fauxlaw

That is a generalized statement that fails to comprehend the constitutional powers of the President to deploy both the US Military, a general arm of the Defense Department, and the National Guard, a specific arm of the Defense Department, both potentially under the exclusive control of the U.S. President. First of all, The Posse Comitatus Act generally limits the use of the military in domestic law enforcement. However, the National Guard can perform domestic law enforcement functions under state command and, in certain circumstances, under federal authority, i.e., the President. It is not true that the military can be deployed only for purposes of protection of federal facilities, as shad been reported by the media, but it can be deployed strictly for that purpose by order of the President. 

It is irresponsible to accuse the President of arresting Gov. Newsom of CA. No arrest of the Gov has been made to date; you are misidentifying what the President said. He said, under the circumstance of Newsom violating law, "I'd arrest him," but, clearly, according to Tom Homan [the "border czar" according to the press]  "That whole thing's been taken out of context," Homan said. "They haven't crossed a line yet … If you cross that line, I don't care who they are — the governor, the mayor, whatever — and when you commit a crime against ICE officers, we will seek prosecution."  Future conditional acts, only, so put a sock in it.

let's keep our pantyhose on, yeah, Dub-R?

None so blind as those who will note see. You cannot? Yoda told Luke Skywalker, who said, "I can't," "That is why you fail," Yoda told him.
 

You think Job is the best example of faith?  Have you read the volume, word-for-word, cover-to-cover? I have my friend, in four languages. Job is not the best example of faith by any means. First of all, it is not known whether Job was a real person, or if the story is entirely allegorical. But God did not initiate the suffering of Job. Job may have thought that, and he does tell us the Lord gives and takes away, as if Satan has naught to do with us. The Lord allows sorrow and discomfort, but offered a path to avoid its effects if only we will do as he says and not think we can think of a better way through life. Try again. I already gave you one clue: Hebrews. Read the whole bloody  eptisle, my friend. One verse doesn't cut it, and I told you that, too. This takes effort, my friend, by all of us together

So you run marathons. Good for you, but you're learning the wrong lesson if you have an injury and think that applied personal faith will heal all the time.

That's not how faith is supposed to be applied. You may read and interpret in Matthew that faith can move mountains. It says that very thing, does;t it? No, it doesn't. It says with a mustered-seed size of faith, a mountain is removed to another place.  In that instance, faith is a tool a person uses to move the mountain. They move it, not faith. Faith [aka  "the Force"] would be the tool Luke would use for him to move his x-wing out of the Dagoba bog should he decide he can rather than can't. But, faith is not a tool best used to satisfy one's own need, but to aid others. It is for others to apply faith to heal our wounds in "battle," such as a marathon. Service to others is the best vehicle for the use of faith, and our faith in that may actually trickle down to mend ourselves, as well. So, although I believe we can use faith to improve our own lot in life, it's best use is for others, and have faith that others will be of service to us. Jesus taught that in his experience early on with Satan in the wilderness, when Satan tempted him. With the temptation to make bread from a stone, Satan also challenged Jesus with who he was. "IF thou be the Son of God, command this stone..." Jesus recognized the challenge, that his power was to be used for others, not for himself.  If others see we have a personal obstacle to overcome, if we are a society of faithful people, dependent on one another in times of need, the proper society will render aid to us. That is the best use of faith, and may find applying it as such will heal ourselves. We're in this together, and it is the proper system designed by God for our best benefit. You may think that God makes everything happen. Nope, the fact is, he allows us to make our own path with suggestion how best to make it. We can agree with him and live with service to others in our minds as the best path, or not, but the fact is, we make most things happen to ourselves, and God allows that agency to us to do as we will with consequences already advised if we are careful to listen to him. He's been through this, himself, in a distant past. God was not always God, but an ordinary man, and we are challenged to achieve like he did, and become like him one day in a distant future.  You think that happens with doubt guiding us? Nope.

You have never read my commentary of the definition of faith, because most people approach faith as if it is the duplicate of brief. I do not believe that for a second. Faith drives action; belief does not. That is just one primary difference. Paul [Hebrew's 11] defined faith as "the substance of things hopped for, the evidence of things not seen." Substance and evidence do not sound like 

to me. you can believe anything and assume it is anything from fantasy to reality. One can believe the moon is cheese, and that person will not be convinced otherwise. One can believe the earth is flat with the same consequence. But neither condition for either belief is akin to substance and evidence. That tells me that faith is something different entirely than belief. I think faith is a sixth sense as dependable as our five typical senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch, the senses we use to prove theory as fact. Faith is a sixth sense, just as I think it is possible [and scientific theory is beginning to see potential proof that it is so] that humans can learn other senses such as echo location and sense of magnetic north, or of Earth's magnetic field. So, why not faith being just another of these senses that point to lnown facts derived from those other senses? Kind of takes it out of the exclusivity of religious discussion, doesn't it? So, if a belief, thought to be faith, turns out to be not true, it was not faith in the first place. That is another distinction of faith v. belief; faith only directs to truth. Belied=f does not direct to anything.

Under the above circumstances, when cool projects come to a standstill because you cannot get over or around some obstacle; what then? Do you give up, or do you ask someone whom you trust knows the answer. Better yet to come up with solutions of your own, and then ask that expert what they think about your solutions, knowing the expert will guide you. That way, doing your own investigation, first, you're performing the research yourself and looking for expert confirmation. Much mot likely your expert will advise than ignore. You're shown not just passion and persistence, but confidence. So, what if that "expert" is God? What changes? Not a bloody thing.

It works, my friend, but your preparation must be evident. Your passion and persistence , and faith in a response must be evident. That's how faith works, my friend.

So, no, that is what belief does, but not faith. Faith must lead to truth, or it is not faith that has been applied.

As long as I agree you have the right to your thinking and position, you agree I have the same right to mine, and we can both have civil discourse in the free market of shared ideas, we will have made Madison’s dream of "...a more perfect union" come true. [From the Preamble to the Constitution]  His efforts, with others, centuries ago, were, indeed, of exceptional value to us, and to our fortunate descendants.
What a generous and purposeful consequence. What a delight for the heart, mind, and soul. Then, all of us will sit at that grand table where all foods are enjoyed, all laws respected, all hands joined, all cultures embraced, all colors celebrated, and all deities honored. What else could we ever want or need?

I entirely agree with your post #45. It's like in our time, and I have a 75-year perspective, we have wondrous, wireless communication capability around the world in immediate time, and yet ask why we are confused by the 19th century environment of the classroom. If you have never read Marshall McLuhan's  "Understanding Media: the extensions of man," and "The Medium is the Massage," get them and read them. He was a 60s professor of communications, and a brilliant observer of our transition of communication capabilities, that teach us well why we are what we are today via media influences of all kinds. He once gave a lecture at UCLA where I was a student in the late 60s,  and he impressed the hell out of me. The 19th century classroom bit was part of his thinking.

Your multiple posts since #3e do not seem to bear that out. You merely seek to boot post count; personal aggrandizement. Fair enough. That's entirely on you.

I don't think communism carers about class or culture. Look what happened to both as Russia embraced communism and abandoned class and culture in favor of a nebulous confusion of both, achieving neither in the end.

Look what's happened to China as it has embraced communism, turning it into a gray country when it once embraced a full spectrum. And look how it has abandoned communism, economically, for a warped system of degraded capitalism, embracing the worst example of selfishness of money, as if that is a finite resource, when that idea is entirely absurd. AS such, I consider climate Chan ge advocates as embracing communism, because they also seek a warped sense of what climate is not. 

It is not a place wheeee it never rains until sundown, and July and August cannot be too hot. That's the vision of warped climate change, and there is not such a climate on Earth, either as an ideal, or dismissed. Theree is no single, ideal climate anywhere on Earth, and never will there be as long as Earth is in its current cosmic place.

I see hell as a store with goodies we desire in the store-front window, but there is no door.

No fire, no brimstone, just unfulfilled desires. That is punishment enough, but such a condition exists now, always has, and always will.

When we were told to not hit each other, but to share with one another, that was the childhood version of love toward our neighbors, and love of God. They were bilateral commandments of the same sentiment we learned as chidden, and is still ultimately enforced, without force. It is our free will to choose to love, or be selfish. The sealed window is our reward of selfishness; we are denied, ultimately as compensation for denying others. My mother used to tell a story, simplified for children, that heaven was a neighborhood for people who kept the faith and endure to the end. She told of a group of people recently dead, and they were taken on a tour of the neighborhood by Peter. and the tour group marveled at the beauty and efficiency of the neighborhood. One man, who was a faithful, religious man, stopped all when he retired, thinking he had done enough. He died 30 years later. He asked Peter about his residence in the neighborhood. Peter pointed to an unfinished mansion across the street, abandoned. "But, it's not finished," the man complained. "Yes," Peter said, sadly, "we stopped when you did."

That's fair, isn't it?

I agree that training and training follow-up to assure effectiveness is key to a healthy, organized and successful endeavor in any industry, certainly in medicine, and I consider medics in the military as part of the medical profession. My daughter is a paramedic, and I am so proud of her. She represents a fifth-generation in my family of medicine as a preefession. My brother is a retired physician, a radiologist, our father was a hospital exec-management administrator, and our grand- and great grandfathers in our father's direct line were physicians. My brother is also very proud of my daughter as they two are the only medical reps in our father's direct family now. Poor me, my contribution is medical illustration, when asked, of human anatomic detail, for which I seem to be adept. I don't know how to treat it, but I can draw it.

I agree with the assessment that of current members on site, Barney and Savant are the top two debaters, both with a decent number of debates under their belts, though Oromagi, who has not been active for several months, does lead the leaderboard, even though he has a few losses, but still rates highest by leaderboard metrics. There's another no-loss leader among the top 20 by the leaderboard, semperfortis, but he has only 15 debates and has not been active for a couple of years. I'd say on the whole, the leaderboard is a pretty good gage of debate skill, though it does not give much credence to voting as a top metric, though it is a metric,  and I think voting helps to develop debate skill and ought to have a higher contribution factor of measurement.

There is. We have sovereignty. meaning we have border-crosdsiong restrictions, so just by crossing the border improperly is, its;f, a criminal behavior without doing another bloody thing. This president is on favor of correcting criminal behavior because that is his job as chief executive. In the case of illegal entry into the country, you remove them from the cu try to do it correctly, you do not use tax revenue to keep them here. Biden did not agree, and that's on him.

Yeah, and David did say other have had the same issues, so it could be some site glitch, after all.

Thanks. That jives with my thoughts about current Paris. Yes, the are rude to Americans, but that changes in Provence. They are much more laidback people, and very friendly. At least, that was the case 20 yearns years ago. My fluency is such that when I was there, they knew I was not French, but assumed I was from elsewhere in Europe. I avoided speaking English, and that helped a lot, and they were, then, much more friendly to me, even  in Paris. You didn't have Greece on your list. I took Greek in college over 3 semesters, but never achieved fluency, though I love the language and can read a little of it, but have no sense of speaking it. I appreciate the antiquity of Greece. So, you're fluent in Greek. Good for you.

The Big Bang of the universe was just a needle poked into that expanding wish balloon of a theory, because the universe has no beginning and no end.

That's all Fibonacci? Nope. There's some problems in the dissertation this time.  What is meant by 'single prime," because use of any one prime number [a number only divisible by 1 and itself] is a "single" prime. And 89 is not the 'second prime' after 13, the second prime after 13 is 19 [17 being the first prime after 13.] 89 is the 18th prime after 13.

Not to mention that 4 may be a systemic number [whatever that means], and double it happens to be 8, and neither are prime numbers, although 8 is in the Fib-sequence; so, what? 

And all that crap about 55 [not a prime, nor in the Fib-sequence] and 144 [not a prime, nor in the Fib-sequence], but that 55 reduces to 1.718 [not a prime, nor in the Fib-sequence] and 1.718 compares [how?] to 1.618, the golden ratio, and the proportional [but not exact] value between the numbers of the Fibonacci sequence, which has only coincidental relation to prime numbers. The Fibonacci sequence merely represents, from 0, the addition of the first two numbers yields the third [0 +1 = 1; 1+1 = 2; 1+2 = 3, and so on.] And after all that premature efactulation, I hope ebuc cleaned up after himself.

Looks like a good trip. How long were gone? Do you speak Italian, Dutch, French or German and if so, did some fluency affect your grading? I've been to those countries with the exception of Netherlands. And I speak French fluently, and favor that country [obviously, given my avatar, and it is my ancestry]. Although I find Paris delightful, and would rate it higher, I've not been there for 20 years, and I know it has changed. My preference is  Provence, southeastern region.

There is a right and a wrong means to enter the US, and that means is posted along both northern and southern borders as fair notice. Let then enter so legally [that may require a wait, but the law is clear], and all is fine. Not, then let them face the consequences. That's due process, in a nutshell. Found here illegally, and beyond the border into the interior of the US, and ICE is authorized to enter places you suggest, wave goodbye. got a problem with that? Sanctuary is not a legal excuse, regardless what people, and even local governments believe.

Thank you for falling into a trap. Those discussions you cited,  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12811/posts/521976 & https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12739/posts/519959, both discuss if/then logic, but if/then is not the only launch of a conditional, is it? 

When x is true, then... 

is not an if/then statement, because it begins with a true condition which may not be current, but has been a past conditi0n observed with the "then" results also observed. That';s not if/then, my friend, so both your barbs do not apply.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is the conditional of the 2A, and is an example of "When x is true, then...". It's "then" is:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

other examples;

Unless you pass the bar exam, even after attending law school, you cannot be an attorney.

Until you read Moby Dick, you will not know how the Pequod sank.

However you approach life, it must be approached to be successful.

"Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." That is a conditional, too, phrased, as it were, as a command: "...thy will be done." It amounts to a command to us to assure that God's will is the will that is accomplished, but it is entirely conditional on us.

None of these, while being conditional clauses, are if/then clauses. They can be worded as such, but if/then necessitates that the conditional clause, "if" be currently not true. IN these statements above, it is imperative to pass the exam, read Moby Dick, approach life, and bring the kingdom of God, and all of therm may already be true statements that we have done these things.

Well... yes, legally, it was ended. Behaviorly, I observe it is still with us in not-so-subtle ways.  I do not mean. to say I believe we still have systemic racism, because that implies law and policy have racist content, and they do not. Not one word in current law or policy can be found to substantiate. What we battle is inidividual racism, even if it is fostered among government employees. Their policies do not agree with their rhetoric, so it must be individual. We have wandered far from Madison's dream of "a more perfect union." By studying his thoughts in the Federalist Papers, and in numerous letters to colleagues,  he made it clear that his vision was that the Constitution was a generous and purposeful consequence, a delight for the heart, mind, and soul. Then, all of us would sit at that grand table where all foods are enjoyed, all laws respected, all hands joined, all cultures embraced, all colors celebrated, and all deities honored. What else could we ever want or need?

What is wrong about conditional clauses? They are a legitimate form of language. For example, the speech by Trump which most of the media misinterpretted as wanting to ditch the Constitution, but it  was entirely based on a conditional clause stated further back in the speech that all who malign the speech ignore, just like most who misinterpret the 2A because it, too, is a lengthy conditions clause before it gets to the meat. Conditionals are perfectly acceptable language, or are you unfamiliar with the Chicago Manual of Style? A  conditional phrase satisfies the need to discuss what might happen [not will, because that's future prediction which can be statistically unsound, and I also happen to be a Six Sigma Black Belt, retired]. Authority means something too, regardless of your discontent. Freedom, my friend, is fraught with necessary authority because it is the nature of man to wander from proper behavior unless they throttle themself appropriately.. 

From your post #33:

Wrong, you apply the wrong syntax. The word "arms' in  the 18th century, applied to weapons a person can carry, as in or on their arm[s]. Get it? Got to know the language of the Constitution according to the syntax of the era when articles and amendments are written, and not assume it all magically converts to 22st century syntax.. That is the only way to read the document, or really any document of history. You cannot just assume words maintain the same meaning over time. A linguistics course would tell you that. I have a linguistics degree, among a set of degrees, so I know whereof I write.

No, it does not. Otherwise, the bolded phrase I quoted in my post #37 does not need to be there, but it is there and must be accounted for, which he 6-2 majority of the Fuller Court in 1898 flailed to account. They decided as if the bolded phrase was not there.

In 1898, Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan were the only two of the Supreme Court, then with 8 total justices, including Chief Justice Fuller, on the US v. Wong case that established American birthright citizenship, but it was done so by ignoring a key phrase in the 14A: "“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  The key phrase is bolded. Anyone not born in the United States, and not of at least one US citizen parent, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US just because they happen to be here; they are subject to wherever they came from, and their children born here follow that jurisdiction. Otherwise, the bolded phrase means nothing at all, and is a worthless, actionless phrase, which is exactly how the Fuller Court's 6 assenting Justices viewed it; by ignoring it. 

maybe the slow is on your end?

Nope. Just example that even intelligence isn't enough . Ability to string words together sufficient to to make sense as if a.i. "intelligence" is sufficient to create language [words] not ever used before by humans. In that regard, AI is not even in its infancy. Read the following article from just last fall:

I've asked a search engine to give me technical words like "smartphone"  invented by AI [that word was not created by AI]  that are now in common use. The list was: 0 words.

I've asked for examples of AI-produced rap songs. The results are awkward, stinted patterns that do not even equate to simple rhythmic poetry, let alone sophisticated, even-tempo rap, without input suggestion by a human.

AI is not intelligent, worse, not creative.  maybe teens are impressed with what can be done on multiple AI=produced sites, but my English vocabulary, [a very lyrical language as languages go] not to brag, is a little better than that.

On the above site, I asked for poems written in Portuguese [more lyrical than English] about "a moon over water." I got several "poems" of 8 lines of different moods inspired by that four-word suggestion. I received 4 separate poems, 8 lines each, in Portuguese, but the results were awkward, and each couplet was a separate concept, unrelated to the former or latter. The lines had rhyme in a simple AA, BB, CC, DD, further accentuating double lines that do not inter-relate at all. They were all simple rhythm of  iambic pentameter, typical da-DA, da-DA, da-DA, da-DA, da-DA that is merely basic-level poetry, when I was expecting Dylan Thomas, or TS Eliot. 

All on all, I am unimpressed that this is acceptable poetry even written at high school level. Therefore, AI lacks creativity but at an infantile level.

If one buys JoeBiden, yeah. I don't. Age-related dementia is as absurd as Biden insisting he can run up stairs, already physically proven an incapability, or that he ran a successful senate campaign in 2020, as claimed.

Nope, but atheists on this site appear to be just that. The augment of reductio ad absurdum nails atheism every time, because arguing a negative is  only successfully accomplished by reduction to absurdity; there is no other argument that passes empirical study. 

76 this September

How does one successfully argue a negative? Some atheists are smart enough to know that, as you concluded.

More by way of benefits, but that should count heavily as well, but few look at it that way. Their loss.

Good thing I am 39, and have been for a long time since my personal physician thinks I am 20.

No, you seem to confuse one concept for another. You say a Christian not willing to sacrifice life for God is not Christian. Your implication is a willingnessto give up life for God. That's a bit whacko, because it is God's preference that we give to him the purpose of our lives, not that we give up life, itself. Any fool can desire to off himself. but of what use is a dead body to God? None whatsoever. You simply misuse the term, "sacrifice," because in God's meaning, it is not a desire to end one's life for anybody, but to live for God's purpose and not our own. That is a survivable sacrifice, which is productive for God. This is what comes of cherry-picking single biblical verses instead of including those surrounding the target verse which give context to the single verse chosen to represent a proper idea. Context is king, not just content, and we do not derive context only from a targeted verse. That's why I insist we read cover-to-cover, and not a verse here, a verse there...

such are people who said of Harvey Weinstein: "He told me to take my clothes off, so I did." And the woke blame Weinstein. Seems to me, the girl was what woke is all about.

He may have been the oldest living human now dead, but in the modern world, 20th century on, the oldest living person was determined to be a French woman who lived 122+ years, the high record of verified age, died in 1999. 

By your definition, we're all punks.No thanks.

If/then logic is almost always the first wrong step into a morass of illogic, because in most conditions of if/then, the "if" clause is not currently true, and, therefore, cannot justify "then" unless "if" is changed to a valid statement, but then, there goes then, entirely, because it is still not justified.

You're just talking a more warped version oof the 25A, and who, with a functional brain in their head would agree to life in prison for the imponderable result of removing a pol from office. 

What mystifies me is in the 50-odd years since the 25A was ratified, Congress has avoiding giving itself the authority to be a player in the intrigue of removing a president, or other federal officer, from their political position for life, but retain that life in all other respects. That's hardly 'assassination."

First, learn how to spell. Halocaust? Really? You really pluck the best times to slaughter my mother tongue. You think this tripe is worth a halo? God in heaven, that's rich.  And, your, idea, you go first.  I'm not bragging that I don't typo - a lot - but, is this even a typo. Seems deliberate to me, and that says volumes. So, again, you go first. Licking, I mean.  Wouldn't want to take the credit for your pride and joy.

So Epstein put Trump in his files. About the same effect as Hillaryous Balloon Girl putting Trump in pee-tapes from Russian hoores.  That's someone else in both cases claiming Trump is this and that [like letting Trump occupy their brain, rent-free]. Doesn't, never did, and will not make it so but in the mind of Woke, which is dead, itself. That you believe and push the stuff don't make its stink rose water for anybody but said wokenesses, and what they think [big assumption] is bullshyte. Keep dreaming.

Just how much thinking, do you think, occurs during REM sleep, or deeper? Fantasy, sure, but that's even wake time for the woke.

Fellinu died 30 years ago. Woke, much?

Woke is dead, too, but actually, never living, just rock-unconscious.  aka , basic matter from which chaos becomes ordered, per the Architect: "Let there be..."

Having nothing to do, what is its intrinsic worth? Also, nothing.  Therefore, what "almighty?"

Not to mention that it's value also plummets when there is no commerce necessary in which to engage the dollar. Further, since its value is necessarily tied to its volume in play [and the more of it, the less of its value is had since the dollar is not tied to anything standing in commensurate value, such as it once was backed by an intrinsic-valued commodity, i.e.,  gold, but is no longer and not since the 70s. Therefore, in such a society, if it should utterly collapse, I am better off having an intrinsic value, such as gold, with which to engage a potential necessary commerce. Have you forgotten, or never knew, that I can take myself entirely off the grid [whatever grid is probably the difference for you of survival] within 30 minutes, and survive for at least five years for my bride and I.  I am noir that easy to find, living in a forest [I have an address, but that is not where we live, and I have sufficient property [all I need is 400 quart feet, and I can properly maintain a garden and chicken coop to provide all the nutrients we need, in addition to my 5-year freeze-dried food storage which we continue to augment, and We don't even need a grocery store...

So your have, with your dollars.... what? And for how long? Yes, I am an exception, my friend, but there are plenty oof us around. And, should you find me, good luck breaking into my house to take my goods.

Reparations are unconstitutional. Article!, Sction 9, clause 3. REparations are ex post facto law, and such law is clearly forbidden. Words mean things; these particular words more than most.

What "masses" today? It's a <40% practice compared to the population of the "masses." And that's not even stretching the meaning of "mass" today among Catholics.

What's "old?" Being a time-based thing, like every other time-based thing, it's relative. Consider what was "old" to our founding fathers, in a time when life expectancy of ordinary people was about 39. And we think, now, that Madison, himself about 26 when he said a president must be minimum age 35, was crazy to think such a "young man" should not be leading the nation. At 35, people were "old."

A rat from a sinking ship is still a rat. "Moving to the right" is even performed just moving to another state, making the blue/red argument as silly as an argument gets. That's wat so annoying about woke. When really awake, all that is done is more somnambulism. "woke" is dead. Always was.

But what can money do on its own? Not a bloody thing.

I start with the fact that whomever coined "A.I." did not consider that, first of all, and last of all, it begins with "artificial." That's enough to demonstrate to me its worth is overrated.

Moral of story: we do a pathetic job of naming things. Adam seems to have done a decent job, but we bolluxed it up. What "mouse" ever had a tail coming out of its head?

From that to A.I. just within my lifetime. Very bad job. We need education just to teach us proper nomenclature. And not from A.I. It did not create itself, after all. 

let's remember that.

Surer, but as long as your humor at the expense of other people continues, you've lost the point of healing laughter. Laugh with, but never to someone. You're... how old, and have not yet learned that? pathetic.

Let's see you endure the pain of childbirth, boyo. You got nothin to compare with that, and never will. Let's see you even pass kidney stones, jut a mite smaller than a fully-developed fetus ready for birth. Have some respect, yeah?

I don't need to spend a penny on  proving my love for my bride of 50+ years; it is given and received freely. Oh, she'll take flowers on occasion, and a night out, and such, and we take great pleasure in the investment of conversion of dollars to precious metals [and that worth is far greater than its cost, over time], so, no, not everything requires a dollar.

Not all chocolate is loaded with sugar. In fact, dark chocolate [in excess of 80% cacao], is more healthy for you than not. Yes, it's a little bitter,  but its health benefit far outruns the bitterness. It's a taste one can learn to love.  I never eats milk chocolate. Diluted flavor just doesn't cut it. The darker [higher cacao content], the better, but don't make a full diet of it. Moderation in all things.  I even melt dark chocolate into a sauce to pour over filet mignon. Fabulous!. Also very good on medallions of pork tenderloin.

Wrong, again. ZLM is not the full story, even yet. Let's have some consideration for the singular life produced by the gonads [ovaries and testes], which is is not yet a zygote until the two, ovum and sperm, are united to complete a single double-helix of DNA. Yes, life is continuous, generation to generation because the ovum and sperm are living organisms worthy of survival should they achieve that nearly impossible journey that creates the human soul, body and spirit, which only the female of the species can produce, worlds without end. No, men cannot become pregnant. The man is not plumbed to do so, and never will be, and, regardless, could not endure the potential degree of pain that is childbirth, yet women do it daily, don't they? 

Yes, as I said, close-minded. And closed tighter still. But, that's entirely on you.