Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
She was ghetto. She probably would have been impressed.
Know I don't actually don't know "your type"! All too often my "type" is depicted in the ad/promo pics (and described in the reviews) as opposed to what actually answers the door .... so I rarely get to the "ghetto" part even if there is a similarity to the pics.
I'm reminded of a poem ... (Edited ... remembered the lines correctly)
Some do it on the mountains
Some do it by Sea
But Johnson grass and Mexican ass
Are Home Sweet Home to me.
I prefer petite as opposed to the wide-bodied big butt types....ethnicity is unimportant.
#1: If one looks at State Constitutions (particularly in the Southern (as per Confideracy days*) states) there are provisions consistent with the initial Bill of Rights which are enforceable so long as the enforcement doesn't fall below "Federal standards" for protections AND PLUS the 14th Amendment applies the Federal Standards to the States ... as a MINIMUM ... meaning states can assert higher thresholds of freedom ... as opposed to more restrictive standards.
[*The "bill of rights" in State constitutions was a push back against Reconstruction Days when state's rights advocates pushed provisions in their State Constitutions to protect them from carpet baggers dictating things for them to do. That's why so many state positions are elected .... judges for instance ... in the Constitutions and enabling legislation. Retains those positions in voters.)
#2: The SCOTUS has historically left many matters for state control and kept the Feds out of the State's business. FYI: Some of the standards with respect to LE being discussed today may fall into that category once they are crafted, published, and adopted by the Feds.....who can tie it to funding grants as a requirement, but may not be able to require them otherwise.
The "Supremacy Clause" has historically been applied to matters that are considered within the Federal jurisdiction, which admittedly has broadened over the years, but has limitations historically with the SCOTUS telling Congress "hands off"!
Example: When the firearm registration and background checks were imposed on Sheriff's and their departments .... and the Sheriff's pushed back .... so they weren't REQUIRED to do them, since Congress had no authority to do so. Sheriff's in Texas (and other states where elected) answer to the voters and not Congress .... they may do so as an accommodation, but that is distinctly different than a Congressional mandate.
Another example is the Federal mandate with respect to health insurance. Congress can't. So Congress imposed a "tax" if you don't, which was cheaper than paying premiums after ObaminableCare drove the premiums through the roof!
If you noticed Trump deferred to the State's (Governors) with respect to a lot of the Covid19 "requirements" as opposed to ordering the Governors to do shit. All Trump said is if they don't do this he would do that....that's not ordering them to do shit.
As for seat belts .... my observation is that unless the officer just wants a reason to do a traffic stop the "seat belt" law is rarely enforced as a moving traffic matter ... an inquiry is made after a collision and reported on the collision report for stats and an officer might add the offense to a citation to "pour it on," but ..... it's not enforced that much by itself.
Thanks for taking the time to write this. I guess my original question was irrelevant, since the states have Constitutions consistent with the Bill of Rights.
What's particularly interesting are your comments on how the federal government imposes its will on the states and localities, by restricting the money it sends their way or by creating a tax that gets around Constitutional restrictions.
I bitch, moan and complain a lot here about how much money the taxpayer sends to Washington and how little he gets in return. I conveniently ignore the money that the federal government sends back to the states. Anyway, it would good to see more of the power of the purse exercised at the state and local level. I wish Texas had more control over how its citizens are taxed and how the money is spent. Not only do I think we'd do a better job of managing the money than the feds, based on your discussion, the feds wouldn't have a sword hanging over our heads to force us to do what they want us to.
i do think tiny was postinig "satire" - and I have been reasonably accused of being too serious to see "Satire'.
You're catching on. Over the last few months you've done better at that than I have. There were a couple of gnadfly's posts that went right over my head.
What a couple of posters who think I'm a Commie Chinese sympathizer didn't catch onto was the SKS Type 56 reference. That was one of the preferred weapons of the People's Liberation Army.
Actually OEB, as I understand it, if you shoot a gun straight up in the air it probably won't injure anyone on the way down....
I do not see where it is physically possible to shoot "straight" up. That SKS is likely mighty old and cheaply built with stamped receiver if I recall correctly. Not to mention the youth sized stock. Having said that, they are somewhat durable.
What's particularly interesting are your comments on how the federal government imposes its will on the states and localities, by restricting the money it sends their way or by creating a tax that gets around Constitutional restrictions.
I bitch, moan and complain a lot here about how much money the taxpayer sends to Washington and how little he gets in return. I conveniently ignore the money that the federal government sends back to the states. Anyway, it would good to see more of the power of the purse exercised at the state and local level. I wish Texas had more control over how its citizens are taxed and how the money is spent. Not only do I think we'd do a better job of managing the money than the feds, based on your discussion, the feds wouldn't have a sword hanging over our heads to force us to do what they want us to.
I believe you have misinterpreted the focus of the Federal programs that provide funding to state and local governments (to their various agencies). IF a state and/or local agency wants to avail itself of grants/funding/loans for programs there are strings attached to qualify and continue to receive any funds from and through those programs.
The two worse projects domestically were the "Big Dig" in Boston and the "Big Levees" (I made that up!) in New Orleans ... and surrounding area. Both under the supervision and control of the Democrats and the supplemental Federal funding was secured through Democrats. NO ACCOUNTING was given for the millions that evaporated with nothing to show. That's what happens when there are no standards.
If you have ever been directly involved in applying for funding and completing the paper work with follow up reports to secure the PRIVILEGE of receiving Federal assistance, then you know the stringent requirements that are imposed to get and continue getting the money. "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly!"
To some it would seem better for the funds to remain with the State to administer programs for the State's own residents. The mobile and transient nature of our citizens creates an imbalance where the responsibility of one state for the citizens of another becomes an issue. In addition some programs are an attempt to equalize or level the resources of all the states to the same standards (or close to the same standards) when the activities in one state may affect a neighboring state.
Shit flows down hill! The down stream state benefits from a robust shit cleaning program upstream.
I believe you have misinterpreted the focus of the Federal programs that provide funding to state and local governments (to their various agencies). IF a state and/or local agency wants to avail itself of grants/funding/loans for programs there are strings attached to qualify and continue to receive any funds from and through those programs.
The two worse projects domestically were the "Big Dig" in Boston and the "Big Levees" (I made that up!) in New Orleans ... and surrounding area. Both under the supervision and control of the Democrats and the supplemental Federal funding was secured through Democrats. NO ACCOUNTING was given for the millions that evaporated with nothing to show. That's what happens when there are no standards.
If you have ever been directly involved in applying for funding and completing the paper work with follow up reports to secure the PRIVILEGE of receiving Federal assistance, then you know the stringent requirements that are imposed to get and continue getting the money. "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly!"
To some it would seem better for the funds to remain with the State to administer programs for the State's own residents. The mobile and transient nature of our citizens creates an imbalance where the responsibility of one state for the citizens of another becomes an issue. In addition some programs are an attempt to equalize or level the resources of all the states to the same standards (or close to the same standards) when the activities in one state may affect a neighboring state.
Shit flows down hill! The down stream state benefits from a robust shit cleaning program upstream.
I was thinking bigger picture -- Education Grants, Medicare, Medicaid, Universal Medical Care if you live in Vermont -- let the states levy the taxes and provide the benefits. Although yes, you're right, people moving from state to state throws a kink in this, and poorer states like Mississippi would be disadvantaged versus the status quo.
If you want proper accounting leave it to the people closest to where the money's being taxed and spent. When there's a school bond issue in my city, the voters pay a lot closer attention to what the money's going to be spent on and how the debt will be paid off than Washington would. Another example, we get grants from the federal government for things like public transportation and building a new airport that are largely wasted, on large buses no one rides and a terminal we didn't really need. If all the money came out of our pockets locally we'd spend it more efficiently.
LL - Thanks for a good read - Your comments above. .
Thank you.
I forgot one program right under my nose, but which had as its focus a benevolent purpose of providing work for vets returning from WWII who had decent drafting skills .... with arms and hands left to do the work.
....The Trinity River Canal Project by the Army Engineers. Drafting in the Corps Fort Worth facility.
I was thinking bigger picture -- Education Grants, Medicare, Medicaid, Universal Medical Care if you live in Vermont -- let the states levy the taxes and provide the benefits. Although yes, you're right, people moving from state to state throws a kink in this, and poorer states like Mississippi would be disadvantaged versus the status quo.
If you want proper accounting leave it to the people closest to where the money's being taxed and spent. When there's a school bond issue in my city, the voters pay a lot closer attention to what the money's going to be spent on and how the debt will be paid off than Washington would. Another example, we get grants from the federal government for things like public transportation and building a new airport that are largely wasted, on large buses no one rides and a terminal we didn't really need. If all the money came out of our pockets locally we'd spend it more efficiently.
"Big Picture"?
When local elections generate quality office holders rather than entertainers and popular personalities based on superficial characteristics, then the local taxpayers would feel the direct benefit of their coin .... but the same issues of mobility exist within each state and within the local political sector.
The average citizen out there who votes for a "bond issue" doesn't know jack about the details of the project(s) to be funded and don't spend the time to find out. Shifting the money to the locals wouldn't change that one bit. They still wouldn't keep track of the project or the expenditures, which are regularly published and available to review. Then those in the governmental entity look at the funds as being their money and they can spend it however they wish. Those are TRUST FUNDS!
Residents of Katy use Houston roads, but I suspect few Houstonites use Katy's roads. Residents of Harris County use Galveston County's roads and some Galveston County residents use Harris County roadways.
Houston PD doesn't do shit for me, but my office location paid Houston taxes .... as well as other political subdivisions.
Property values and incomes vary from one area of town to another, but the services and infrastructure serves all of them.
Why do people migrate to the suburbs?
BTW: Is "Medicare" administered by the States?
Airport? You know who controls Bush International? I mean REALLY CONTROLS. Determine which airline uses a major airport as their "hub" and that's who controls the facility. It's a cash cow for the city and augments the city's convention business and the cash that is generated by the business. If you want to know where the stealing happens audit those businesses .... the plastic payment system is thwarting some of that now, but those areas with international travel are flush with cash.
...if you wear a mask, the benefit is primarily for other people, not you, unless maybe it's an N95. ...
Do you not even understand the simple design dynamic of a N95 mask or even what it was created for? An infected person wearing one does, and I emphasize, NOT A DAMNED THING to prevent spreading any disease. Period(.) It don't stop jack-shit outbound. It has a bypass port(s) for exhale, i.e. not filtered. BTW: what ever it does happen to stop from exiting, due to port size restriction area - stays on your face and gets rebreathed continuously.
Disposable masks, like in hospitals, are designed for use in a sterile environment and are meant to be changed out frequently. Like every 20-60 minutes. They are not meant for long term use and definitely not meant for reuse or continued use. They are designed to stop unexpected 'big spray' emissions - from either direction and fit poorly on your face, i.e. tons of bypass areas, aka gaps.
Cloth masks are in essence, the worst of the worst of the worst - with honors. They retain moisture, prevent carbon dioxide from exiting, collect and hold contaminates and causes one to rebreath their own breath/germs/emissions as well as those from the other side of the mask. Mold is highly likely to develop within them as well.
The shortcomings in all three are accentuated with continuing "fiddling around" with the fit of the thing and disturbing the built up pestilence, not to mention continued removing/replacing of the same mask, while it is resting over the very places that are inlet portals for the disease.
Wear 'em if you want to. Just try to fathom what their design criteria was versus how you "feel" it achieves your objectives.
Two last thoughts for you to ponder:
How many 3-micron sized Corona Virus germs cause COVID?
Do you not even understand the simple design dynamic of a N95 mask or even what it was created for? An infected person wearing one does, and I emphasize, NOT A DAMNED THING to prevent spreading any disease. Period(.) It don't stop jack-shit outbound. It has a bypass port(s) for exhale, i.e. not filtered. BTW: what ever it does happen to stop from exiting, due to port size restriction area - stays on your face and gets rebreathed continuously.
Disposable masks, like in hospitals, are designed for use in a sterile environment and are meant to be changed out frequently. Like every 20-60 minutes. They are not meant for long term use and definitely not meant for reuse or continued use. They are designed to stop unexpected 'big spray' emissions - from either direction and fit poorly on your face, i.e. tons of bypass areas, aka gaps.
Cloth masks are in essence, the worst of the worst of the worst - with honors. They retain moisture, prevent carbon dioxide from exiting, collect and hold contaminates and causes one to rebreath their own breath/germs/emissions as well as those from the other side of the mask. Mold is highly likely to develop within them as well.
The shortcomings in all three are accentuated with continuing "fiddling around" with the fit of the thing and disturbing the built up pestilence, not to mention continued removing/replacing of the same mask, while it is resting over the very places that are inlet portals for the disease.
Wear 'em if you want to. Just try to fathom what their design criteria was versus how you "feel" it achieves your objectives.
Two last thoughts for you to ponder:
How many 3-micron sized Corona Virus germs cause COVID?
Does your mask stop less than that number?
Interesting, you're changing your story from they won't help prevent you from getting the disease to they won't help prevent other people from getting the disease from you. Yes indeed, an industrial N95 mask with an exhale valve obviously won't do as good a job of protecting others from Covid-19. Maybe it doesn't do anything for other people, hell if I know. I've seen these on a few people on television and a couple in the supermarket. The N95 masks I've got, which I bought years ago and mostly gave away, do not have valves and were made for medical use. As you say they're uncomfortable and hard to breath through. Instead I'm mostly using KN95 masks that are made out of a more fabric-like material and much easier to breath through, although not a lot of air passes around the edges. They must be more effective than cloth masks.
Is there anything wrong with using an industrial N95 mask with a valve? The politically correct among us would say yes, although I don't think so. It will protect the wearer to some extent. It's not going to increase the chance you'll transmit the disease to others, and might help.
Your other excuses for not wearing masks when appropriate are lame. Hospitals were reusing N95 masks when there was a shortage. You can wash cloth masks. If you use common sense and good hygiene you avoid a lot of the problems you bring up. Yeah the virus can pass through the pores of the mask, but droplets are less likely to be a problem. If you believe that you're likely to get the disease a single 3-micron virus you're probably wrong, but I don't know anything about that.
I don't see the point of arguing about this anymore. It's a moot point where I live anyways. People aren't going to wear masks or social distance or otherwise do jack shit to prevent the spread of this. It's making your and Oeb's prophecies about contact tracing come true. We're about to the point where there are so many cases you can't do that anymore. You won. The Texas economy and the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions lose.
