I recently cut out dairy from my diet. I don't know why really, I think I ate too much chocolate and cheese this holiday. But I feel great since cutting it out of my diet and I've noticed I'm getting more cut definition too. I don't really have a scientific explination, just what I've observed for myself.
Tuesday
JoinedPosts by Tuesday
-
49
Changing your diet - meat, dairy, sugar
by Pleasuredome ini have just finished reading 'confessions of a kamikaze cowboy' by dirk benedict.
in the book he talks about how 'macrobiotics' (exclusion of meat, sugar, dairy among others) helped improve his health and fight cancer.
a lot of what he says about food resonates with me, so im curious.
-
-
-
13
Am I right here, or just Sarcastic...
by Tuesday inso my mom might be having an operation shortly, so i asked her about the blood card.
i said that since i was the closest relative that would at least understand her beliefs and follow them (no other relative in the area would allow her to not take blood) i said that i understood there was a new blood card with the various incraments and particles of blood that will be allowed.
she said there was and she had the card filled out, which i took a look at it and everything was checked off.
-
-
Tuesday
If, you add water to all those blood fractions you have for all purposes reconstituted human blood
That's basically the answer I was hoping to get, to me it seemed like all you needed to do to the "parts" of the blood accepted was add water. Like saying I don't drink Kool-Aid but I'll eat Lick-Em-Aid (even though most of us just ate the stick LOL) and drink water. Alrighty, at least I can't be disproven :)
-
13
Am I right here, or just Sarcastic...
by Tuesday inso my mom might be having an operation shortly, so i asked her about the blood card.
i said that since i was the closest relative that would at least understand her beliefs and follow them (no other relative in the area would allow her to not take blood) i said that i understood there was a new blood card with the various incraments and particles of blood that will be allowed.
she said there was and she had the card filled out, which i took a look at it and everything was checked off.
-
-
Tuesday
So my mom might be having an operation shortly, so I asked her about the blood card. I said that since I was the closest relative that would at least understand her beliefs and follow them (no other relative in the area would allow her to not take blood) I said that I understood there was a new blood card with the various incraments and particles of blood that will be allowed. She said there was and she had the card filled out, which I took a look at it and everything was checked off. She would all pretty much all the incraments of blood except for the use of straight blood.
After looking at it I said to her "Well it doesn't look like it would matter any way because you're OK with getting a blood transfusion." She denied it, I said "Mom, our bodies are made of 90% water, and if you add water to these portions of the blood you get blood. You're basically getting all of the stuff you need from the blood without the water, which you would be getting from your IV anyway." She didn't believe me, and I told her to do the research.
Am I right on this, or was I just being a smart ass? I'm fairly sure I'm correct on this, but I'm wondering if any other experts might have more information for me here. If I'm wrong I'll hear about it LOL.
Thanks guys....
-
28
Applicants line up to fill jobs left empty by Swift plant raid
by Bryan inalong with the economy topic this morning, i thought this was very ineresting,.
illeagan alians were arrested (about 1,400) from a meet packing company (several states).
americans are lining up for the jobs.
-
-
Tuesday
The scary part is many of those SS numbers are stolen. Could it be yours?
Wow, if an illegal immigrant is using my social security number that would make me just want to get a random credit card and max it out buying stuff, then I'll just blame it on identity theft. Merry Christmas to me
-
53
Did You Ever REALLY Love "Jehovah God"?
by minimus inlooking back, honestly, do you think you ever really loved jehovah??
?
-
-
Tuesday
I don't think so really. I guess I tried in that I prayed but as with everyone I prayed for stuff that I needed, things I needed help with. But I never got help with them, and I never got anything that I needed that I prayed for. I used to always argue with my mother about this point, they would say "Do not put Jehovah God to the test", which meant that for instance if something came up and I didn't have any time to study for a test and I prayed to God to help me pass it, then I failed it that would be completely reasonable that he didn't answer my prayer because I didn't study and I didn't do the work to get the result. But if I studied for a test then prayed to pass it, he would probably answer my prayer then. To which I thought that was just a cop out because if I studied for the test how do I know that Jehovah helped me remember the answers and not just the fact that I studied for the test? It didn't make sense to me, especially for me when if I prayed without studying I usually failed and if I prayed with studying more than likely I would fail as well.
Whenever someone asks me the way I feel about God it's always the same answer, I quote Bartleby from Dogma "At some point he just stopped listening, I was still talking but I got the distinct impression that he wasn't listening." That was pretty early for me, 5 years old I can actively remember praying for things and getting no help whatsoever from God.
-
19
What is your opinion, do we talk to Iran and Syria or Not?
by restrangled indo you find that the president is still out in left field after today's news conference with blair and himself?
i can't believe after what they have been handed they continue to exact rules before they sit down and talk to everyone in the region.. what happened to "keep your friends close but your enemies closer?
" something has to change and it isn't just troop levels.
-
-
Tuesday
I don't think that talks would hurt. Seeing that the only police in that country right now is the American army it may behoov their countries to try and quell the insurrection in Iraq because it could spill over to their country. Diplomacy is always a good idea.
-
45
Should Bush and Cheney be Impeached?
by frankiespeakin inshould they be impeached for the iraq war?
if you google the words impeach, bush, and cheney, you will get about 1,600,000 hits.
even on the radio there is talk about the need to start the impeachment process.
-
-
Tuesday
Roy,
Frankiesspeakin already beat me to the Impeachable Offense with the original article we're posting about, however if you need more proof check out www.impeachbush.org for more, or www.notinourname.org
As for the President not doing a "line item veto" like a Govenor does, because I'm so wrong I just thought I'd post a quick rebuttal from the New York Times....
Legal Group Says Bush Undermines Law by Ignoring Select Parts of Bills
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: July 24, 2006
WASHINGTON, July 23 — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed.Also in the Guide The Race for the U.S. House Governors' Races In a comprehensive report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Mr. Bush had used such “signing statements” far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.
These broad assertions of presidential power amount to a “line-item veto” and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto, the panel said.
In signing a statutory ban on torture and other national security laws, Mr. Bush reserved the right to disregard them.
The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in this way was “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.” From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a president “must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto.”
If the president deems a bill unconstitutional, he can veto it, the panel said, but “signing statements should not be a substitute for a presidential veto.”
The panel’s report adds momentum to a campaign by scholars and members of Congress who want to curtail the use of signing statements as a device to augment presidential power.
At a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the chairman, Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Bush seemed to think he could “cherry-pick the provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn’t like.” Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee, said the signing statements were “a diabolical device” to rewrite laws enacted by Congress.
Justice Department officials dismiss such criticism as unjustified. “President Bush’s signing statements are indistinguishable from those issued by past presidents,” said Michelle E. Boardman, a deputy assistant attorney general. “He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate way.”
Michael S. Greco, the president of the bar association, who created the study panel, said its report highlighted a “threat to the Constitution and to the rule of law.”
At its annual meeting next month, in Hawaii, the association will consider several policy recommendations, including a proposal for judicial review of signing statements.
The panel said, “Our recommendations are not intended to be, and should not be viewed as, an attack on President Bush.” The panel said it was equally concerned about the precedents being set for future chief executives.
The panel acknowledged that earlier presidents, including Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, had occasionally asserted the right to disregard provisions of a law to which they objected. Under Bill Clinton, the Justice Department told the White House that the president could “decline to execute unconstitutional statutes.”
But the panel said that Mr. Bush had expressed his objections more forcefully, more often and more systematically, “as a strategic weapon” to influence federal agencies and judges.
In his first term, the panel said, Mr. Bush raised 505 constitutional objections to new laws. On 82 occasions, he asserted that he alone could supervise, direct and control the operations of the executive branch, under a doctrine known as the “unitary executive.”
Whenever Congress directs the president to furnish information, Mr. Bush reserves the right to withhold it. When Congress imposes mandates and requirements on the executive branch, the president often says he will read them as advisory or “precatory.”
When Congress tries to define foreign policy — for example, on Russia, Syria, North Korea or Sudan — Mr. Bush objects. Even if he agrees with the policy, he asserts that the Congressional directives “impermissibly interfere with the president’s constitutional authority” to conduct foreign affairs.
Whenever Congress prescribes qualifications for presidential appointees, Mr. Bush complains that this is an intrusion on his power, even if Congress merely requires that the appointee know about the field for which he will be responsible.
When Congress requires outreach or affirmative action for women or members of certain racial or ethnic groups, the president demurs, saying such provisions must be carried out “in a manner consistent with the requirements of equal protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.”
The panel said Mr. Bush’s signing statements often used the same formulaic language, with “no citation of authority or detailed explanation.” It urged Congress to pass a law requiring the president to “set forth in full the reasons and legal basis” for any signing statement in which he says he can disregard or decline to enforce a statute.
In another recommendation, the panel suggested legislation to provide for judicial review of signing statements. It acknowledged that the Supreme Court had been reluctant to hear cases filed by members of Congress because lawmakers generally did not suffer the type of concrete personal injury needed to create a “case or controversy.” But the panel said that “Congress as an institution or its agents” should have standing to sue when the president announces he will not enforce parts of a law.
The issue has deep historical roots, the panel said, noting that Parliament had condemned King James II for nonenforcement of certain laws in the 17th century. The panel quoted the English Bill of Rights: “The pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of Parliament, is illegal.”
The panel was headed by Neal R. Sonnett, a criminal defense lawyer in Miami. Members include former Representative Mickey Edwards, Republican of Oklahoma; Bruce E. Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration; Harold Hongju Koh, the dean of Yale Law School; William S. Sessions, a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Kathleen M. Sullivan, a former dean of Stanford Law School; and Patricia M. Wald, former chief judge of a federal appeals court.
-
45
Should Bush and Cheney be Impeached?
by frankiespeakin inshould they be impeached for the iraq war?
if you google the words impeach, bush, and cheney, you will get about 1,600,000 hits.
even on the radio there is talk about the need to start the impeachment process.
-
-
Tuesday
I don't know if I'd be the best person for this because I'm a bit biased, I've been clamoring for Impeachment since the start of the Iraq war. But given with more and more evidence coming forth everyday I'd say impeachment is a viable option. I don't think we'll see it until the vetoes start coming from the President. Though I have read that Bush is the only president that will pass part of a legislation and just ignore the parts he doesn't agree with, which may be his way out of Impeachment. Either way, I think he certainly has more that given enough crimes to Impeach upon, whether he will or not is up to the Democratic Senate. It should be an interesting couple of years starting in January.
-
18
A question for Atheists
by Sam87 injust a quick question to the atheists on this board, i was just wondering if any of you have had any supernatural experiences?
for example the same thing that we wouldve called demons as jws?
if so has this changed your views on atheism?
-
-
Tuesday
I had an expirience where I saw what I thought were ghosts, it's a long story which I'm sure I've told on the board before....
It did change my view, I would've considered myself an aetheist before but now I guess I would be agnostic, I know there's an afterlife at this point, and there's probably a God, but if there is a God I know he doesn't listen to me. Like Bartleby said in Dogma "I was still talking, but I got the distict distinction he wasn't listening".
-
14
I Want To Collect Kingdom Melodies!
by Nosferatu incould someone please tell me how many different versions of the kingdom melodies are out there?
i'm only aware of the piano recordings and the orchestra crap.
what other arrangements (box sets) has the wts released?.
-
-
Tuesday
Bah, damn that high note. My congregation was widely known throughout the state as singing INCREDIBLY loudly. The CO would always comment about it, then we'd go to seldom worked territory and all of our people would be practically screaming the song in comparison. It was crazy. Does just the idea of forcing singing of songs seem strange to anyone else, I mean really I thought singing and playing of music was something done personally to worship.
I'd love to hear your stuff though, We'll have to switch our stuff soon.