Pitch a bitch. Complain about the Affordable Care Act here, or whatever else is bothering you.
LOL!
She's always been a honey, and, yes, she does indeed "wear her age very well".Quote: Beethoven9thDefinitely not a gripe here, but I had to do a double take when I came across this photo of Christie Brinkley. I'm sure she's had a lot of work done and uses the best makeup artists, but even so, does this look like a 60-year-old woman to you?!?!?
As I get older, I find that, more often than not, I obtain a better estimate of age by observing the hands. Doesn't always work, but hands have very little skin to cover bone structure, and tricks such as makeup, surgery, etc. do not apply.
Quote: Beethoven9thDefinitely not a gripe here, but I had to do a double take when I came across this photo of Christie Brinkley. I'm sure she's had a lot of work done and uses the best makeup artists, but even so, does this look like a 60-year-old woman to you?!?!?
She doesn't look 60 but she does look 50. Look at her right hand.
Christie still looks good because she let herself age gracefully. Some women do this and besides Christie I would say Julia Roberts and Sandra Bullock are the same way. They did not try to look 28 forever. OTOH Jennifer Aniston is beginning to look a little silly because she is 45 and trying pretend she is just 20/25 (pronounced "twenty-twenty-five."
The "classic" models on TPiR looked very good into their 50s. It was camera angles and make-up to be sure. Word was Mrs. Howell had it in her contract how they would shoot her as she did not want to look her real age. HDTV is making this harder to do.
Quote: 1arrowheaddrI was in a casino last week and presented a ticket for $104.75 along with five quarters to receive a total of $106. The cashier informs me that she is not supposed to take more change than is required to get to the next bill and directed me to the coin counter with a 10% fee.
Read about short change artists. These guys can be really good and no doubt the rule is designed to protect minimum wage cage cashiers.
Here's a good example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeLl4ZQjocA
Quote: tongniRead about short change artists. These guys can be really good and no doubt the rule is designed to protect minimum wage cage cashiers.
Here's a good example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeLl4ZQjocA
I always bring coins and loose dollars on ticket amounts such as $98.97 or $15.74 because I hate carrying coins nowadays and I prefer $100s if possible. Cashiers sometimes get flustered and say let me pay you the ticket amount first. You have to think of it as every other money situation, nobody cares more about your money then yourself. You might think it's a simple transaction but the cashier really couldn't care less how much you are cashing in unless it is above the threshold for the casino. They would rather you give them a ticket or chip without adding anything extra.
Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex marriage
According to liberal logic, this is no big deal since marijuana is pretty much like health food.
Quote: Beethoven9thYou gotta love the liberal hypocrites who opposed the Arizona law that protected religious people, especially after they applauded this type of discrimination 2 years ago:
Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex marriage
Please provide evidence of a liberal who opposed the Arizona law and also "applauded" this.
Read the "Comments" section at the end of this article:Quote: ams288Please provide evidence of a liberal who..."applauded" this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/antonio-darden-susana-martinez-hairdresser-new-mexico_n_1310219.html
Quote: Beethoven9thRead the "Comments" section at the end of this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/antonio-darden-susana-martinez-hairdresser-new-mexico_n_1310219.html
Anonymous HuffPo commentators aren't a good example.
By that standard I could say conservatives are horrible hypocritical racists and just point to the comments section of any of a million right wing blogs for my proof.
Quote: ams288Anonymous HuffPo commentators aren't a good example.
By that standard I could say conservatives are horrible hypocritical racists and just point to the comments section of any of a million right wing blogs for my proof.
You asked for an example of people who applauded that bigoted gay hairdresser. I gave you an example. The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Quote: Beethoven9thYou asked for an example of people who applauded that bigoted gay hairdresser. I gave you an example. The truth hurts, doesn't it?
I wanted a specific person. As in some liberal we would actually have heard of before. Taking down people who post on comment sections of partisan websites is super low-hanging fruit. But I shouldn't have expected anything more from you. lol
Quote: ams288I wanted a specific person. As in some liberal we would actually have heard of before. Taking down people who post on comment sections of partisan websites is super low-hanging fruit. But I shouldn't have expected anything more from you. lol
Oh boy, changing the criteria now? Typical lib. You asked for a person, I gave you one. And now you're throwing a tantrum because you don't like the answer. lol
Quote: Beethoven9thOh boy, changing the criteria now? Typical lib. You asked for a person, I gave you one. And now you're throwing a tantrum because you don't like the answer. lol
I'm just pointing out that you always post these random articles (this one from like two years ago) and proclaim "typical liberal hypocrisy! How can they do/say/support xxxxxx and then not do/say/support yyyyy?!" When xxxxxx and yyyyy typically have nothing to do with each other. In this case xxxxxx and yyyyy are related, but the only hypocrites you can find are in the HuffPo comments section. Great investigative journalism there.... Not. lol
You must be taking lessons from the shifty one because that was NOT a "random" article. It was posted at YOUR request for proof.Quote: ams288...these random articles (this one from like two years ago).
You'd actually have a point.....IF that had anything to do with what I had claimed (which it does NOT). Again, YOU asked for proof of liberals who applauded the bigoted gay hairdresser. I supplied the evidence. Now you throw a tantrum...lolQuote: ams288In this case xxxxxx and yyyyy are related, but the only hypocrites you can find are in the HuffPo comments section. Great investigative journalism there.... Not. lol
Quote: Beethoven9thYou must be taking lessons from the shifty one because that was NOT a "random" article. It was posted at YOUR request for proof.
Uh no. I was referring to the NY Daily News article from Feb. 22, 2012 that you randomly posted. Nice try though.
Quote: ams288Uh no. I was referring to the NY Daily News article from Feb. 22, 2012 that you randomly posted. Nice try though.
Uh...now you're just making random complaints. FYI, did you even bother reading the title of this thread? I didn't think so...
Quote: Beethoven9thUh...now you're just making random complaints. FYI, did you even bother reading the title of this thread? I didn't think so...
It just says something about you that you constantly feel the need to drudge up articles (some even being two years old) to attempt to bash liberals as hypocrites. Find a hobby or something.
Guess you still haven't read the title of this thread. (Doesn't surprise me though) *facepalm*Quote: ams288It just says something about you that you constantly feel the need to drudge up articles (some even being two years old) to attempt to bash liberals as hypocrites.
(BTW, that 2-year-old article was brought up to prove the hypocrisy of liberals regarding an event that occurred LAST WEEK. Duh!)
Quote: Beethoven9thGuess you still haven't read the title of this thread. (Doesn't surprise me though) *facepalm*
(BTW, that 2-year-old article was brought up to prove the hypocrisy of liberals regarding an event that occurred LAST WEEK. Duh!)
Yes, we covered that. Hypocrisy of HuffPo commentors. What a hard target you hit there.
Well, you specifically asked me to do it, so I did. No need to get all mad just because I hit the bullseye...lolQuote: ams288What a hard target you hit there.
Just as I thought. People aren't "born that way". And before anyone criticizes the article, the author is (ironically) gay.
...and it would be even more hilarious if the same thing eventually happened with legalized marijuana. :D
Quote: Beethoven9thMore than half of the cigarettes sold in New York State are smuggled in from other places LOL!
How can that be….. smuggling cigs is illegal? :-)
Guns, knives, gasoline, cigarettes, booze ... all by and for people who don't really think it is much of a crime. There are turf wars for cigarettes just as there are for heroin though.Quote: Beethoven9thMore than half of the cigarettes sold in New York State are smuggled in from other places LOL!
It is enforcement and penalty driven. Not too many cops really care about untaxed cigarettes, nor do many DAs, so don't expect Judges to do more than slap an occasional wrist.
Quote: FleaStiffGuns, knives, gasoline, cigarettes, booze ... all by and for people who don't really think it is much of a crime.
"Yup" he says, while smoking his untaxed smoke.
Have you ever had untaxed cigs and booze? They're delicious =)
Quote: FleaStiffThere are turf wars for cigarettes
There are turf wars for quite ordinary vending machines. I used to sell sodas from a vending machine [long story] and realized that you would not need very many you were servicing, that you could make enough to live on. Work just a few days a week.
You can't just put a vending machine just wherever you get a notion, however.
Quote: FleaStiff
It is enforcement and penalty driven. Not too many cops really care about untaxed cigarettes, nor do many DAs, so don't expect Judges to do more than slap an occasional wrist.
I always called the taxes on smokes in NY "The Mafia Full-Employment Act." It was always obvious this was going to happen.
Quote: treetopbuddyQuote: Beethoven9thMore than half of the cigarettes sold in New York State are smuggled in from other places LOL!
How can that be….. smuggling cigs is illegal? :-)
Nobody waiting at mile marker 164 :)
I am new to this gambling thing. And I really really like it. Now, many of my friends have ripped me for doing it saying its a waste of money. Blah blah blah.
Now, some of these same friends, are all excited about their trip to Dave & Busters tonight to play!
So, what I do is a waste of money, (Nevermind the fact that I could come home with more than I started.)
But its "fun" to pump quarters in an arcade game to hopefully get enough tickets to get some ear buds.
Yeah ok. Rant_OFF
Quote: Beethoven9thJust as I thought. People aren't "born that way".
You are dead wrong here. I'm living proof. lol
Edit: Will you go on the record stating that you think being gay is a choice?
Welcome back. I should have known that your very first post back would be to me. You just can't keep yourself from responding to me, huh? lolQuote: ams288You are dead wrong here. I'm living proof. lol
Anyway, it doesn't sound like you read the article I posted, so go back and read it.
Quote: odiousgambit
You can't just put a vending machine just wherever you get a notion, however.
Depends how well you can swim with cement shoes.
Quote: ams288
Edit: Will you go on the record stating that you think being gay is a choice?
Why not? No proof of a "gay gene" has yet been found. I would have more respect for the gay movement if they dropped the "born this way" mantra and just said they don't care whether others think what they do is right or wrong. But when you say "born this way" it really comes off as an excuse for something you would rather not be doing.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy not? No proof of a "gay gene" has yet been found. I would have more respect for the gay movement if they dropped the "born this way" mantra and just said they don't care whether others think what they do is right or wrong. But when you say "born this way" it really comes off as an excuse for something you would rather not be doing.
Saying it's a choice implies that gay people could be equally as happy with someone of the opposite sex as they could with someone of the same sex, but they've just chosen to go with the same sex. This is not at all true.
No one chooses their sexuality. Did you choose to be straight? If so, you'd actually probably be gay and just suppressing those feelings by "choosing" to be in heterosexual relationships.
Quote: ams288Saying it's a choice implies that gay people could be equally as happy with someone of the opposite sex as they could with someone of the same sex, but they've just chosen to go with the same sex. This is not at all true.
No one chooses their sexuality. Did you choose to be straight? If so, you'd actually probably be gay and just suppressing those feelings by "choosing" to be in heterosexual relationships.
We are all "born straight." Deviation from that is the choice. No proof exists to refute this.
Quote: AZDuffmanWe are all "born straight." Deviation from that is the choice. No proof exists to refute this.
Ok - prove it.
Quote: AZDuffmanWe are all "born straight." Deviation from that is the choice. No proof exists to refute this.
Where is the first statement proved? I don't want to diminish the importance of sexuality to anyone, but I don't think it's much different than saying that we are all born right handed, and anything else was a choice. Don't believe that's true either.
Quote: rxwineWhere is the first statement proved? I don't want to diminish the importance of sexuality to anyone, but I don't think it's much different than saying that we are all born right handed, and anything else was a choice. Don't believe that's true either.
Yes - AZ's post was like the biggest logical fallacy of all time. Almost made my head explode.
I can't wait to see his proof that everyone is born straight. There's gotta be proof since that can't be refuted, right?!
Quote: ams288Ok - prove it.
Prove what? No "gay gene" has been discovered. The burden of proof is to show it is genetic and not social.
Quote: AZDuffmanProve what? No "gay gene" has been discovered. The burden of proof is to show it is genetic and not social.
Using your same logic I could say, "We are all 'born gay.' Deviation from that is the choice. No proof exists to refute this."
Right?
The fact that no evidence exists to refute something is not proof of anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Quote: ams288Using your same logic I could say, "We are all 'born gay.' Deviation from that is the choice. No proof exists to refute this."
Right?
Not really, because if we were there would be no reproduction and we would not be here to have this conversation. And not just in humans but across nature.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot really, because if we were there would be no reproduction and we would not be here to have this conversation. And not just in humans but across nature.
Usually differences confer more than one trait which may lend itself to advantages. The best thing about our differences is it provides advantages in different circumstances which leads to other ways to compete and survival itself.
I don't know what advantages every difference has. Albino tigers are more likely to be killed in the wild, but more likely to live at the Mirage. That's a joke. But the idea of how differences of any kind can turn to advantages or disadvantages is not a joke.
If you're heterosexual male, you don't live in luxury managing the King's harem He puts a spear through you when he catches you practicing your normal desires with one of his ladies.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot really, because if we were there would be no reproduction and we would not be here to have this conversation. And not just in humans but across nature.
Wow. Talk about generalizing. *Most* people are born straight, but there is a small cross section of the population that indeed has a "gay" gene. Of course their blood lines would die out because they can't reproduce, which is why the gay population due to genetics is probably about 1.6% and why we see gay behaviours in the animal kingdom from time to time.
latest news
Some (most, according to the study) people become gay by choice as well.
But when you account that there is a biological element to being homosexual, you really can't blame societal influences entirely, can you?
That would be just awful. Doesn't fit the FoxNews version of the "facts."
Quote: boymimbo
But when you account that there is a biological element to being homosexual, you really can't blame societal influences entirely, can you?
That would be just awful. Doesn't fit the FoxNews version of the "facts."
Not sure what FNC has to do with anything.
I do blame them entirely. Now I will concede that there are certain traits that if not a majority a way higher than average behaviors homosexuals (males especially) tend to poses. One is what I have called here attention-whore behavior. This accounts why you have a disproportionate number of gay males in the arts (I assume we can agree that there are?) They love attention. When not on stage they still want attention, and to them affection=attention. As the amount of affection the average female wants is far lower than they want, well they decide they prefer gay. A second is a higher level of submissive behavior. Think of the stereotype flaming, lispy gay male. Females most often do not want such guys, they want the alpha-males. If the female cannot get the alpha, there are numerous beta males who while not the dominate male still give off an "in charge" attitude around their female. But the aforesaid lispy/submissive, well he is an Omega male. In the wild Omegas live a very marginal life. In humans they pair up.
This is just a couple traits, and not every gay male has every trait. But they all choose who takes them home at the end of the night.
It doesn't bother me that he claims victories over the Republicans when he feels he has "won" on an issue.
It annoys the heck out of me that he thinks "spiking the ball" is how it should be done.
(I'm sure some other President sometime acted un-Presidential; they aren't President anymore. Stay focused on the one who is President today. He carries the banner for our country.)
Quote: AZDuffmanNot sure what FNC has to do with anything.
I do blame them entirely. Now I will concede that there are certain traits that if not a majority a way higher than average behaviors homosexuals (males especially) tend to poses. One is what I have called here attention-whore behavior. This accounts why you have a disproportionate number of gay males in the arts (I assume we can agree that there are?) They love attention. When not on stage they still want attention, and to them affection=attention. As the amount of affection the average female wants is far lower than they want, well they decide they prefer gay. A second is a higher level of submissive behavior. Think of the stereotype flaming, lispy gay male. Females most often do not want such guys, they want the alpha-males. If the female cannot get the alpha, there are numerous beta males who while not the dominate male still give off an "in charge" attitude around their female. But the aforesaid lispy/submissive, well he is an Omega male. In the wild Omegas live a very marginal life. In humans they pair up.
This is just a couple traits, and not every gay male has every trait. But they all choose who takes them home at the end of the night.
I do blame FNC entirely as well. (Joke re: your first 2 sentences).
Just a few thoughts about the above.
To give what I'm saying some background, I worked in professional theatre from 1977-1984; at the start of that, Rock Hudson and Liberace were still in the closet, gayness was still unknown to me and most of middle America on a first-person basis, but coming on strong. Effeminate boys prior to and at that time were beaten for sport, mocked and shunned, and almost all of them were married by 30. A good many of them had kids, and even after it became more acceptable to be gay, remained in a hetero lifestyle. So in my personal experience, your estimation of gayness = submissive/beta males would be inaccurate at best.
The reason I mentioned the theatre is that people who have been stereotyped, disenfranchised, shunned, and outcast are not immune to basic human needs of love and social acceptance, regardless of the reason for their alienation. I'm looking back over 35+ years of changing acceptance, and remembering that so many people found themselves in that creative, accepting island, out of the judgemental eyes of mainstreamers, back in the day. Not just gays, effeminate or not, but certainly an increasingly larger percentage of them over the years, due to acceptance and appreciation of what they had to offer, when most of the world (your world, it would seem) had turned their backs. So I think your cause/effect is incorrect as stated above; it's been an evolution over the years of a safe haven attracting those who need one.
I think the concentration in the arts and proliferation into television and movies also has more to do with the change from obligatory closeting to tolerance to a new normal of accepting people's differences, than the number of creative people who live that life. It's not that long ago that Ellen was fired for being a lesbian. Things change. Then again, Michelangelo, my personal choice for Best Artist Ever Lived, was gay. That didn't stop the Church from hiring him to do the Sistene Chapel. So, maybe creativity and homosexuality are somehow related after all. But it's certainly not new.
But then, you and I disagree on the fundamental question of choice. I do think it's biological, and that most people would not make that choice if they had one, when they become sexually aware in their early teens, even if they come to accepting and enjoying themselves later in life. The difference now is, there's a growing acceptance of people being honest about their sexuality, so the kids aren't quite so traumatized by their realizations. It would have happened decades ago, I think, if AIDS hadn't presented itself disproportionately in the gay male population in the early 80s; the religious backlash was ferocious and effective.
The flamboyancy you seem to especially dislike is, in my experience, usually an over-reaction by the person to the condemnation of homophobes; sort of a show of defiance. And, again in my experience, the flamboyant homosexuals were about 10% of all the gays I knew, not more, though any of them could "camp it up" for a party or a joke. Doesn't mean I haven't met gays in just about every job I've had. But more by proportion in the theatre than other areas I worked, though waiting table came pretty close.
