Posts by Susan James42

feralcobra92 said:I’ll be the first to admit that I was never one of those people who would just faint on the sidewalk because they saw an adorable baby in a stroller, and honestly, I never understood the whole obsession with those overly sugary outfits and giant hair bows. To be perfectly blunt, other people's kids used to get on my last nerve, and sometimes I'd even think they were just plain unattractive! I could never quite bring myself to "get on their level."
But now, everything has changed because I have these two little kiddos who I absolutely adore, and I truly cannot imagine my life without them. Sure, they can be total handfuls and incredibly mischievous sometimes, but they are genuinely the center of my universe. For instance, today they are still caught up in the magic of Saint Nicholas, and while they are busy enjoying their presents, I am having the absolute time of my life shopping, hiding gifts at the neighbor's house, and sneaking around the house with all my shopping bags. My youngest still totally believes in the magic, whereas the older one has definitely figured out the secret, though he's more than happy to play along anyway. There is just something so incredibly moving about that pure childhood innocence, and the love they give is completely unconditional—just like the love I have for them.
So, listen, ladies, if you are certain that you don't want children, then please, just don't have them. There are already far too many terrible parents and unhappy children out there in the world as it is. But please understand that just because you find other kids annoying or even repulsive doesn't mean you won't end up completely head-over-heels in love with your own children.

It could easily work the other way around, too. Personally, I have a huge soft spot for children, but I have zero desire to have my own.

Sam Garcia10 said:So, from all that, you've concluded—that since I'm not an economist—that I don't know where I am and that I've lived somewhere else. That's it. You just handed down a verdict without explaining a single thing about how you reached those brilliant conclusions of yours.🤣

Just admit it—you're just some hard-right partisan posting this stuff to mock liberals.

Absolutely. Though, let’s be clear—there are plenty of other conclusions to draw here, but I’m choosing to keep my focus strictly on the core subject at hand.
So, we have someone here—for the second time now, if we’re being honest—rambling on about inflation. Or rather, let's call it what it actually is: this pseudo-economic buzzword "hyper-inflation" they keep throwing around as if it were the sole culprit behind our national economic woes or the outbreak of war. It’s a tired argument. By obsessively focusing on price hikes while stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the systemic "privatization" period that fundamentally gutted our economy, this individual isn't just lacking an economic background; they are willfully ignoring history. There are countless ways to describe this level of intellectual dishonesty, but I'll try to stay on track.

Sam Garcia10 said:So, from all that, you've concluded—that since I'm not an economist—that I don't know where I am and that I've lived somewhere else. That's it. You just handed down a verdict without explaining a single thing about how you reached those brilliant conclusions of yours.🤣

Just admit it—you're just some hard-right partisan posting this stuff to mock liberals.

No, you can spot those types a mile away. You recognize them by the fact that they lack any actual expertise in the subjects they feel qualified to pass "expert" judgment on. They have this relentless tendency to oversimplify everything because they simply don't grasp the complexity of the issue—to them, every multifaceted system is just a single, isolated component. Then, there’s the constant need to take swipes at Americans, yet they simultaneously fail to avoid peppering their speech with useless English jargon or even manage the basic task of placing a comma correctly.
At last, you’ll be able to spot them instantly—mostly because they seem to be fundamentally immunized against logic.
Fear is a relentless thief. It creeps in when you least expect it, clouding your judgment and paralyzing your ability to act. I’ve found that if you let it take root, it starts to dictate your entire reality, turning even the smallest hurdles into insurmountable mountains. You have to confront it head-on, or it will eventually own you.

Well, I think I’m going to bow out of this "debate" now. Honestly, some of the arguments being thrown around lately—including that last one—aren't even remotely funny. It's just not worth the energy anymore.

Sam Garcia10 said:khm...

It’s hard to tell who’s talking about what here...
I started this topic because I ran into a few American leftists claiming they were more "progressive"—which has also happened in this thread—but I realized there isn't any actual basis for those claims.

Everything built over the past five decades was first eroded by inflation, then dealt a blow by fifty years of laziness, corruption, and crime—and finally, we had a war that cost us billions of dollars.

I can see you aren't an economist. In fact, you aren't just lacking expertise; it seems like you haven't even been living in the same reality as the rest of us...

There hasn't been a war, nor has one "stolen billions of dollars" from us.
First off, a war cannot "steal" anything (I really shouldn't have to explain that), unless, of course, the term "war" has become a convenient synonym for our so-called progressive American right wing—those folks who can't get through a single sentence without butchering the language with terrible slang—to describe what they've rebranded as some sort of noble endeavor...

So, to sum this up: being progressive requires actually being informed.
It’s quite easy to delude yourself into thinking you're forward-thinking when you don't have the slightest clue where you stand or what is actually happening in the world, let alone how to articulate it.

Therefore, Sam, it might be worth trying to think for once, rather than just existing.

Casey Bennett2 said:I used to think I leaned left until I saw how the Democratic Party in America devolved into this level of primitivism and exclusivity. It has nothing to do with my views on human rights or progress anymore.

So, this pathetic version of the left lost another "urban, highly educated" voter from Washington, D.C. who can actually think for themselves (that was back during the last election). And honestly, look at those points you listed above—they don't align with any actual leftist ideals.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about the left's stances, let alone their supposed ideals.
especially when we're talking about the typical American left.
I don't belong to that herd, nor any other.
When I refer to left-leaning people, I'm actually talking about politically inactive individuals and their general collection of viewpoints.
I certainly am not talking about figures like Joe Biden or his ilk.

It’s quite cute that you’ve managed to categorize yourself into that lovely little group you put in quotation marks,
but since you seem to struggle with basic reading comprehension, before you try to pigeonhole me, perhaps ask yourself if being "urban and educated" is enough... and if that exact lack of depth doesn't make you the perfect conservative...

fadedeagle39 said:In America, the intellectual right is the only force actually preserving this country's dignity. As for what people call the left? It’s a national disgrace. By any standard, I fall on the left, but I have absolutely nothing in common with the unpatriotic American left—the kind whose entire platform is built on erasing our history and spitting on our identity.

The right isn't more progressive; they're just more self-aware.

Do you really think the right is more "aware"? Or is it just that they realize it’s better to sell off whatever is left of the American dream—especially after those massive privatizations run by the exact same crooks—while they still hold the reins of power? They want to make sure every cent from those sales ends up straight in their own pockets.

Let’s not kid ourselves: the politically active American left is just as much a collection of bottom-feeders and scoundrels as the conservative establishment currently in power.

If we actually focus on the segment of the population that could arguably be called an electorate—though you really need a functioning brain to vote, and the average American seems to prefer spending over thinking while assuming they know everything already—then all that’s left is pure misery and incompetence. And I don't just mean when it comes to formal education...

Sam Garcia10 said:Here is the reality—leftist parties just can't seem to win in major urban hubs like San Francisco, Charleston, San Diego, Indianapolis, Columbus, or Pittsburgh... those areas are essentially strongholds for the American right. Meanwhile, cities like Seattle and Washington, D.C. remain firmly under Democratic control.

One of the most prominent leftist politicians in America is also arguably the biggest populist in the country—and he frequently leans into chauvinism—Damir Kajin. Populism is defined by building a cult around "the people" while hunting for enemies to blame, which is exactly how Kajin operates. Between his rhetoric regarding "New York City" and his comments about how certain regions aren't quite like California, Sinji, or Canada—it borders on chauvinism.

And this is how the Democrats search for enemies too—by targeting "corrupt Republican strongholds," their "200 families," or their "fake defenders." Here is an excellent example of populist rhetoric. Their arguments against political rivals usually boil down to phrases like "200 families," "gerrymandered districts," "a stolen nation," "orchestrated wars," or "international isolation"—all empty slogans. They conveniently—whether by design or accident—ignore the corruption within the leftist parties themselves. Why is that?

Historically speaking—and honestly, it’s quite evident—conservative movements tend to attract:
a) individuals with less formal education
b) those struggling with self-confidence; people who feel somewhat insecure and are therefore more prone to adopting whatever opinion is being shouted loudest rather than cultivating their own independent thought.

It makes sense, really. That deep-seated hostility toward anything unfamiliar or different usually stems from a fundamental fear of change. It's driven by those who are terrified of progress and cling to the status quo because they feel they've already learned everything worth knowing.

In other words, it's just your typical American electorate...

Your poll is a bit misguided. It’s missing a crucial option: he's just way too much to handle.

Sophia Brooks3 said:5'5"

In that case, there really isn't much of a dilemma—it’s definitely going to be the smaller one...
It looks like you're in quite a rush to pick up a new set, too. Since it's already mid-February... you'll be shopping well ahead of my schedule. 🙂

Samantha said:Can anyone tell me which part of the body cycling targets most effectively?
Does it help tone the glutes?
What kind of speed or resistance should I be aiming for?
Also, if I pedal while standing up, does that provide a better workout for my glutes?

1. Well, primarily your legs, right?
2. Yes, it definitely works those muscles.
3. As for intensity, a good rule of thumb is to choose a resistance level where you can still hold a conversation, but you wouldn't be able to sing a song. To keep things interesting, try incorporating some intervals—alternating between heavy resistance at a lower cadence and lighter resistance at a higher cadence. Or, you could push yourself at a medium resistance for two or three minutes, followed by a minute of recovery, and just go from there based on how you feel.
4. One thing to consider is whether you have a high-quality stationary bike or a decent road bike. If the equipment isn't great, you might not see a massive difference in muscle shaping, though you will certainly see an increase in your heart rate due to the added strain.

Adam Ross4 said:When it comes to contemporary music, you don't even need an ear for it. Just look at what passes for music today—half of these so-called "singers" have absolutely no talent whatsoever... 😁

You even put the term "singer" in quotation marks yourself. So, what kind of results are we actually discussing here? Are we talking about genuine artistic achievement, or just who managed to land a spot on a reality TV show?
If we are strictly talking about talent and results, then, for heaven's sake, someone like Taylor Swift's imitators or those other mainstream pop caricatures can't be called singers...

funky Daemon said:we don't all hold the brush the same way...
after you've spent enough time at it, you eventually find your own unique grip... 😁

I'm not trying to argue that practice should trump talent... 😛
I'm just saying we ought to stop using those terms altogether... 😍
It's really about habit and inclination... 😁

...

Look, you can master painting techniques until you're blue in the face. You can nail the brushwork, perfect your composition, and check every single box on the technical list... but if you lack that certain "spark," your work isn't going to resonate with anyone. That’s the dividing line between being mediocre and actually standing out. To put it another way: if you take two people with the exact same drive, passion, and work ethic, the one with more raw potential will always outpace the other. Simply put, someone can achieve truly brilliant results, but only if they possess that foundational talent. Plain and simple.
In general, talent without effort is just wasted potential, and while hard work can get you very, very good results, it rarely leads to the phenomenal stuff.
And, by the way, you might be able to play an instrument without an ear for music, but you certainly won't be much of a singer...

Nobody and nothing said:''If you spend just 20 minutes a day on anything that interests you, you'll eventually become an expert.''
The legend behind this quote is a powerhouse—a world-renowned actor and a political leader from perhaps the wealthiest nation on Earth, Arnold Schwarzenegger. :...blablabla

🤣
It’s funny how this "legend" 🤣 (even if he wasn't exactly known for his vocals) didn't spend 20 minutes singing every single day; maybe then we'd be watching him perform at Carnegie Hall. Or, given how brilliant and sharp he is, if he had spent 20 minutes a day splitting atoms, he might be walking up to accept a Nobel Prize today.
And I have to say, that part about being a "distinguished actor and political leader" really struck a chord with me.
I can't even believe it. 😁

Look, if someone isn't a complete disaster when it comes to a specific pursuit, they can certainly achieve more than just average results through sheer grit, discipline, and an intense level of ambition. You can reach certain milestones and find success by your own subjective standards, but let’s be realistic: you aren't going to produce anything truly groundbreaking. You won't become a visionary or trigger some massive paradigm shift in that field.
That doesn't mean that someone who feels a deep passion for something shouldn't pursue it. However, it is absolutely vital to maintain a healthy dose of objectivity. There is no sense in banging your head against a brick wall just because you have a burning desire to do something that you are fundamentally terrible at. There are countless wonderful ways to express oneself in this world. There is no need to struggle endlessly at something where you'll never move past being mediocre. Mediocrity is everywhere, so I suppose the goal should simply be to strive to be even a little bit better than that... in whatever you choose to do.

Kevin Morris12 said:is a foreign currency account just a checking account?

Not quite. A foreign currency account is its own specific thing. It holds foreign denominations. While it functions similarly to a standard checking account in terms of how you use it, it’s specifically designed to hold non-USD currencies...

Kevin Morris12 said:Does anyone know how I can get an entity or a Visa debit card for making online purchases?

Why are you getting hung up on the entity? You should have plenty of other cards that work fine for online shopping. If you already have a debit or charge card from American Express, you might consider looking into Blue from American Express—it usually only carries a small additional fee.

Just deposit your foreign currency into a savings account at the bank and voilà! You’ll end up with more Intel...

Well, I actually went through something remarkably similar... after years of living under a cloud of uncertainty regarding my health, I finally received a definitive diagnosis: mitral valve prolapse. It turns out many of the symptoms I was experiencing overlapped significantly with thyroid issues. In the grand scheme of things, it’s just a minor heart murmur that hasn't caused any major complications yet, but it certainly provides some peace of mind to have an answer.
At the same time, I would strongly suggest that you get your electrolyte levels checked—specifically your magnesium and potassium.

Would you mind sharing your height? It would really help me determine the correct size for you...

velvetwolf92 said:I honestly have no idea... I was hovering around 120 pounds last summer, and since then, I haven't really been paying much attention to the scale. Everything I owned still fit me perfectly, so I just assumed my weight had stayed pretty much the same. Then, one day, I decided to hop on the scale just for kicks, and wouldn't you know it—😈 125! 🤣 That’s what I call "stealth" weight gain—you really have to watch out for it! 🤣 🤣

And why do you care so much, Susan James42? 😬

Well, it seemed somewhat implied from the context that the weight gain was intentional; this kind of seasonal "remodeling" is actually quite common... regardless, those 125 pounds are ideal, provided they are distributed properly and consist mostly of muscle rather than fat... 🙂

velvetwolf92 said:Well, I definitely put on some weight 😬 I'm sitting at about 125 lbs now 🙄 😬 🤣

During what timeframe or under what circumstances did that happen?

Kyle Nelson2 said:Is getting an eye exam at an optical shop using those fancy computerized machines actually reliable? Or is it still better to go see an ophthalmologist for a proper measurement?

An ophthalmologist, without a doubt. I once had one of those automated machines give me a prescription that was wildly inaccurate compared to my actual needs. By "wildly," I mean the machine suggested a -1.50, but my actual prescription ended up being a -4.00. That is a massive difference.
While my experience might be an extreme outlier, I would still strongly suggest seeing a specialist rather than just relying on the retail tech...