Most Liked Opinionated Blogs (1,909)

I have always been a writer, a lover of words, and putting thoughts and emotions into sentences the reader can laugh at and cry with. As a youngster, about 12, I used to have a diary I wrote in daily, that was kept locked in my dresser.

My sister picked the lock one day, my mother read my diary, then my father shared it at the dinner table. I stopped writing that day. I stopped sharing any of my feelings anywhere. I clammed up and refused to let anyone see who I was. The humiliation of that experience taught me that there was no such thing as privacy, or respect.

In school, English was my favourite subject and I excelled at it. I loved all aspects of it. About three years later, we had a substitute teacher for several months near the end of the school term. One of our assignments had been to write a poem. By this time, although I didn't write anything 'personal' down anywhere, I would write poetry in my head.

When the assignment was first issued, I'd written a poem in my head, and promptly forgot about it. When the assignment was due, the substitute gave us that hour to finish up, or in my case, write the poem. I recalled how I'd already written it in my mind, and quickly jotted it down, making a few word changes once it was in print.

A week later, the substitute sat on a desk and told us our marks on our poems, starting at the bottom and working towards the top. I was the last one he addressed. He advised me that he had given me an A minus. I just looked at him, thinking, okay. At this time, I was extremely shy, blushed and embarrassed easily, and tried my best not to draw attention to myself.

He went on to ask me if I knew what plagiarism was? Of course I knew! My face turned bright red at the humiliation and accusation, and he said he didn't believe I wrote it. I said, but you saw me write it during class! His response was I could have memorized it and copied it down. I just shook my head, everyone in class looking at me like I'd lied and cheated.

I refused to hand another thing in to that teacher. I suppose, in essence that confirmed his suspicions but I didn't care at that time. At the end of the year, he told me I'd have to write the finals because I didn't hand anything in, and I was going to fail. By this time, I had become the class clown and didn't care about anything at school, and yep, there's a reason for hating authority.

I advised the substitute that no, I would not fail and I'd pass the exam with flying colours without even studying - which I did. But his attitude affected how I felt about writing, about school and definitely about authority. It wasn't until many years later that I picked up my pen again.

A couple of years ago, someone posted a very touching story about their time in the military. It was exceptionally well written and a tear jerker to boot. It wasn't until someone else posted the original that it was evident that this person had not penned the piece, and rather than put it in quotes to indicate it wasn't his, he let everyone think he'd written it. I was incensed. How dare he?!

He refused to apologize for his plagiarism. I lost any and all respect for him that day forward. It's much easier now to find out if something's plagiarized due to the internet. It's also much easier to plagiarize.

Personally, if anyone ever accuses me of plagiarism again, I'd sue their arse for defamation of character - no holds barred. My parents should have stood up for me and gone to the school and made the substitue publicly apologize to me. Obviously, that didn't happen, and what can you expect from people who break into locked diaries and read others most private thoughts?

So when someone makes that plagiarism accusation, they best be 100% certain that their accusation is accurate. As writers, it's not only insulting, it's offensive.

Private email would clear up any questions. Public accusations, humiliation and shaming is not okay, especially when you're wrong.

I see some people don't like blogs about certain topics. I suggest just scroll on by. I know this is a world wide forum but in our country we value our unalienable rights and one of them is freedom of speech. Without it one has no recourse but to lay slave to "Big Brother'. Without it your opinion does not matter. Without it you sacrifice your manhood or your actual being.

"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."
James Madison June 8, 1789


That's my opinion and I welcome yours.

I have been thinking and that is one thing I surely shouldn't be doing. Because my thinking head likes to ask silly questions. That's why I rather prefer to mindlessly flirt around.

Anyways, I have been trying to figure out what the original sin was, and still not sure what it really was. But that should be another blog.

Somehow, I have crossed out Adam and Eve having sex being the original sin, as God commanded to, "be fruitful and multiply". In order to do that, they had to have sex. So sex didn't have anything to do with original sin.(Enlighten me if I am wrong. I only know what they taught me at school of the apple tree. )

I know religious people will say, only Marital sex is not sinful. Sex outside marriage is sinful.

Then I often wonder how marital sex is different from any other sex.

I would only agree marital sex is sacred, if the God fearing Married women spread their legs and just lie down on a fertile day, eyes wide shut, not wanting to lust their naked husbands' bodies, while their husbands somehow managed to plant their seed in them and exit. (Don't try to picture this, because it's too erotic to handle. )

My point is, even holy sex is impossible to happen, without pleasuring the flesh of each other.

Then on the other hand, there are others saying having sex is different to making love, and making love is more rewarding.

Eric Fromm said, "The s*xual act without love never bridges the gap between two human beings, except momentarily." As much as I agree, I have to point out, there are times sex leading people to fall in love.

I also don't think, love alone can bridge the gap between two people to make love/have sex.

I think I whined enough to get to my point with useless gibberish.

Bottom line is concupiscence, carnal desire, or lust is the main reason for having sex.

So the question is, why do we tend to either sanctify sex with marriage or justify sex with love ?

"We're no longer the world's piggy bank"

Trump's speech in Europe tour.

I would say it's about time!

Anyone's opinion on this?

Thank you all for reading or participating if interested.

Do you ever read a blog and actually cringe? Maybe even feel the bile rise in your throat?

I have read a few....ones where someone, in my mind, is kind of icky boasting about their s*xual prowess for instance. Or ones where someone writes as an authority but it is evident they are ignorant or crazy?

I appreciate you bloggers who make me laugh and who give me glimpses into your lives. The ones that cause those wtf moments?.....not so much

Christine Balsey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm

In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of s*xual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of s*xual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman, Monica McLean, had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.


He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a "very small," 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.

Ford "never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit," the former boyfriend wrote.


However, on Thursday, Ford testified, "I was hoping to avoid getting on an airplane. But I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends and get on the plane." She also acknowledged regularly -- and, in her words, "unfortunately" -- traveling on planes for work and hobbies.

And Ford explicitly told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday that she had a second front door installed in her home because of "anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms" that she purportedly suffered in the wake of Kavanaugh's alleged attack at a house party in the 1980s -- "more especially, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing."

In a pointed, no-holds-barred letter Tuesday evening that referenced the ex-boyfriend's declaration, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded that attorneys for Ford turn over her therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday's dramatic Senate hearing.

"Your continued withholding of material evidence despite multiple requests is unacceptable as the Senate exercises its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for a judicial nomination," Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote.

Under questioning from experienced sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell last week, Ford said that she had "never" had "any discussions with anyone ... on how to take a polygraph" or "given any tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test." She repeatedly said the process of taking her own polygraph in August was stressful and uncomfortable, although she testified she could not remember if she took the test on the same day as her grandmother's funeral, or the next day.

Full story and video:

I don't look forward to this part of a relationship. Yet it is inevitable. When things are not working as planned and or the so called love is going sideways for whatever reason. What is next? Forward or Reverse?

I am not the person that is easily convinced that trust and commitment will get restored if both are willing to work it out. Really?

I am finding the right door to get out at the moment. lol, hopefully the door is wide open.

Anyways share your feelings if you can relate to this.

Do you find ending a relationship quite easy? Or hard? I know it depends, but to me, it is a very uneasy feelings to go through.

The recent murderer in Pittsburgh was clearly directly motivated by Trump's ridiculous rhetoric about 'the caravan', how they were coming with the intent to rob, murder, and rape Americans.
He felt that he had to do something. He was desperate. He was "going in".
He went in and massacred 11 unarmed Jewish worshipers with his NRA approved weapon.

The city of Pittsburgh responded with overwhelming solidarity. As they mourned their dead, and made
arrangements to bury the deceased, they made it quite clear, that they did not want Trump there.
They warned the president not to come. He came anyway. The mayor, the Republican Senators,
and the Rabbis,did not meet him at the airport.

Instead, there were thousands of protesters to his arrival in the streets.
It seemed universally clear there, that Trump was not only not wanted there at this time, but that he was partly
responsible for the deaths, that his dishonest rhetoric caused.

Prior to this, for the first time since Trump was sworn in, several Republican politicians spoke out against Trump.

from Newsweek;



In addition to the speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, Trey Gowdy has also spoken out against Trump.
The thing that all 4 have in common, is that they are not seeking re-election.

The Trump administration has set a record for the most cabinet and presidential appointees quitting, and/or
being fired.
With the newest horrendous event, will this be the tipping point ? Will more Republicans speak out against Trump's aberrant & divisive behavior and policies, and possibly also willingly leave office ?

While it appears that members within the White House have interfered with Trump's worst inclinations,
as documented in Bob Woodward's most recent book and the NYT op ed article, Trump tries yet another unconstitutional executive order.

Will the defeat of the Republican party's recent stranglehold on Congress actually be from within, or will the voters take control next week ?

Regardless of the fate of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, the Senate should censure the ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein. Her deception and maneuvering, condemned across the political spectrum, seriously interfered with the Senate’s performance of its constitutional duty to review judicial nominations, and unquestionably has brought the Senate into “dishonor and disrepute,” the standard that governs these matters. As a matter of institutional integrity, the Senate cannot let this wrong go unaddressed.

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution provides that each House of the Congress may “punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour.” Nine times in American history the Senate has used that power to censure one of its members. Feinstein has richly earned the right to join this inglorious company.

The senior senator from California not only disgraced herself personally in the underhanded and disingenuous way she dealt with the sex-assault charge against Judge Kavanaugh, but she also misused her position on the Judiciary Committee and broke faith with her fellow committee members. She was further, to quote the San Francisco Chronicle, no less, “unfair” to Judge Kavanaugh — manipulating the public disclosure of the charge so as to maximize the adverse publicity Judge Kavanaugh received and minimize the judge’s opportunity to defend himself. Censure is appropriate in this case for the Senate to defend its procedures and institutional reputation.

By her own account, Feinstein was aware of the charge shortly after President Trump nominated Kavanaugh, nearly two months before her committee opened its hearings. She came into possession of the letter making the charge by virtue of her position on the Judiciary Committee. We don’t know what contact she had thereafter with the accuser or the accuser’s Democrat-activist Washington lawyer — but we do know that Feinstein kept the information from her Senate colleagues, ensuring it was untested and unmentioned in the committee’s hearings. This, even though the hearings were accompanied by loud complaints from Democrats that the administration’s document production was insufficient. Indeed, as this is being written, while yet another Judiciary Committee hearing has been scheduled, she still has not released the unredacted text of the letter that made the charge.

Her conduct has been condemned all across the political spectrum. Her hometown newspaper, the left-leaning Chronicle, editorialized that she chose “the worst possible course” in dealing with the charge. The Chronicle specifically noted that her treatment of the more than three-decade-old assault charge was “unfair to Feinstein’s colleagues — Democrats and Republicans alike — on the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Across the political aisle, her conduct was called “totally dishonest and dirty” in the pages of the Washington Examiner; the Wall Street Journal, more restrained, described her conduct as “highly irregular.”

In substance, she “deliberately misled and deceived” her fellow senators, with the “effect of impeding discovery of evidence” relevant to the performance of their constitutional duties. No one should know better than Feinstein herself that such deceptive and obstructive conduct, widely regarded as “unacceptable,” “fully deserves censure,” so that “future generations of Americans . . . know that such behavior is not only unacceptable but also bears grave consequences,” bringing “shame and dishonor” to the person guilty of it and to the office that person holds, who has “violated the trust of the American people.” These quoted words all come from the resolution of censure Feinstein herself introduced concerning President Bill Clinton’s behavior in connection with his sex scandal. She can hardly be heard to complain if she is held to the same standard.

Full story:

The mainstream media and Democrats have criticized the Trump administration’s response to the migrant caravans storming the nation’s southern border.

However, many of the critiques either don’t provide full context or are factually incorrect, based on information released Tuesday by the Department of Homeland Security.

Here are three narratives that the Department of Homeland Security is pushing back against:

1. Separating Myth From Fact on Child Separation

2. Tear-Gassing Children

3. Not Legal Asylum-Seekers

Read the story: