ruminate on the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Regardless of what these intellectually special needs people might like to believe, the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Rather it says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Leaving aside the inability of people like Clarance Thomas to read and research, the founding fathers were clearly guaranteeing a militia. They had made a conscious decision to NOT maintain a large standing army in that they had unpleasant experiences with such in the person of the British Army. Rather they decided to rely on a small standing army and a large state militia. The army was to serve as a trip wire while the militia could be brought up. This was true up to the 20th Century. The US Civil War was fought (on the Union side anyway) by state militia units. A popular line was "We are here Father Abraham, 100,000 strong!" In 1789 the militiamen brought their personal weapons to militia drill, creating among other problems a logistical nightmare. You had an army where your neighbor may very well be unable to give you musket balls should you run short. His might well not fit your weapon! Also the weapons with which the founding fathers were familiar were flint lock muzzle loading weapons with a lethal range of something like 100 to 500 yards. Not fully automatic weapons with a rate of fire on the order of 1000 rounds per minute. The NRA maintains we need AK47's as great sporting weapons. That's true only if the deer start carrying Uzi's! Neither the AK47 nor the M16 are very good sporting weapons. And for the record I have both of them. Although dissapointed in Obama will I vote for him? Looking at what the Republicans are scraping off the bottom of their collective shoes, my vote for Obama is a certainty!

I've been bothered by the rough edges around the hole in the catheter. I looked for and found a water soluble latex product at my local fabric store, called Unique Liquid Stitch. I applied just enough to cover the cut edge of the hole and let dry thoroughly overnight. It's increased the comfort significantly, even after a few hours.

I was at work today and had a meeting over in another building. As I was walking I saw a case of Attends Briefs sitting in the back window of one of the cars. They weren't completely obvious as they were packaged in a simple brown box with "M" and "UW" written on the sides. But there was open gaps on the side where you could see the words "Attends" as clear as day. Funny thing about it was the car was parked in the spot reserved for my boss' boss. I can't stand the guy personally but this makes me wonder...

So are you saying that Social Security is a trust fund in a locked box? That being the case, how do you explain President Obama stating that they may not be able to produce Social Security checks with no debt increase? Here is the video of Obama making that statement!

Actually I don't have to wonder. When I need a change I just go get one (I keep a few in my truck), and take it- in hand- to the restroom. Batwetter is right, I live in Florida and 80% don't even see it. About 15% will stare for 3 seconds but not say anything, about 4% will say something but stop at being overly rude, and that unlucky 1% are so insecure of them selves they will get verbally hostile thinking I'm some sort of pedophile. To them my answer is always the same- my incontinence is a valid medical problem but it's none of your business. In 15 years I've never encountered someone physically violent, the police have never been called, and I've never made the news. Oh, and the embarrassment of publicly carrying a diaper wore off 14 years ago because it turns out it really isn't a big deal after all.

Meh you guys take things too seriously. XD A package of diapers with a photo of really old people on it doesn't appeal to me either. I guess it's just a part of my fetish I don't like to think about. (the fact that these diapers are made for old dying people. I guess).

We had a discussion earlier in another thread about whether rights of the state are so different from the rights of the individual, and this is precisely why, and precisely what federal courts are designed to do: To protect the individual and the minority when the legislature is used as a flail to beat them down with the voice of the majority. California isn't as Liberal as many Conservatives think. Outside of San Francisco (not even the entire Bay Area), Los Angeles (the city, not the entire metropolitan area), and several other pockets of liberal interestingness (which do include Santa Cruz, and the other proper cities but not include, despite popular opinion, even many areas in Berkeley), rural California is, like many other rural areas, highly Conservative. It just happens that those few (large) pockets of Liberal nature encompass a large amount of the state's population. However, a large amount of that population is youth who are less able to get out and vote than your average adult professional. Essentially, as in most things, it is a more complicated situation than can be placed on a bumper sticker. All you have to do to realize that California is not some uberliberal paradise is go to Boulder Creek (in the bay area), Tracy (Sacramento), any northern rural city other than seaside, or Newport Beach.

I had a psych eval to be proactive for a divorce, since ex-wifey played the diaper card with her lawyer. Psych eval found I was damned sane, well adjusted, and pretty normal in the scope of what is considered "normal". I was told that I could try to eradicate my diaper fetishism, but it might or might not work, be really expensive to go through that therapy, and would, for the most part, only trade one "leaning" for something else. Most of us simply have some sort of addictive, obsessive, compulsive personality, and it's just WHAT it is - in our case, diapers - that is different among people. A psychiatrist is supposed to take a neutral position on your fetishism, will try to determine how it might have been triggered, and if it leans toward involving children - in which case your leanings NEED to be eradicated at all costs - and if it is debilitating in terms of your ability to lead a "normal" life in "regular" society. If it's just a little aggravation and doesn't hurt anybody else - though it seems to bother your wife with the degree you indulge yourself - it should be no big thing. If you don't impose it on anyone else, what's the worst that can happen? Diaper rash? Seems to me the only one THAT would hurt would be YOU! LOL Oh, in case you wonder, the diaper card never got played in court - didn't get that far - and the lawyer wouldn't let me see the psych eval so that what I read wouldn't skew my testimony if I got called to the stand. Should probably try to see what got said since it never got used and was expensive enough to have done!