Image

Cialis is a latest medicine for treatment of disturbances of erection at men. Cialis feature is its high-speed work (30 minutes) and a long-term effect (up to 36 hours). In this regard you can choose the moment which is most suitable for sexual intercourse, having all the rage a drug in advance. It is doable to take on Cialis in the day and to be ready even neighboring day. swift ingredient - Tadalafil.

Cependant, ils seront beaucoup moins discrets et nécessitent une sérieuse discussion avec votre partenaire. It is beautifully acted and intelligently directed.

Comments

  • Saydrah

    Saydrah

    March 10, 2015, 6:56 pm

    Why not try a ballroom dance class together? It's a great workout and if both of you enjoy it and do it together, you can both be more fit and it'll improve your relationship. If that's not your thing, try something else fun. Rock climbing, fencing, karate, hiking, horseback riding, swimming, ???

    As for food, if you live together, you should simply not keep unhealthy foods in the house. Keep snacks around that he can eat as much of as he wants without weight gain or halting his weight loss. It doesn't matter if he overeats if he's overeating broccoli. Cook together and cook healthy, delicious meals so he doesn't feel deprived or isolated because he's dieting. Cravings should be indulged with a small amount of what he's craving--if he has an uncontrollable craving for soda, for example, he should drink one small soda from the drivethrough rather than getting a twelve-pack.

    Reply

  • chillypacman

    chillypacman

    March 10, 2015, 4:58 pm

    What's interesting is the completely false notion that Israel has listened to Palestinians requests in the past but have been spat on the face, hence their actions today.

    In fact, historically speaking, Israel has never done anything that would help a two state process, Israel actively votes against UN resolutions for a roadmap to creating two states yet after all of this we are told to believe it is the Palestinians who refuse to accept peace.

    Israel keeps asserting Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state (though the PLO have recognized Israel as a state already), however Israel refuses to recognize there is even a future for a Palestinian state.

    It's like we're meant to sit back and say 'gee wizz, why won't the Palestinians do anything to help the peace process? clearly they don't want peace!' yet really, truly, it is Israel which has hurt the peace process considerably more than Palestine.

    Reply

  • nunobo

    nunobo

    March 10, 2015, 10:32 pm

    To everyone talking about how "stress-free, no-worries" childhood -

    do you remember losing your favorite toy? or having to bring home a bad grade? or having to lie to your parents because you did something bad?

    Those situations weren't only stressful, they were the end of the fucking world. Sure, in hindsight those don't seem very significant, but while you were in that situation, it was terrible.

    That said, I was happy as a kid, I was happy in high school, I think I was happiest in college, and now I'm content in the working world.

    Reply

  • nsummy

    nsummy

    March 10, 2015, 4:27 pm

    Not sure where you grew up but the only time I've seen anyone curling was on tv at 3 am during the olympics. As for roller skating, is that even a sport? I think of it more as an activity. Though I guess I have seen some roller skating races from the 80s on youtube. I doubt those races go on anymore though and you'd be hard pressed to find an open rink anywhere. Bottom line, no one curls or roller skates (anymore) in America. Scwing is right though, ESPN is an American company and the only time Cricket is mentioned is when some fucking idiot kills someone else over the results of the game.

    Reply

  • shady8x

    shady8x

    March 10, 2015, 8:44 am

    >You know damn well that this has nothing to do that. Otherwise every company in the world would be doing it. You will never see a moral company taking part in this action.

    Actually I think it does have a lot to do with that. That legal requirement is what sets the entirety of the moral obligation that most business people see. I agree that it probably shouldn't but it does.

    >It is odd to me to hear that an action can be mean, scary, and creepy, but still considered "right" and "moral."

    Not immoral does not mean right or moral. It is a gray area. In my view, immoral means evil(maybe that is wrong?)

    I do not see these actions in in of themselves as evil, I see them as something that increases the chances of evil actions occurring.

    >No. Way off. So far off it's scary. Did you watch the video at all? I'm not trying to attack you, but it appears that you don't know what you're talking about here. The law was created for companies to insure their high-level execs for project protection. That's it. It was never intended to insure low-level employees and it absolutely was not created to insure non-employees. You are way off.

    It was created so that they could insure their employees. Unless the protecting of the projects part is explicitly spelled out in the law, that was just used as excuse by the politicians. Since they are able to insure employees that aren't important to projects, its probably not spelled out in the law.

    >Welfare was made for the poor.

    Wasn't it originally sold for the reason of protecting against depressions or something like that?

    >Why would I consider poor people to be taking advantage of the system if they are using it?

    More people are using it than it was ever intended for. Similarly to these insurance policies.

    >The people who don't need welfare but use it anyway? YES. They are immoral people. It is VERY unethical to do what they are doing. How do you not agree?

    Actually I agree with this. I wasn't talking about people who plain out steal...

    >If you take any basic ethics class you will realize that just because something is LEGAL doesn't make it ETHICAL. It really isn't that complicated.

    I never claimed that it does.

    >The law does not state that they have to take advantage of loopholes. Just because something is a law doesn't make it moral or ethical. That's not the way the world works.

    Its not really a loophole, but that is beside the point. They are supposed to take advantage of market inefficiencies. That is their job. The government is so intertwined with the market at this point that it can easily be considered to be a part of the market. Exploiting its inefficiency is their job.

    Maybe Ethics classes should teach to never exploit government inefficiencies, but than how would ANY business survive? In the current framework, no business would be able to compete with those that LEGALLY exploit weakness of the market created by government stupidity.

    IF you take a business class, you will find out that this is all basically a non-market failing(government). It is an un-intended consequence of government interference/merging with the market.

    >Therefore, following those laws to the book is unethical. It's immoral. It's wrong. You can't sit here and say that the gospel you follow is unethical and immoral but you're an OK person because you follow it.

    Writing and passing those laws is immoral, however, following stupid laws to the letter is what ALL OF SOCIETY does. I am sure you not only follow stupid laws and exploit some of their loopholes, but you don't even know about some of those laws or the loopholes you are exploiting, you might even do it if you find out cause you think the laws are insane... Unless we are all immoral, companies doing it aren't.

    >That's the definition of hypocrisy. Hypocritical people doing hypocritical things.

    No, saying that you believe something is wrong and than following it is hypocritical. See any executives call this practice evil lately?

    >Again, they aren't following the tax laws. They are taking advantage of the system.

    Are they taking advantage of the system when they hire lawyers for business deals to make sure the deal is legal?

    Are you taking advantage of the system when you hire lawyer because you were charged with something? Lets say the city is suing you because they claim your fence is the wrong color for your neighborhood...

    Why are people that hire experts in tax law to get the most they are legally allowed to keep, suddenly taking advantage of the system?

    Do you do your own taxes?

    Yes, they hire better experts, does ability of the person you hire make something wrong?

    >Why else do you think there have been successful lawsuits?! If the action was moral and ethical in the name of the United States legal system, then the lawsuit would not have been won by the plaintiff! The United States legal system finds those actions to be immoral and unethical.

    If the lawsuit was won, it is because an ILLEGAL act was committed. Our 'justice' system doesn't give a damn about morality. Just the law.

    By the way, are people suing them, abusing the system because they hire lawyers to sue them?

    >What planet do you live on?

    One where the Fed will just print some more money or China will give us an extra loan...

    >Again, what planet do you live on? I'm sorry for semi attacking you here, but there is a clear disconnect between reality and the fantasy world you're living in.

    I am living in a world where half the nation practicing civil disobedience in a way that cuts the governments purse strings and really does hurt it, would actually get the government to do what the people want.

    IF that doesn't work in the real world, than nothing will ever make the government do anything that the people want. Maybe that is the real world, but I like to pretend it isn't.

    >Our government doesn't need our taxes to go to war. They don't wait until they have enough money stored up until the do something. We are trillions (TRILLIONS) of dollars in debt. The tax money helps to offset some of this, but it wouldn't matter if half of us didn't pay our taxes. There would still be wars.

    I meant it in a broader sense of a mass protest by over a hundred million voters... I know the government can just print whatever it wants.

    >I completely agree with you that health care in this country is an absolute joke and needs to be revised. It's sickening that we still live in a world where greenbacks are more important than human lives. It's unethical and immoral (but it's legal!) See my point?

    So direct your anger at government, not the people who's job it is to exploit inefficiencies created by it. The government is supposed to protect the people, not the business people.

    It just really annoys me when the government does something stupid or terrible and business that need to exploit it because they're competitors do, because they are required by law to look out for their shareholders above all others are blamed instead of the government.

    That makes no sense to me. One is supposed to protect the people, the other one of those is supposed to maximize profit . One of those creates the problem, the other lives in a world were they cannot afford to and often times are legally liable if they ignore it. Which one should be blamed?

    >See, this is what gets me. To say that the people who take advantage and manipulate the welfare system are not acting immorally

    I never claimed that.

    >but in the same minute say that half of us should stop paying our taxes is completely contradictory.

    If you believe in something it is NOT contradictory to do something to get it. It is not contradictory to protest against something you believe to be wrong.

    >You want a comprehensive health care bill that provides a single-payer system and provides real medical care to the sick, yet you don't want to pay taxes.

    Nobody want's to pay taxes. I have to pay them, I would however like to keep as much money as I am legally allowed so that I don't drown in debt... When your grandfather accidentally breaks his teeth(the kind that come out) and you don't have the money to buy him knew ones, are you gonna thank the government for taking that extra thousand bucks from you?

    >You want to keep "your money out of the government's hands" but you want the government to pay for your health care. You see no hypocrisy in this statement?!

    Is the government doing that now? no? So why should I want to give them my money? so that they could give a 500 billion dollar bailout to the insurance companies? Hey, how about I keep my money and use it to pay for my insurance? Because when the government takes my money and hands it over to the insurance industry, I get neither health care nor money. WHY IN THE BLUE HELL SHOULD I BE HAPPY ABOUT THAT?

    Reply

  • emortio

    emortio

    March 10, 2015, 10:55 pm

    > The problem is... your memories... what do you do with them? It'd be nice if we could just plug into some device and "download" our memories.

    I agree with you, you cannot download your memories in the form they're "stored" currently. And by memories I meant to extend out to the conscience.

    >The only way we could achieve true immortality would be through progressive replacement of parts of your brain with artificial "hardware", in a way that would not alter your conscience - Meaning you can't tell where your biological self finishes and where the computerized version of you starts.

    The part that has your conscience would eventually become too damaged, in a biological sense. Your brain cells are part of group of cells called permanent cells. They don't replicate (well current evidence shows that there *is* replication, but not in a major way), so if it were left alone, the damage to its biological processes with time would be fatal.

    The problem with our biological system is that we use oxygen as an electron acceptor, but this results in the formation of reactive oxygen species (free radicals), which slowly damage the cell. My point is you'd have to replace each cell in your body (ie, start again from conception) so that you'll have another lifetime to endure all the damage. This includes replacing your nerve cells, which would result in loss of what is considered "you". If you did replace parts of your brain with artificial hardware, at some point you would have to replace your conscience... and that won't be "you".

    Reply

  • Detry

    Detry

    March 11, 2015, 1:23 am

    A theory that science is seriously exploring today is that there are many universes across multiple dimensions that actually interact with each other, and may be able explain some weird interactions and "dark matter".

    With that kind of shit even being pursued by scientists who consider it a real possibility that needs to be explored... we need to all admit that we know very, very, very little. Don't even fucking mention adding quantum mechanics into that mix.

    IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT THE GIRL IS YOU NO MATTER WHO **YOU** ARE. FROM A THOUSAND DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS VIEWED THROUGH A CERTAIN CURVE OF COCK SPACE FUCK TIME.

    Reply

  • powercow

    powercow

    March 11, 2015, 4:32 am

    the right tend to be "a personalities" or basically people you remember being total assholes in high school.

    the people that picked on others.

    they were alwasy right and hated you if you did well in school.

    the left tended to be more rational and accepting people. They just dont make good shock jocks.

    I tired to get many of the left to complain to the fcc over fox's "so you think you can dance" vag slip.

    they thought the fcc rules were stupid and fox shouldnt get in trouble for something accidental even if they are the enemy..the right wingers would complain even if they never saw the show.

    Reply

  • tbarlow13

    tbarlow13

    March 10, 2015, 9:38 pm

    They didn't do a good job at all explaining them I think. Look at the Bruins:

    >When grocery store tycoon Charles Adams brought a team to Boston, >he hired former hockey great Art Ross to serve as his general >manager. Adams tasked Ross with coming up with a nickname, with >one of the requirements being that the team’s colors would be the >same as his grocery store chain – brown and yellow. Ross decided on >Bruins.

    But why the Bruins name?

    Go to Wikipedia and you find this:

    >Adams directed Ross to come up with a nickname that would portray >an untamed animal displaying speed, agility, and cunning. Ross came >up with "Bruins", an Old English word used for brown bears in classic >folk-tales. The team's bearlike nickname also went along with the >team's original uniform colors of brown and yellow, which came from >Adams' grocery chain, First National Stores.

    It's just one of those articles that they just needed to get done for a deadline. No real work went into it.

    Reply

  • jayseven

    jayseven

    March 11, 2015, 6:39 am

    Usability. Frames prevent the visitors from being able to bookmark (and share) specific pages.

    There's also the issue of deciding if a link to an interior page should enforce the frameset (to enable the music player), or just allow visitors to browse the site without a major component of the site. (I don't like the idea of forcing visitors to do anything, but realistically, the music is the whole point)

    I'm also trying to make it as easy as possible for search engines to index. While I know there are other means to share your content with search engines (sitemaps, etc), I don't want to introduce an unnecessary hurdle, if at all possible.

    Reply

  • frodegar

    frodegar

    March 10, 2015, 11:56 pm

    According to JT's story, the universe would fork at every random event, so it's guaranteed to vary, probably by some significant degree, depending on how far back he went.

    For example, if he went back to before he was conceived, then there would only be somewhere around a 1 in 4^23 chance that he would be born. (23 chromosome pairs, 4 possible configurations for each, ignoring mutations and chromosomal anomalies.) There may be a John born to his family (or a Jane) but they would be siblings, not clones.

    As for the civil war, look at the astroturfing being done by Fox News and the far right involving birth certificates, health care, fascism, and any other crack or crevice they can find in the Obama administration. Imagine what could have happened if Kerry had won in 2004. The Bush administration still had some credibility, and police were a lot more jumpy about terrorism. The protests we are seeing today would have been much larger, and facing harsh police opposition. Could that escalate into a civil war? Who knows.

    After the disruption (or lack therof) of an American civil war, all bets would be off regarding future predictions.

    For the record, I don't think that JT was (is? will be? will have been?) a time traveler, but I think his story is brilliant.

    Reply

  • BlueRock

    BlueRock

    March 10, 2015, 11:01 am

    I forgot none of those things. They're all irrelevant or wrong. First, population has largely stabilised in the developed world. Second, the per capita emissions of China, India, Africa, etc. are *massively* lower than America and Europe - so that argument fails. Third, India are investing massively in solar - so you got that wrong - and Africans produce 1/100th the carbon pollution of the average American - so it's complete nonsense to be talking about them *cutting* their emissions.

    The 7% percent richest are held responsible by the fact that they buy stuff - you got that right. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head to make them buy all that stuff that's now manufactured cheaply in China.

    You're doing what so many do, ignoring incontrovertible facts that make population control completely irrelevant: it's not the cause of the problem - overconsumption by the wealthy is - and even if it were, population control cannot reduce carbon emissions **now**.

    Reply

  • DashingLeech

    DashingLeech

    March 11, 2015, 12:41 am

    Do people like you never learn? *Accused* and *guilty* are not the same thing. That's not a legal statement, it is a moral statement.

    How big is the list of innocent people found guilty? How much bigger is the list of innocent people charged but either found not guilty or charges dropped?

    Nobody is siding with a pedophile. Whether he was actually guilty or not is irrelevant. This is about Ms DiManno's moral crime. A society that functions in this manner is not civilized. Why bother having trials anymore? When a person's life can be completely ruined by the accusation alone and amplified by the likes of Ms DiManno, how is that not a punishment from just being accused. It's worse than being guilty until proven innocent. It's guilty from merely being accused.

    Our outrage is at this immoral attitude.

    Reply

  • pstryder

    pstryder

    March 11, 2015, 7:07 am

    Constrains is probably the wrong word.

    The arrow of time is always towards more entropy, change to a lower level of complexity. Complexity can increase while energy pours in; but the universe as a whole is a closed system. The flow of time is in the direction of a universe that is 'wound down', with all energy having been used, and none left for doing work.

    The math works even when the sign for time units is reversed. When we back up to the Big Bang, we are at time zero. Flipping over to the opposite sign just takes us along the same track, to the present. And it doesn't matter whether we start with positive or negative time.

    To try and figure out what happened 'before' the Big Bang, we can't use time as a variable. We require another property to measure against; some change in some property of some thing.

    Time is often referred to as a dimension; one of those 'some's above could very well be a dimension...we just don't know...yet.

    Reply

  • huy666

    huy666

    March 10, 2015, 2:43 pm

    >>> They have lived their for millennia

    You lie almost in every word...

    Example for so called ancestral land - beloved leader of "Palestinian people" (the term that didn't even existed before 1948) was Yasir Arafat - born in Cairo :)

    >>> Are you going to blame yourself

    Who should Japan blame for the so called "Northen islands" or Gemany for the loss of Kenigsberg? Arabs started aggressive war with one reason , to wipe out Israel completely. They lost. Should pay some price. Otherwise what would stop them to start another war again?

    >>> Hamas

    right...

    >>> You just made that up, you zionazi turdstain.

    Really... Care do give one example of the acceptance of Israel as Jewish state?

    Any way all the rhetoric is bullshit... The only way for Israel to continue to exist is not to give a fuck about arab whining and UN bitching. Socome and get me ibn calb al-islamiaya :) Ouhh you can't .... Suck my circumcised dick :)

    Reply

  • blackstar9000

    blackstar9000

    March 11, 2015, 1:39 am

    > While I agree that religion is not unique in its ability to make good people do bad things, I still believe religion to be the most dangerous by far because of its supernatural component.

    I think we tend all too often to adopt a very naive attitude when it comes to belief in the supernatural. I mean not that people who believe in the supernatural have adopted a naive attitude -- though, of course, most of them have -- but rather that *we* have adopted a naive attitude when we suppose that those people have simply latched onto the idea of the supernatural and are thus left defenseless against any sort of suggestion. So someone like Sam Harris can say, the only explanation we need for suicide terrorism is that the jihadis really believe what they say they believe, and to hell with someone like Robert Paper who uses research to demonstrate otherwise. In saying so, Harris is being willfully naive. He refuses to acknowledge that belief in the supernatural is more complicated than simply "I believe *x* therefore I must do *y*."

    Lately I've been reading about 13th century European history, and one of the striking things about the period is how often men and women whose piety we have no reason to doubt pick and choose when they will act from piety and when they will act from self-interest or their agenda. There are exceptions like Louis IX, but they tend to be just that -- exceptions. Most of the popes of the period couldn't manage to be as devoted to their supernatural beliefs as Saint Louis, and they rarely made concessions to the supernatural if there was anyway to get what they wanted through secular means.

    Which isn't to say that their profession of belief was a sham. I have very little doubt that someone like Charles of Anjou legitimately harbored theistic beliefs. But only rarely are such beliefs a straightforward lever that will put a person on a track they wouldn't otherwise have taken. The examples of cases of people for whom such belief *was* a such a lever loom large in our consciousness, precisely because they do present such a stark contrast to our daily experience.

    Faith is rarely blind. I almost always keeps in view the person's own interest. In that way, it isn't terribly unlike most of the phenomenon that contribute to human behavior. To suppose that the oppression of women doesn't serve the interest of the patriarchy doing the oppressing is short-sighted; to think that parents don't exercise hegemony over their child's reproductive systems as much for the parent's agenda as for that of religion ignores the fact that heirs and progeny were offered to Abraham as the carrot, not the stick.

    Reply

  • DanielDoh

    DanielDoh

    March 10, 2015, 5:36 pm

    Mmm see the fact that you're asking us makes it pretty likely that in fact, there's nothing you can do.

    You can try to strong-arm her, but chances are good that the bouncers/club manager/pimp(who knows what she does after 4am) will cause you problems. A safer bet would be to follow her home and accost her before she gets inside (or even better, get into her place with her, assuming it's not an apartment complex).

    But really, is it worth the money? Are you bad-ass enough to slap-a-ho-on-principle?

    Reply

  • whateverfits

    whateverfits

    March 10, 2015, 5:41 pm

    I worked as a web designer for a startup called brandfidelity.com. It was run by a couple who loved to brag how they were Stanford Business School graduates. They promised me all the usual internet startup shit: my own office, stock options, etc.

    It took me maybe a month to realize that they had no idea what they were doing, and another two months to land a different job. There were 6 other employees besides me, and I was the first to bail.

    As far as I can tell, they never did land a single customer and the whole thing collapsed within a year.

    Reply

  • jiggyfly

    jiggyfly

    March 10, 2015, 12:21 pm

    You only need to pay for AOL if you use them for connectivity. If you have broadband through another company, call AOL and they will let you continue using the AOL software for free. They made this change to their policy a few years ago, but no one really knows about it. You get to still use the AOL software and email accounts as if you were paying, but don't have access to their dial up services any more. Call AOL for grandma and cancel and she wont know the difference unless shes still on 56k.

    Reply

  • justtech3

    justtech3

    March 11, 2015, 5:35 am

    Agreed. Also, his status a successful director makes him more culpable rather than less. He was in a position of power, as a potential employer to an aspiring actress. I can certainly understand why an actress would take an opportunity to spend some time with a successful director.

    While rape would be illegal regardless of his profession, the circumstances of the crime should affect the sentence.

    You could possibly argue that current sentencing requirements are too high across the board. Consequently, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in world. This certainly wasn't the case when the crime was committed. In no way can Polanski's 90 day sentence be considered unduly harsh.

    Reply

  • keito

    keito

    March 10, 2015, 9:14 am

    Hey, what can I say, this guy apparently knows what new Gnome users want, and I don't.

    I know for a fact that my Girlfriend is just about comfortable with Gnome 2 and wouldn't like Gnome 3.

    I know for a fact that my Mum is just about comfortable with Gnome 2 and wouldn't like Gnome 3.

    I know for a fact that my Work colleague Jason is just about comfortable with Gnome 2 and wouldn't like Gnome 3.

    I know for a fact that my Work colleague Mikey is just about comfortable with Gnome 2 and wouldn't like Gnome 3.

    I know for a fact that my Work colleague Pat is just about comfortable with Gnome 2 and wouldn't like Gnome 3.

    I know for a fact that my Mums friend Diana is just about comfortable with Gnome 2 and wouldn't like Gnome 3.

    ETC,ETC.

    But apparently "I'm wrong, he's right" and that's all there is to it.

    **Funnily enough I agree with him on one thing...**

    >Tech people tend to an unrealistic perception of normal peoples' relationship with technology.

    **...but for all the wrong reasons.**

    Reply

  • herbertstrasse

    herbertstrasse

    March 11, 2015, 9:20 am

    I understand your general point, but I think many aspects of competitive rowing remain highly overlooked. A large part of the coxswain's role, for example, relies on "knowledge and tactical thinking." And rowing requires PERFECT balance and coordination. This probably doesn't come out much in watching a race, but rowing shells are built for speed above all else. This means that they hold a precarious balance in the water; if anyone shifts their weight at all the entire boat could eat shit. Likewise with oarstrokes: every single oar in the boat must enter and leave the water at exactly the same time, must be held at the exact same angle, etc. It is a lot easier said than done. Failure to do these things results in a slow boat (in the best case) or ultimately someone getting forcibly ejected from their seat.

    I was a pretty decent athlete in high school (lacrosse and distance running) but I tried rowing my freshman year in college and it was incredibly punishing.

    Reply

  • camalittle

    camalittle

    March 10, 2015, 9:37 pm

    It's not your call. It's the pregnant woman's call.

    That's why it's called pro-choice.

    And all of you anti-abortion people are just unwitting dupes of The Right. You helped ruin this country. By your stupidity, you voted for Reagan 30 years ago - which started the pendulum to swing back the other way for the ruling class. Now the U.S. is a complete mess, because people like you didn't want someone to have an abortion -- or you didn't want gays to marry-- or because you hate foreigners who come into this country etc etc...

    IDIOTS.

    Reply

Leave a comment