¤ milky moon ¤

Posted: **03 Nov 2010, 00:44**

There are those among us who must put down the various things (mood and mind altering substances) we take and for various reasons and all of which result--eventually and inevitably--in one of three destinations. They are:

Jails

Institutions

Death

If you are one of those so described, then here you will find a safe place, a safe-house.

This safe-house is occupied by those who have not consumed any of the various mood and mind altering substances on this day and any other day that they are here.

This seems, to me, to be a simple and easy-enough guideline to understand and, subsequently, follow and to require as a pre-condition to enter.--Eh?

I will add to this guideline the one and only exception to this pre-condition:

If you HAVE consumed a mood and mind altering substances on any given day you wish to enter the safe-house, then you MUST have a desire to stop using that substance.

Easy as pie!

I will now demonstrate and establish as precedent a simple introduction that is expected from those who enter:

"I am on day __." (The blank will contain the number of days you have been off the substance or several substances you wish to stop taking.)

If on this day you HAVE taken some substance but still wish to enter, then you should write this:

"Tomorrow will be my first day."

You may also add to this introductory statement the drug or drugs that you wish to put down and stop using or abusing.

Posted: **03 Nov 2010, 10:40**

Welp I sorta like this thread!

Posted: **03 Nov 2010, 10:59**

I am on day _1_: caffeine; dextromethorphan

I blew it yesterday...Oy, I tried to "help" someone at an afternoon meeting (A.A.) so that I could help myself, but I didn't go far enough...I then was left floundering and made the mistake of going to a meeting (A.A.) later at which a particular woman attends; and about this woman, I get all squishy when I see her!--like I want to have her children squishy...and I happened to be walking into the room when she was changing shoes or something and she flashed her entire leg with no shoe and I went dizzy... I then walked across the street to the pharmacy and gobbled 900mg dxm.

Awful.

Posted: **03 Nov 2010, 20:22**

The flash of a woman's leg sends you to drugs?

You know, my father is an addict and ended up in jail. I'm pretty certain he's not on any drugs now (he appears to function) but, he's said to me on several occasions that if he somehow found himself around crack, he knows he wouldn't be able to stop himself from smoking it. It's bizarre to me, the strength of addiction to such harmful substances.

Good luck to you.

Posted: **03 Nov 2010, 21:47**

im on day 1 of a republican free congress, they all neocons and teaparty now

dwain

Posted: **03 Nov 2010, 23:13**

So, what do you expect from this new bunch?

Posted: **04 Nov 2010, 01:48**

ann wrote:The flash of a woman's leg sends you to drugs?
...
Good luck to you.

There's more to it than that but I can't or won't explain the state of sexual frustration I was experiencing prior to seeing her leg: No one has the eyes to read that.

Thank you ann.

-----------------------------------

dwaink wrote:im on day 1 of a republican free congress, they all neocons and teaparty now .... dwain

There are plenty of the old-type Republicans in Congress.

Ann Coulter has a good interpretation of what happened and the reasons.(<==Clicky) It won't kill you to read it. This was the biggest sweep of Senate legislatures since 1928.

. ---------------

In an odd cartoon combining the current scare regarding Greece's package bomb plots (the literal translation of colis piégé is not package bomb but booby-trapped package, bringing with it more of a suggestion of treachery and deceit) with the colors of… the stars and stripes (?!?!), Plantu depicts America's conservatives as… exactly that, plotters, and criminals and terrorists to boot… Terrorists who used the terroristic trick of free elections to harm the stoic Barack Obama… (_^_).

----------added response to dwain--------------------

Posted: **04 Nov 2010, 19:52**

I'm pretty sure the terroristic tricks are propaganda and lies, not free elections.

Posted: **04 Nov 2010, 22:55**

Jordan~ wrote:I'm pretty sure the terroristic tricks are propaganda and lies, not free elections.

The "American conservatives'" use of the American founding principles as a subject matter in a free election to defeat their opponents is the most pristine and wholesome and unassailable means of electioneering imaginable.

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

-Oliver Cromwell

Posted: **05 Nov 2010, 02:03**

Oliver Cromwell
1) went to the college where I'm currently studying, where his head is buried.
2) was a bastard who besieged my home town.
So the quote is unimpressive and excessive besides.

The "American conservatives'" use of the founding principles of their country is a dishonest tactic which fails to take into account the hundreds of years of intervening history that have drastically altered the world. There's nothing wrong with taking lessons from the past; there's a lot wrong with clinging to it like a frightened starfish. The fetishism of the past is not a legitimate electioneering strategy, as if such a thing existed.
Is that what's become of Old Glory? Where is the revolutionary zeal, where's the fire in the bellies of the American people to overthrow their tyrants?
Fifty frightened starfish cling to a legacy of courage, cling to the poison that's killing them, hiding their faces from what they've wrought in the world.

So tell me, how long do you think you can go before you lose it all, before they call your bluff and watch you fall?

Posted: **05 Nov 2010, 02:10**

Jordan~ wrote:Oliver Cromwell
1) went to the college where I'm currently studying, where his head is buried.
2) was a bastard who besieged my home town.
So the quote is unimpressive and excessive besides.

The "American conservatives'" use of the founding principles of their country is a dishonest tactic which fails to take into account the hundreds of years of intervening history that have drastically altered the world. There's nothing wrong with taking lessons from the past; there's a lot wrong with clinging to it like a frightened starfish. The fetishism of the past is not a legitimate electioneering strategy, as if such a thing existed.
Is that what's become of Old Glory? Where is the revolutionary zeal, where's the fire in the bellies of the American people to overthrow their tyrants?
Fifty frightened starfish cling to a legacy of courage, cling to the poison that's killing them, hiding their faces from what they've wrought in the world.

ROTFLMAO!!!

YOU MIGHT NOT BE ALIVE IF THE GERMANS CONQUERED ENGLAND WHICH THEY COULD HAVE DONE IF HITLER WAS LESS OBSESSED WITH STALINGRAD AND EXTERMINATION OF UNDESIRABLES,-- YOU IGNORANT STUDENT.

I'll get to the rest of you post at another time.

Posted: **05 Nov 2010, 02:18**

Please, any theory of history too heavily focussed on the role of individuals is hopelessly naïve. Hitler wasn't obsessed with Stalingrad, the German power structure was, and however large a role Hitler played in that, there were factors at work guaranteeing that the rest of that power structure wouldn't oust him.
The UK also could have been conquered by Martians had a particularly large comet knocked Mars into the habitable region of the Solar System and a militaristic intelligent species developed there. As it happens, none of that happened.
Also, I call Godwin's Law.
Next time reply to my post rather than bringing up an irrelevant historical triviality. There are many times when Britain could have been conquered but wasn't, equally there are many circumstances in which America might never have existed. Speculative historical argument belongs in speculative historical fiction, not in a discussion of facts.

Posted: **05 Nov 2010, 02:37**

OMG! It's almost like the days before scherado was ousted from the forum, and before I became disenchanted with it. Whatever happened to the Marquis? Ah, those were the (fill in the blank) old days! :lol:

Posted: **05 Nov 2010, 02:43**

I wish Marquis would come back. Did he post here once, or was that only a wonderful dream?

Posted: **05 Nov 2010, 02:44**

Jordan~ wrote:Please, any theory of history too heavily focussed on the role of individuals is hopelessly naïve. Hitler wasn't obsessed with Stalingrad, the German power structure was, and however large a role Hitler played in that, there were factors at work guaranteeing that the rest of that power structure wouldn't oust him.
The UK also could have been conquered by Martians had a particularly large comet knocked Mars into the habitable region of the Solar System and a militaristic intelligent species developed there. As it happens, none of that happened.
Also, I call Godwin's Law.
Next time reply to my post rather than bringing up an irrelevant historical triviality. ..

I was responding directly to your continued focus on America's history which, for some reason, IS NOT irrelevant to you but insist that some history SHOULD be irrelevant to me or my subjects.

I said that you might not be here to write a single thing if Germany had conquered England; what America "wrought" is what played a role in your very existence, the defeat of Germany; the millions of Russian men who were flung at the German front lines are the main reason you enjoy any time on this Earth.

It is accepted knowledge that Hitler's insistence on NOT abandoning the city that bore Stalin's name resulted in a HUGE number of captured Germans who could not fight elsewhere, ON TOP OF the huge number of soldiers who were killed or injured at the seige of that city.

Your statement about Martians is so absurd as to bring into question your grasp on reality and ability to reason. This is no small thing. You need help.

Posted: **05 Nov 2010, 02:59**

It was absurd because it was reductio ad absurdum. I was lampooning your argument.

Regardless of the role Hitler played and who did or did not conquer England or how many Russians died that I might post on this forum, at no point did I claim that America's history was not irrelevant to me. Nor do I question the role America played in the Second World War: I do mention "a history of courage", but I find the same courage woefully absent in the present - not just in America, but in its lackeys and hangers on, among whom, unfortunately, my own country numbers. Read the first paragraph proper of my post:

The "American conservatives'" use of the founding principles of their country is a dishonest tactic which fails to take into account the hundreds of years of intervening history that have drastically altered the world. There's nothing wrong with taking lessons from the past; there's a lot wrong with clinging to it like a frightened starfish. The fetishism of the past is not a legitimate electioneering strategy, as if such a thing existed.

My very argument there is that the circumstances surrounding the foundation of the American state have since changed dramatically, and so they are no longer a valid basis on which to determine policy. There is one party in Britain who look back to William the Conqueror when deciding their policies: the BNP, who are a laughing stock (and rightly so).
The rest of the world has moved on. The rest of the world has grown up and modernised. None of the rest of us have the sheer imperialist audacity any longer to seriously, ungrinningly refer to ourselves as the "World Police", none of us any longer think that we have the right by privelege of our supposed superiority to impose our will on the rest of the world. The states that do are rightly called rogue states, a term thrown around a lot, ironically enough, by the biggest, baddest rogue state in the world.
Americans need to grow some balls and see through the iron curtain of lies separating them from the grotesque socioeconomic reality of their country, as do we in the further right-leaning nations of Europe. A situation of plutocratic, feudal anarchy where the rich remain rich by merit of their wealth and where the poor remain poor under the burden of their poverty is not an acceptable situation for a modern, liberal democracy to be in, and it's high time the American people realised this. It's high time the American people tore down the levées that stand between the islands of the wealthy white élite and the seas of the black, white and hispanic working class. No more private housing estates, private schools, private roads and private privelege for the élite, and no more ignoring the plight of the most vulnerable can be brooked.

Posted: **05 Nov 2010, 03:04**

how is it steve that sweeping generalities are true when u use them? your grasp of history is so jaded by your zeal i don't know how u can even say it. if it doesn't fit my paradigm i throw it out? please, find some other tactic to make your case, this isn't grade 1 here. and u know of course the first person to use Nazi anything to make a case has already lost the debate to begin with. you are quite welcome to your beliefs and opinions, just don't wield them in here like a club

Posted: **05 Nov 2010, 03:31**

dwaink wrote:how is it steve that sweeping generalities are true when u use them? your grasp of history is so jaded by your zeal i don't know how u can even say it. if it doesn't fit my paradigm i throw it out? please, find some other tactic to make your case, this isn't grade 1 here. and u know of course the first person to use Nazi anything to make a case has already lost the debate to begin with. you are quite welcome to your beliefs and opinions, just don't wield them in here like a club

I don't know what you mean "throw it out". What did I throw out?

I DID NOT disqualify myself by any inappropriate reference or comparison to anything about Nazis. Not even close. (You should consider your reaction as a sign of some bad "misalignment" within yourself.) I attempted to connect his very birth with the outcome of a war against his country by Germany, in whose defeat America played a role.

Posted: **05 Nov 2010, 13:23**

Jordan~ wrote:... The "American conservatives'" use of the founding principles of their country is a dishonest tactic which fails to take into account the hundreds of years of intervening history that have drastically altered the world. There's nothing wrong with taking lessons from the past; there's a lot wrong with clinging to it like a frightened starfish. The fetishism of the past is not a legitimate electioneering strategy, as if such a thing existed. ....

What happened in Washington State is illustrative of a meaningful and, I say, proper result in our election. From here:

Do Americans share President Obama’s desire to impose redistributive social justice on the well off? In liberal Washington State, of all places, voters gave a definitive answer this Tuesday: No!

....

As Capitol Hill resumes debate on whether to extend the so-called “Bush tax cuts,” the White House should pay special heed to the fate of little-noticed Initiative 1098. Its defeat by a whopping 65-35 margin doesn’t bode well for Team Obama’s class warriors still clinging bitterly to their soak-the-rich schemes.

....

The Evergreen State [Washington] is just one of seven states in the nation without a personal income tax. The ballot measure, which would have enacted a state income tax on the wealthiest 1 percent of Washington residents to raise $2 billion for bankrupt public schools, was sponsored by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his left-wing corporate lawyer father. Top donors? The Service Employees International Union, whose state and national chapters threw in a combined $2.5 million of its members’ hard-earned dues money, and the National Education Association, which pitched in nearly $760,000.

Hiding behind kiddie human shields, the I-1098 campaign assailed the wealthy for “not paying their fair share” and plastered their campaign literature with sad-faced students and toddlers. Big Labor has been pushing a punish-the-wealthy movement for months. According to Forbes magazine, “six of the 10 states with the highest income tax rates — Oregon, California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey and North Carolina — raised their levies on high earners, at least temporarily” last year.

But business owners large and small, representing companies from Bartell Drugs to Amazon.com, successfully fought back against the job-killing measure in Washington State. Disavowing the Gateses, Microsoft honcho Steve Ballmer also joined the opposition.

....

Posted: **05 Nov 2010, 13:35**

Relayor wrote:...The ballot measure, which would have enacted a state income tax on the wealthiest 1 percent of Washington residents to raise $2 billion for bankrupt public schools...

I'm sorry; if this is something at the thought of which your founding fathers would have recoiled, they were all wicked, wicked men.
Why should the wealthiest 1% (ONE PERCENT!?) not share their wealth with the disadvantaged? What the hell, what under the sky, what in anyone's wildest flights of fancy gives them the right to cling to vast hoards of wealth beyond the limit that could ever possibly be spent by one human in a lifetime while people are suffering? Let me reiterate: people are suffering! You know, people? Like your mother and father and everyone you've ever known and loved? That kind of people. Like people with the capacity to be kind, to be inspired and creative and intelligent, to contribute their unique perpsective to the sum total of human knowledge, to drive progress, to be happy, to celebrate, to love; that kind of people. And you know, suffering, like the kind you've doubtless felt yourself. Have you not one iota of empathy in your being? Do you feel nothing for the plight of those less fortunate? Is your heart so black and shrivelled with greed and acquisition that you can't spare a thought, let alone shed a tear, for someone who will never have the opportunity to realise their full potential, to live a life which so many of us take for granted? If so, what the devil is wrong with you? That kind of callous disregard for the wellbeing of your fellow man is almost sociopathic in the audacity of its cruelty!

I don't know about you, but I would rather be homeless than a millionaire. If I ever accrue sufficient wealth that I don't need it all, I'm giving it away till I have to live in a flat and eat out of cans, because that's a pretty damn good life. I don't need a mansion or six or more cars, I don't need more bedrooms than I have friends, and no one, not a single soul alive or dead, ever has or ever will; nor has anyone nor will anyone ever earn the right to it through their deeds. Each of us is a man and nothing more.

Things like this make me sick. They make me long for fires and barricades in the streets, for the fleeing squeals of the rich pigs who gorge themselves on the blood of the poor, for the baying of the vengeful mob of the downtroddden and the disadvantaged to ring out like thunder from coast to coast across the world.

Me, full of revolutionary zeal in the library.

¤ milky moon ¤

The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.

Re: The Milky Mooners Sobriety Safehouse.