Could I survive on making just $12/hr, yeah. It would mean not having "date night" with my wife every friday. It would mean eating at home alot more than I do now. It would mean pinching some pennies, but it would be do-able.
:-| holy crap the cost of living in Kansas must be cheap
I spent 6 years as an undergraduate, I learned to live cheaply.This assumes your wife isn't working either, and throw a newborn in the mix.Could I survive on making just $12/hr, yeah. It would mean not having "date night" with my wife every friday. It would mean eating at home alot more than I do now. It would mean pinching some pennies, but it would be do-able.That depends on geographical locations, I suppose. For some of us (including myself), $12/hour isn't enough. Is it for you?Is that the issue, it is too hard not to live the high life? Sorry, there are lots of people that would love to be making $12/hr and they haven't been to prison at all. Sounds a bit like sour grapes to me.What are you pulling down, like $21,000 a year before taxes? That ain't bad.$21k before taxes versus $40k a week doesn't even compare...I really thought he was joking.
Wow.
I'm right there with you, but with most necessities getting costlier every day there is a limit to how little one can live on as the sole bread winner.
I find it to be a dubious practice to judge what others can live on based on my experience.
|
If it were just me, living alone, $12 an hour would have been "eh" but doable. But, considering my expenses, I had about -$100 a month after groceries, gas, rent, insurance, utilities.
I'm just saying, with my work experience, it would be nice if I could get a job at the level I can perform, instead of having to take crap jobs.
And, pres man, all those people in my situation without the conviction? Why are they in my situation? Minus the conviction, I would have landed the $90k a year job at a chemical plant doing sales and distribution on SAP I applied for when I was released.
What's their excuse?
Hmmm, just to check the math: HD, you've spent about half the time I've known you looking for new jobs after they "right to work" you out of work. Let's assume pres man's assumption of 40-hour weeks while you ARE working is correct (I know of a number of occasions when managers weren't giving you that many, but let's assume there were some longer weeks to make up for it, and it comes out in the wash). That's $12/hour (max) * 40 hours/week * 26 weeks/year < $12,500, maximum, to feed, clothe, house, and cover medical expendes for three (3) people.
Pres man, can a family of three live for less than $12,500 a year in Kansas? Bear in mind that the federally-indexed poverty level for a family of 3 is $16,079.
|
|
Hmmm, just to check the math: HD, you've spent about half the time I've known you looking for new jobs after they "right to work" you out of work. Let's assume pres man's assumption of 40-hour weeks while you ARE working is correct (I know of a number of occasions when managers weren't giving you that many, but let's assume there were some longer weeks to make up for it, and it comes out in the wash). That's $12/hour (max) * 40 hours/week * 26 weeks/year < $12,500, maximum, to feed, clothe, house, and cover medical expendes for three (3) people. Pres man, can a family of three live for less than $12,500 a year in Kansas?
It ain't easy out here for a pimp...
Hmmm, just to check the math: HD, you've spent about half the time I've known you looking for new jobs after they "right to work" you out of work. Let's assume pres man's assumption of 40-hour weeks while you ARE working is correct (I know of a number of occasions when managers weren't giving you that many, but let's assume there were some longer weeks to make up for it, and it comes out in the wash). That's $12/hour (max) * 40 hours/week * 26 weeks/year < $12,500, maximum, to feed, clothe, house, and cover medical expendes for three (3) people.
Pres man, can a family of three live for less than $12,500 a year in Kansas? Bear in mind that the federally-indexed poverty level for a family of 3 is $16,079.
So that means that they would probably qualify for food stamps. Also why isn't the wife working at least part time when the husband is not, so that they don't have to pay child care? In today's economy it really isn't possible for most families to be a single income house-hold. In a situation where the main breadwinner is out of work 50% of the time, it becomes ludicrious(sp?).
Also, to be clear, my assumption that I posted was a 35-hour work week with 50 weeks (2 weeks of unpaid vacation). You'll see that works out for $12/hr to be $21,000 per year, which 40 hours a week for a 52 week year is $24,960 before tax.
|
Hmmm, just to check the math: HD, you've spent about half the time I've known you looking for new jobs after they "right to work" you out of work. Let's assume pres man's assumption of 40-hour weeks while you ARE working is correct (I know of a number of occasions when managers weren't giving you that many, but let's assume there were some longer weeks to make up for it, and it comes out in the wash). That's $12/hour (max) * 40 hours/week * 26 weeks/year < $12,500, maximum, to feed, clothe, house, and cover medical expendes for three (3) people.
Pres man, can a family of three live for less than $12,500 a year in Kansas? Bear in mind that the federally-indexed poverty level for a family of 3 is $16,079.
So that means that they would probably qualify for food stamps. Also why isn't the wife working at least part time when the husband is not, so that they don't have to pay child care? In today's economy it really isn't possible for most families to be a single income house-hold. In a situation where the main breadwinner is out of work 50% of the time, it becomes ludicrious(sp?).
Also, to be clear, my assumption that I posted was a 35-hour work week with 50 weeks (2 weeks of unpaid vacation). You'll see that works out for $12/hr to be $21,000 per year, which 40 hours a week for a 52 week year is $24,960 before tax.
This isn't the point. Who cares if he can in theory survive on a crap wage? The point is that on top of doing his time and supposedly paying his debt to society for a "crime" he now has his ability to work at a job he is qualified for severely hampered, forcing him to try to survive with poverty-level earning 10 years after his sentencing. Is that justice?
Hmmm, just to check the math: HD, you've spent about half the time I've known you looking for new jobs after they "right to work" you out of work. Let's assume pres man's assumption of 40-hour weeks while you ARE working is correct (I know of a number of occasions when managers weren't giving you that many, but let's assume there were some longer weeks to make up for it, and it comes out in the wash). That's $12/hour (max) * 40 hours/week * 26 weeks/year < $12,500, maximum, to feed, clothe, house, and cover medical expendes for three (3) people.
Pres man, can a family of three live for less than $12,500 a year in Kansas? Bear in mind that the federally-indexed poverty level for a family of 3 is $16,079.
So that means that they would probably qualify for food stamps. Also why isn't the wife working at least part time when the husband is not, so that they don't have to pay child care? In today's economy it really isn't possible for most families to be a single income house-hold. In a situation where the main breadwinner is out of work 50% of the time, it becomes ludicrious(sp?).
Also, to be clear, my assumption that I posted was a 35-hour work week with 50 weeks (2 weeks of unpaid vacation). You'll see that works out for $12/hr to be $21,000 per year, which 40 hours a week for a 52 week year is $24,960 before tax.
I'm not sure anyone mentioned child care here yet besides you.
But on that topic, one example from some friends of mine when they lived in Washington D.C. He was working a full time job (long hours). His wife could work full time, in which case they would need to pay for child care. If she didn't work, she could take care of the baby. The cost of child care almost exactly equaled her salary, so it was a wash. She could work or not, and they would still have to depend on his salary for food, clothing, rent, etc.
Child care is not cheap, and I don't envy a couple each faced with having to work one or more part time jobs while trying to care for a baby themselves. There's no way that that is easy.
There are too many posts for me to read, with that I am sorry if I am repeating what has already been said.
I am in favor of this legislation for a few reasons. Marijuana is one of if not the largest cash crop in California. With that if the government put a tax on it, it would help their economy. Some points that I like about this proposition is that at least for age is that it is treated similar to alcohol with the age requirement is 21 to possess and use. Also it would be illeagal to drive under the influence of it.
As a personal oppinion if I did the stuff I would rather go to the local gas station and pick up a joint when it would be regulated by the government instead of some street corner where I would/could be jumped for unkown quality.
and that is just my 2cp
-Woodraven
Hmmm, just to check the math: HD, you've spent about half the time I've known you looking for new jobs after they "right to work" you out of work. Let's assume pres man's assumption of 40-hour weeks while you ARE working is correct (I know of a number of occasions when managers weren't giving you that many, but let's assume there were some longer weeks to make up for it, and it comes out in the wash). That's $12/hour (max) * 40 hours/week * 26 weeks/year < $12,500, maximum, to feed, clothe, house, and cover medical expendes for three (3) people.
Pres man, can a family of three live for less than $12,500 a year in Kansas? Bear in mind that the federally-indexed poverty level for a family of 3 is $16,079.
So that means that they would probably qualify for food stamps. Also why isn't the wife working at least part time when the husband is not, so that they don't have to pay child care? In today's economy it really isn't possible for most families to be a single income house-hold. In a situation where the main breadwinner is out of work 50% of the time, it becomes ludicrious(sp?).
Also, to be clear, my assumption that I posted was a 35-hour work week with 50 weeks (2 weeks of unpaid vacation). You'll see that works out for $12/hr to be $21,000 per year, which 40 hours a week for a 52 week year is $24,960 before tax.
C'mon! They just had the baby like this week, man!!
There was a thread and everything!
This isn't the point. Who cares if he can in theory survive on a crap wage? The point is that on top of doing his time and supposedly paying his debt to society for a "crime" he now has his ability to work at a job he is qualified for severely hampered, forcing him to try to survive with poverty-level earning 10 years after his sentencing. Is that justice?
I honestly don't know. What is the answer? To force companies to hire cons? If someone has proven they are quite willing to put their desire for money above ethics, would you really want them working for your business? Also, 10 years after the sentencing, how long after the end of the prison term though?
Here's the thing, someone who has been convicted for something like selling drugs has broken the public's trust. That is not easy to get back. It takes a long time of walking the straight and narrow. It requires a lot of ass-kissing and begging for a chance to prove oneself. It requires working those jobs that nobody wants to do, to prove that you can hold a legitmate job and not resort to illegal means.
Is it fair? Is it just? I don't know. To some it is, to some it isn't. But I do know that its a hell of lot easier to not get into trouble in the first place. That is really what people should be walking away from this with. Do I want to have to go through that crap, even after prison? Hell no. Is that 5 minute high really worth it?
C'mon! They just had the baby like this week, man!!
There was a thread and everything!
Sorry, the way the posts were reading was this was an ongoing difficulty, not a recent one.
I don't read the threads about people's personal lives usually, since I don't know them and so honestly don't really care.
I am in favour of legal marijuana, lsd, dmt, psilocybin, peyote, and mescaline, and any other psychedelics that do not release neurotransmitters.
MDMA should be decriminalised, and the dissociatives and deliriants should be studied further, but their use should be controlled.
Make it illegal to operate a vehicle while exploring.
Opiates should be decriminalised and destigmatised, so the addicts can be helped, and do not need to operate outside the law. If they can hold down a job, get medical help, and feel included in their community, they can produce and provide.
This isn't the point. Who cares if he can in theory survive on a crap wage? The point is that on top of doing his time and supposedly paying his debt to society for a "crime" he now has his ability to work at a job he is qualified for severely hampered, forcing him to try to survive with poverty-level earning 10 years after his sentencing. Is that justice?I honestly don't know. What is the answer? To force companies to hire cons? If someone has proven they are quite willing to put their desire for money above ethics, would you really want them working for your business? Also, 10 years after the sentencing, how long after the end of the prison term though?
Here's the thing, someone who has been convicted for something like selling drugs has broken the public's trust. That is not easy to get back. It takes a long time of walking the straight and narrow. It requires a lot of ass-kissing and begging for a chance to prove oneself. It requires working those jobs that nobody wants to do, to prove that you can hold a legitmate job and not resort to illegal means.
Is it fair? Is it just? I don't know. To some it is, to some it isn't. But I do know that its a hell of lot easier to not get into trouble in the first place. That is really what people should be walking away from this with. Do I want to have to go through that crap, even after prison? Hell no. Is that 5 minute high really worth it?
C'mon! They just had the baby like this week, man!!
There was a thread and everything!
Sorry, the way the posts were reading was this was an ongoing difficulty, not a recent one.
I don't read the threads about people's personal lives usually, since I don't know them and so honestly don't really care.
It's not really fair for me to assume you saw the thread here on OTD.
|
|
This isn't the point. Who cares if he can in theory survive on a crap wage? The point is that on top of doing his time and supposedly paying his debt to society for a "crime" he now has his ability to work at a job he is qualified for severely hampered, forcing him to try to survive with poverty-level earning 10 years after his sentencing. Is that justice?I honestly don't know. What is the answer? To force companies to hire cons? If someone has proven they are quite willing to put their desire for money above ethics, would you really want them working for your business? Also, 10 years after the sentencing, how long after the end of the prison term though?
Here's the thing, someone who has been convicted for something like selling drugs has broken the public's trust.
Ethics? Have you ever met a cop? I couldn't tell you how many times I was shaken down or straight up robbed by cops.
As far as the "public trust" is concerned, well, I hate to break it to you, but that "public" were my customers. Aside from my wholesale and transporting activities, I had a very "boutique" personal user clientele. Lawyers, doctors, businessmen, professors, pretty much anyone who liked to enjoy a little consciousness expanding on the weekends and didn't want to deal with the "criminal" element. I think it is sad that people buy the government lie about the number of drug users there are in America. The drug industry just in America is a hundred billion dollar a year enterprise. Three million hard core junkies aren't driving the trade, it's the fifty to a hundred million casual users who do.
I was caught with (retail) $5 million worth of product. And I was small potatoes. The same time I was arrested, a ship in the Houston Ship Channel was busted with (seriously) a thousand times the weight I had. And that's just the one ship they caught.
The Drug War is over. The government lost. They're just too addicted to the money to realize it.
Here's the thing, someone who has been convicted for something like selling drugs has broken the public's trust.
So you're advocating making ALL sentences life sentences? Because if you take away a person's ability to support him or herself when he/she gets out, what the hell else are they supposed to do? "Sorry, we can't trust you ever again, old chap, don't you know? So we can't as a society allow you to hold down a steady job again -- ever. No matter who wants to hire you, and no matter how long you stay on the straight and narrow -- makes no difference, because if we let you earn a living, that would be nothing but a "pity party," and we all know that no one ever deserves a second chance, no matter how clearly they demonstrate a willingness to reform."
No one is advocating that people be forced to hire ex-cons. We are advocating that if they do hire one, and find that the person is doing a good job and want to keep him on, that they not be required to fire him anyway -- which is currently the case.
I don't read the threads about people's personal lives usually, since I don't know them and so honestly don't really care.
Yeah, well I do know houstonderek. Level of trust is irrelevant; the point is that I talk to him in person, see what he's trying to do, and understand that it's people like you -- people who don't know him and so don't care -- who vote into effect everything preventing him from doing exactly what you're telling him he's supposed to do.
I remember when my daughter was born. Suddenly I was working 3 jobs for crap wages and sleeping 4 hours a night.
Those were the days.
Here's the thing, someone who has been convicted for something like selling drugs has broken the public's trust.So you're advocating making ALL sentences life sentences? Because if you take away a person's ability to support him or herself when he/she gets out, what the hell else are they supposed to do? "Sorry, we can't trust you ever again, old chap, don't you know? So we can't as a society allow you to hold down a steady job again -- ever. No matter who wants to hire you, and no matter how long you stay on the straight and narrow -- makes no difference, because if we let you earn a living, that would be nothing but a "pity party," and we all know that no one ever deserves a second chance, no matter how clearly they demonstrate a willingness to reform."
I don't believe I said anything about never being trusted again. I believe I said the person is going to have to work long and hard at gaining that trust again. Please don't project views on me that are not mine.
Please don't project views on me that are not mine.
Isn't that what the internetz r 4?
|
I don't believe I said anything about never being trusted again. I believe I said the person is going to have to work long and hard at gaining that trust again. Please don't project views on me that are not mine.Here's the thing, someone who has been convicted for something like selling drugs has broken the public's trust.So you're advocating making ALL sentences life sentences? Because if you take away a person's ability to support him or herself when he/she gets out, what the hell else are they supposed to do? "Sorry, we can't trust you ever again, old chap, don't you know? So we can't as a society allow you to hold down a steady job again -- ever. No matter who wants to hire you, and no matter how long you stay on the straight and narrow -- makes no difference, because if we let you earn a living, that would be nothing but a "pity party," and we all know that no one ever deserves a second chance, no matter how clearly they demonstrate a willingness to reform."
So what about the concept of "having paid one's debt to society"? That is what jail time is supposed to be: a punishment the government has determined to be equivalent to the level of the crime committed. Now, I don't for a second believe this to be the case. The fact that those imprisoned for violent crimes on average spend less time in prison than those in prison for drug charges is clear proof of that. HOWEVER, as drug offenders have been getting sentenced to longer jail terms than violent criminals, and the nature of their crimes are not violent, why would you advocate for those who have served their time for non-violent offenses be treated as second class citizens?
Additionally, with the increase in the prison population over the last 20+ years, due in no small part to the "war on drugs", there is a decent chance you know someone who is an ex-con, whether you know it or not. As of 2003, the US had the HIGHEST per capita prison population in the world (at 715 per 100,000. The number of adults arrested for drug related charges has grown from ~322k in 1970 to over 1.6 million in 2007. And this is occurring while violent and property crimes have been on the decline, which would indicate those arrested and sentenced on drug charges are increasingly incarcerated for the drug charge and not other charges in addition to the drug charge. These folks are not violent and dangerous criminals, they are those who operated outside the law, either as a business or as a lifestyle, and got caught doing wrong. And yet they are sentenced to harsher sentences than those imposed upon folks who have assaulted, raped or even killed someone.
...why would you advocate for those who have served their time for non-violent offenses be treated as second class citizens?
I'm not advocating for that, I am saying it is understandable that it happens. It is human nature.
Personally, I was surprised that the owner would let Derek go just because of a record, if he had already proven himself enough to be put into a position where he was firing other employees for stealing. Most people rather have a dependable worker more than a worry about their past, because in the end it is all about making the business work. Unless of course there was an issue with the image of the business, then I could see it (that doesn't mean I agree with it).
|
|
It seems perverse to me that these people lose the right to vote about repealing the laws that cost them the right to vote.But for good or bad, the law is there...
If you break that law (even an unjust law), you pay the consequences!
Laws are not moral codes we pick and choose to live by...
I feel no pity for those that lose their right to do something because they willingly broke a law simply because they thought it was unjust and not worthy to be obeyed...
Yeah hang george washington and benjamin franklin! they broke the law, they should get what they deserve even posthumously! :P Just saying :D
It's getting hard to figure out who the original poster is in all the re-quoting.
Granted, they were fighting something far more unjust than a drug ban, but I remember my history teacher telling me about a couple of guys named King and Gandhi who made a habit out of breaking unjust laws......But for good or bad, the law is there...
If you break that law (even an unjust law), you pay the consequences!
Laws are not moral codes we pick and choose to live by...
I feel no pity for those that lose their right to do something because they willingly broke a law simply because they thought it was unjust and not worthy to be obeyed...
And we should not feel pitty for them suffering the consequences of those actions, but instead feel pride that they were willing to do those actions in spite of the consequences.
Going back to the bit about Washington and Franklin, how many brits do you think did or do feel any pity for Nathan Hale (of "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." fame) and his hanging as a traitor, which technically he was. Those people knew the consequences of their decisions and still chose to do them. Again, I don't feel any pity for Hale either, I feel pride, that he was willing to do what he did knowing the possible consequences of those actions.
The Drug War is over. The government lost. They're just too addicted to the money to realize it.
QFT
|
|
It's getting hard to figure out who the original poster is in all the re-quoting.
Granted, they were fighting something far more unjust than a drug ban, but I remember my history teacher telling me about a couple of guys named King and Gandhi who made a habit out of breaking unjust laws......But for good or bad, the law is there...
If you break that law (even an unjust law), you pay the consequences!
Laws are not moral codes we pick and choose to live by...
I feel no pity for those that lose their right to do something because they willingly broke a law simply because they thought it was unjust and not worthy to be obeyed...
And we should not feel pitty for them suffering the consequences of those actions, but instead feel pride that they were willing to do those actions in spite of the consequences.
Going back to the bit about Washington and Franklin, how many brits do you think did or do feel any pity for Nathan Hale (of "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." fame) and his hanging as a traitor, which technically he was. Those people knew the consequences of their decisions and still chose to do them. Again, I don't feel any pity for Hale either, I feel pride, that he was willing to do what he did knowing the possible consequences of those actions.
I disagree, I feel we should feel pride that they went through it and pity that they had to go through it. The two aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
Yup, tokers can hold down jobs. Heck some of them may even be in congress right now. :D
Yup, tokers can hold down jobs. Heck some of them may even be in congress right now. :D
That's just embarrassing, especially if you voted for the guy.
Yup, tokers can hold down jobs. Heck some of them may even be in congress right now. :D
I think it's worth noting that our current and last president were coke heads, and our last 3 presidents were known drug users.
The war on drugs has been lost for a long time.
We live in a society where we fail to prosecute child rapists, and cops steal drugs from dealers to sell to high school kids or to trade for sex with minors. Our kids know that their teachers and cops buy, sell and use drugs illegally, and we wonder why they hold the law in contempt.
We keep laws on the books that we know over 100,000,000 people have violated. I guess they broke the public's trust. Should they all be in the system?
The war on drugs is a joke that breeds contempt for our corrupt legal system. At some point we have to act like rational adults and make laws that make some sense. If legislators won't do it we have the ballot initiative process in many states.
I think it's worth noting that our current and last president were coke heads, and our last 3 presidents were known drug users.The war on drugs has been lost for a long time.
We live in a society where we fail to prosecute child rapists, and cops steal drugs from dealers to sell to high school kids or to trade for sex with minors. Our kids know that their teachers and cops buy, sell and use drugs illegally, and we wonder why they hold the law in contempt.
We keep laws on the books that we know over 100,000,000 people have violated. I guess they broke the public's trust. Should they all be in the system?
The war on drugs is a joke that breeds contempt for our corrupt legal system. At some point we have to act like rational adults and make laws that make some sense. If legislators won't do it we have the ballot initiative process in many states.
Ah, the "moral decay" meme. I was wondering when that might show up...
We live in a society where we fail to prosecute child rapists, and cops steal drugs from dealers to sell to high school kids or to trade for sex with minors. Our kids know that their teachers and cops buy, sell and use drugs illegally, and we wonder why they hold the law in contempt.
Just to be clear, you're of course not saying all cops or teachers act that way, or even most do, just some.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
We live in a society where we fail to prosecute child rapists, and cops steal drugs from dealers to sell to high school kids or to trade for sex with minors. Our kids know that their teachers and cops buy, sell and use drugs illegally, and we wonder why they hold the law in contempt.Just to be clear, you're of course not saying all cops or teachers act that way, or even most do, just some.
Obviously, all cops and teachers act that way. No one disputes that.
Obviously, all cops and teachers act that way. No one disputes that.We live in a society where we fail to prosecute child rapists, and cops steal drugs from dealers to sell to high school kids or to trade for sex with minors. Our kids know that their teachers and cops buy, sell and use drugs illegally, and we wonder why they hold the law in contempt.Just to be clear, you're of course not saying all cops or teachers act that way, or even most do, just some.
My ex is a 3rd grade teacher. She sells blow out of her classroom, sells herself to corrupt police, and finally passes STDs to her students.*
WHY DOESN'T SHE DENY IT? I'm just asking as concerned citizen...
*Some minor details may have been exaggerated.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
My ex is a 3rd grade teacher. She sells blow out of her classroom, sells herself to corrupt police, and finally passes STDs to her students.*
There's a guy in my gaming group who is a cop. He regularly shoots people who walk by our game, takes their money, and uses it to buy drugs. Really, there's no difference between the cops and the criminals, and all laws are entirely irrelevant. Everyone should break the law whenever it is convenient to do so.
[packs up a box of Timbits and slaps on a FOP sticker on the back window before taking out his car to speed along the interstate playing a Sammy Hagar song.]
It wasn't until last year that I had the experience of Timbits. Truthfully, I don't see how they're any different from any other type of donuts with regard to taste/quality. Maybe it's because I don't eat them so much.
That said, I could sure go for a blueberry jelly filled donut right about now. <licks lips>
|
|
Obviously, all cops and teachers act that way. No one disputes that.We live in a society where we fail to prosecute child rapists, and cops steal drugs from dealers to sell to high school kids or to trade for sex with minors. Our kids know that their teachers and cops buy, sell and use drugs illegally, and we wonder why they hold the law in contempt.Just to be clear, you're of course not saying all cops or teachers act that way, or even most do, just some.My ex is a 3rd grade teacher. She sells blow out of her classroom, sells herself to corrupt police, and finally passes STDs to her students.*
WHY DOESN'T SHE DENY IT? I'm just asking as concerned citizen...
*Some minor details may have been exaggerated.
Sounds understated from here. I think you're holding back the juicy bits out of respect...
|
|
It wasn't until last year that I had the experience of Timbits. Truthfully, I don't see how they're any different from any other type of donuts with regard to taste/quality. Maybe it's because I don't eat them so much.
That said, I could sure go for a blueberry jelly filled donut right about now. <licks lips>
Obviously donuts have warped your consciousness and inflicted you with unnatural, overwhelming cravings.
They should be outlawed.
Sounds understated from here. I think you're holding back the juicy bits out of respect...Obviously, all cops and teachers act that way. No one disputes that.We live in a society where we fail to prosecute child rapists, and cops steal drugs from dealers to sell to high school kids or to trade for sex with minors. Our kids know that their teachers and cops buy, sell and use drugs illegally, and we wonder why they hold the law in contempt.Just to be clear, you're of course not saying all cops or teachers act that way, or even most do, just some.My ex is a 3rd grade teacher. She sells blow out of her classroom, sells herself to corrupt police, and finally passes STDs to her students.*
WHY DOESN'T SHE DENY IT? I'm just asking as concerned citizen...
*Some minor details may have been exaggerated.
Did you post to the wrong thread in error?
It wasn't until last year that I had the experience of Timbits. Truthfully, I don't see how they're any different from any other type of donuts with regard to taste/quality. Maybe it's because I don't eat them so much.
That said, I could sure go for a blueberry jelly filled donut right about now. <licks lips>
Obviously donuts have warped your consciousness and inflicted you with unnatural, overwhelming cravings.
They should be outlawed.
Just wait. I'm going to take it behind the building and have sex with it.
