Image

Cialis is a latest medicine for treatment of disturbances of erection at men. Cialis feature is its high-speed take action (30 minutes) and a long-term effect (up to 36 hours). In this regard you can pick the moment which is most up to standard for sexual intercourse, having all the rage a drug in advance. It is attainable to believe Cialis in the morning and to be ready even next-door day. sprightly ingredient - Tadalafil.

Production Co: Warner Bros. This is something which should definitely be considered when choosing which medication to use.

Categories: Male Enhancement | buy name brand cialis online

Comments

  • UnificationDotCom

    UnificationDotCom

    March 10, 2015, 10:59 am

    I sense it's not in your best interest to not develop an interest in anyone else. If he wanted to be with you, he would be by now since you've surely indicated your interest non-verbally. It seems self-defeating to just put yourself on hold in the dating realm because you like this guy. He may have qualities you like, but for someone to be compatible they have to want to be with you. You're putting your own growth on hold by waiting around for him to end his current relationship to be with you. That's not a basis for a good friendship. If you find that you can keep looking for someone who wants to be with you, you may find someone who's even better, and more compatible.

    Sometimes people who stay fixated upon someone who's not available have lingering issues related to a parent who is/was "rejecting or unavailable or didn't pay attention" so that's something to reflect upon. Or perhaps if not a parent, another important person from your past was rejecting/unavailable/didn't pay attention.

    Reply

  • LWRellim

    LWRellim

    March 10, 2015, 6:10 am

    Except his chief complaint (via the example he provided) doesn't make me weep any tears at all -- because they're doing a "strategic foreclosure" -- IOW they are CHOOSING to breach the contract, and somehow want to blame the bank for not agreeing to "cut them a deal").

    >Over the past six months I've been trying to help a young couple with their BofA problem. They took BofA up on an offer about four years ago, a first time homebuyer's loan. They both had perfect credit ratings and both were employed. They got 100% financing from BofA. Then the market crashed and a few months ago their house was appraised. They now owed $100,000 more than what they paid and what they owed the bank.

    >

    >Since they had zero equity I suggested they contact the bank and see if they could cut a deal to adjust the loan. They contacted the bank the same week BofA pocketed about $50 billion in taxpayer bailout dough. The bank treated these kids like deadbeats and told them to get lost.

    >

    >I suggested they contact the bank and put it this way to them:

    >

    >"I think you misunderstood our earlier letter. You thought we had a problem. No. YOU have a problem and we're trying to help you out while getting some relief ourselves. Because if we walk away from this property YOU are going to have to take the whole $100,000 loss. So, let's talk."

    >

    >Long story short - they weren't interested in talking. "Keep paying on the underwater loan or we will foreclose on the property," was their only response. (It reminded me of my favorite scene in a movie - Blazing Saddles, where the new black sheriff is surrounded by angry white townies, draws his gun and points it at his head a warns the advancing crowd, "One more move and the n.......r gets it!" )

    >

    >So those young (former) homeowners are walking away from that house this weekend. Over the last two weeks they tried again to save the BofA time and money, offering to simply sign a deed in lieu of foreclosure. The bank refused.

    Now you can say what you want about BofA perhaps "screwing itself" by not cutting a deal -- but I don't see how its suddenly the banks fault that these jerkwads -- who put NOTHING down, and have zero equity, did not suffer a job loss, or a dramatic payment change -- no change at all -- have just decided to up and walk away because the deal "soured" on them.

    As a matter of fact, I would hope that their mortgage had some type of "recourse" inside it that would allow the bank to go after them -- because they DESERVE to pay (and with the evidence of those letters, any judge and jury in the land *should* be MORE than willing to convict).

    EDIT: I mean seriously, if when their house had been re-appraised it had come in as being worth say $100,000 MORE than they paid, would they have written to the bank and offered to "split" the gains? And why not? They seem to be of the opinion that there was some type of "partnership" agreement here with the bank. Or how would THEY have responded if the bank had written THEM a letter and demanded to increase the mortgage principle by the amount of the home's appreciation (after all, the couple put ZERO down, so should ALL of the gains belong to the bank)? Seriously.

    Reply

  • oconostota

    oconostota

    March 10, 2015, 8:00 pm

    The russian people are very different from americans psychologically. The russians have been evading or surviving in spite of government for centuries. More to the point they are used to be ruled autocratically. Russians are gritty realistics about politics and economics.

    Americans are not. We need our lies. We must believe we are good and that our government is wise. It is the underpining of everything that keeps us sane and able to make it through the day. Even the people who rail on and attack the government still applaud and love the fact that they are able to do so. Thus they secretly love their government and also see wisdom to it.

    Psychologically an armed American public with a tradition of liberty and freedom (even if it's a lie we just choose to ignore the facts on) will never lay down under a dictator. Not until a series of brutal civil wars are fought first.

    It is true that a man may one day be king of the US or North America, but if that is so he will surely earn that crown over the dead bodies of millions.

    Reply

  • _red

    _red

    March 10, 2015, 11:21 am

    We cannot fight this monster....this monster is *built on* violence and thats what it does best.

    Any attempt to change things via "protest" will be dispatched quickly....queue up the pre-made CNN reels of ATF agents arresting scary homegrown terrorist...

    The only way to fight this beast is to let it die. Form local communities, embrace local economies, move outside of the ring of our thug run system. As much as possible refuse to feed the monster.

    Let the monster choke on the massive piles of derivatives and monopoly-gulag debt it has created.

    Reply

  • yungJoc

    yungJoc

    March 11, 2015, 2:12 am

    Yes actually. It's gotten worse since askreddit and IAMA popped up.

    Reddit for me is really just a great way to chat. None of the bullshit forum mini society stuff, but regulated more than a chat channel.

    Another reason I quit is because I didn't like focusing on a lot of the things reddit was talking about. For example, men's rights stuff. I agree sometimes women can be total bitches, but it's easy to get to the point where you see the whole world that way and you don't percieve all the good.

    Time was the main thing though. After my work is done I have ambitions and goals that I want to achieve, and my time is precious.

    Also, I quit jerkin off because I had a date planned and wanted to focus my sexual energy on her, and also to see what it would be like. I felt like I had more energy, but I felt a lil angrier and more intense and work oriented. Now I can sorta see what the ultra religious must feel like every day.

    Reply

  • sluggdiddy

    sluggdiddy

    March 10, 2015, 7:15 pm

    I put some Maybelle in an x-ray fluorescence spectrometer and there was indeed a small lead peak. It was just a quick, "I don't really think even if there is lead, it will show up, but what the hell" attempt, and after I was done with my independent study I was going to recheck it after cleaning the chamber out for contaminants. But sadly, on my first run of my study, I broke the Beryllium window while trying to put my source away, and was fucked for my independent study. So needless to say I did not get a chance to check the lipstick again nor could I continue my very exciting investigation of early 19th century American coins.

    Reply

  • zuluthrone

    zuluthrone

    March 10, 2015, 11:04 am

    Dr. Starno's "The Divided Mind" distills these unconscious thoughts, one's that we actively suppress or unconsciously repress, into 3 categories: feelings of inadequacy, narcissism, and childishness-as in not being taken care of like a child.

    What I did was to look into substantial moments in my recent life and first let myself feel inadequate. Then, i let myself feel angry for not being treated and respected as the clear superior that I am (narcissism) and how dare anyone expect me to alter my behavior for the sake of them. Then finally just break down about how heartless and uncaring everyone else was.

    This little thought exercise has allowed me to get past a lot of problems and my flashes of rage don't appear nearly as much. They were at their worst around the time when i was rejected by my best friend after sharing my feelings for her, and I wasn't able to get over it until going through this process. It summoned some really powerful emotions that I wasn't expecting.

    I'm a very expressive and extroverted person, however, and I think that having very intense emotional responses is something I'm just going to deal with forever, so this might not be for everyone.

    Reply

  • hobophobe

    hobophobe

    March 10, 2015, 7:33 am

    I learned it as:

    1. Give me five (regular, middle five; not a high five)

    2. On the side (sideways, kind of like a handshake)

    3. Up high (not a high five, just up high)

    4. Down low... (wait for it, don't pull away too fast, be nimble like a cat that is ready to strike and crush the neck quickly)

    5. Too slow!

    *edit*: I had no idea in my wildest dreams I'd get downvoted for this. It is as though there is no logical connection between a post and the voting. It's just like politics!

    Reply

  • wparsons

    wparsons

    March 11, 2015, 1:50 am

    I do not intend it as an insult. I am responding to your attempt to weigh your irrational fears against my rights.

    Though you stated *your opinion* on reasons for ownership of *certain weapons,* again, reality and the Constitution disagree with you.

    As it seems you are only going to continue to clumsily maneuver around the counterpoints I have patiently and repeatedly supplied in favor of pushing your own agenda without regard to reality, along with the fact that you've plunged headfirst into pure hyperbole, I am choosing to end my part in this discussion.

    Good day.

    Reply

  • swilts

    swilts

    March 10, 2015, 12:49 pm

    Yeah. I get that. With a 'but,' though:

    I was double majoring in a hard science and a liberal arts degree, in science you have labs. I met some of my best friends on the first day of class in a cubicle of about 8-10 people, in arts, there's often 'conference sessions' of 10-20 where a TA directs discussion on the weeks readings. I didn't make any lasting friends in arts except for another friend who was double majoring in similar degrees.

    Are there comparable experiences in CS, Engineering, music etc...?

    Reply

  • relatedtocrazy

    relatedtocrazy

    March 10, 2015, 4:55 pm

    So I take it you have it under control. Can you explain your thought processes/ what is going through your head when you exhibit more extreme symptoms? How can a person communicate with you so you understand reality? Is it possible that other people in your life can help bring about positive results or does it all have to come from you?

    I'll admit that these are self-serving questions, and I don't want to go into too much detail, but let's just say I am trying to understand a crazy/sometimes sane person in my life.

    Reply

  • andbruno

    andbruno

    March 10, 2015, 6:44 am

    >Five years later, the results show that drinking diet soft drinks at least daily was associated with a 36 per cent increased risk of developing the Metabolic Syndrome and a 67 per cent increased risk of type 2 diabetes, compared to those who didn’t consume the diet soft drinks.

    Correlation != causation.

    Perhaps people who tend to drink diet soft drinks daily also like to eat fatty food many times a day as well. Unless they SPECIFICALLY studied the sweeteners WITHOUT other factors, I'd think it would be fairly safe to ignore their findings. They're really not proving anything other than a correlation.

    Reply

  • ephekt

    ephekt

    March 11, 2015, 8:56 am

    >Along the same lines, when I read a book of great scientific value (e.g., The Origin of Species), there are parts of it I accept as true and parts that I dismiss as false.

    Well, I would hope that anything you dismiss is due to factual inaccuracies rather than personal belief. If that's the case, then I do too. If not then we have a similar problem. However, I fail to see what this has to do with dismissing something without a factual basis (i.e., something that must be taken on faith) with more personal belief.

    >The value of these works is not that they are authoritarian

    If one hold that they are divinely inspired, how are they not authoritarian? We're not talking about a scientific discipline here; we're talking about a book that is bronze age mythology **unless** you attribute divine significance to it.

    >Why should the Bible be different? I think most (non-fundamentalist) theists who read it understand it was written long ago by a very different culture and that it has been translated and re-translated many times over. There are necessarily going to be problems with it, but that doesn't mean the whole thing should be thrown out.

    If you acknowledge this, then on what basis do you choose what is and isn't literal? Further, how do you know that the entire thing, if open to interpretation and cherry picking, isn't just mythology?

    >Being internally consistent doesn't mean you aren't working from flawed premises.

    Correct, but being inconsistent definitely presents a problem.

    Reply

  • p3ngwin

    p3ngwin

    March 10, 2015, 6:47 am

    >it's best not to talk as if your assumption is that you already understand perfectly and that the topic under discussion is simply invalid

    i'm not sure why you hear me with this tone. i have things that i believe, as do you. i don't understand (therefore don't believe) what you do. there is no offense in that. just as you shouldn't be offended or surprised to learn of what i know to be true, that you do not.

    >It's very frustrating to try to explain anything to someone who seems convinced that the PhD's are simply wrong, and that there really isn't anything to understand in the first place.

    it can be frustrating i know to get someone to understand what you believe to be true. just as i have a frustration understanding why this mathematical problem is relevant or even "true".

    maybe i was harsh condemning a piece of your life that interests you as "horseshit", for that i appologise. i simply do not understand it as it has little relation to anything i know. i understand that there are people that believe in it, and have qualifications in it too.

    this doesn't mean a qualified person in front of me equals that i should accept their truth. as with any human, when it relates and fits with your knowledge and "makes sense" then you will understand and accept it.

    until then, any human naturally has no bearing on this knowledge and therefore can not possibly accept it and later act on it. for we only accept that which makes sense, and we only act on that which we believe is "true".

    this doesn't make sense to me, i therefore don't accept it, it is equally not "true" to me and as such i can not act on it.

    this is not to deny that it is true for other people, or that their qualifications are invalid. their beliefs are as real to them as they are un-real to me. you would equally agree that you do not understand the lives of many cultures and religions in this world, would you say that they are "wrong" even if they are "qualified" in their respected fields?

    i regret that i labeled this problem "horseshit" as it means that i have done exactly what i am trying to explain to you. that this way of thinking is part of your mind, but not mine. i n effect denounced another's beliefs, regardless of how devout the belief or how large a part of that person's life it is.

    by bad, and i hope you can understand and appreciate that this is simply something that doesn't exists to me, for now.

    >the position you have been arguing is mathematically proven to be false

    i can barely describe what this sounds like. you mean to say that one belief system is "proven" false by another's rules? shall we agree the theists have proven scientific "facts" to be false because science doesn't "fit" into theist rules?

    Reply

  • bCabulon

    bCabulon

    March 11, 2015, 8:13 am

    >Luckily we've advanced far enough now that we can separate reproduction from sex.

    Coitus and children can never be fully separated. That is a large part of why age of consent is needed.

    >Now just answer the question where it's about: do you believe that sex should be completely illegal to anyone that can't support a child?

    The issue is who can be expected by society to support offspring. It is reasonable to expect adults to take the necessary steps to support their offspring no matter their current means. It isn't reasonable to expect children who are subject to restricted labor, required to attend school, unable to make contracts, and are subject to curfew to be able to hold the same responsibility. This means we need to draw a line as to who it is ok to engage in sex with. Any line will be arbitrary, but it is better than allowing children to be maltreated.

    Reply

  • hoboninja

    hoboninja

    March 10, 2015, 8:25 pm

    Well the small business (It's a LAN center) I worked at for the last 3 years is doing really bad and had some layoffs, the owner and myself were the only ones left of the 5 employees but things were looking worse and worse so I started looking for a new job and started working at a local hardware store a little over a month ago. I went from 40 hours a week at $8 an hour to about 30 at $7.25 so I am making less money but I am making it but don't have any money to put into savings, I am living paycheck to paycheck. I am 20 and living at home with my parents while using my federal stafford loans to pay for community college.

    Next year I am transferring to Iowa State and because my major is quite hard I will probably not be working through the rest on my undergraduate program and hopefully getting a research job during my graduate program... that's if I can get into the graduate program. So yeah lots of private loans for the rest of college to pay for school, room, and food.

    Reply

  • BestServedCold

    BestServedCold

    March 10, 2015, 11:24 pm

    Every time this subject comes up on Reddit, some woman makes the obligatory comment about how the product isn't needed because she wouldn't trust a man to take it. Well, now you know what men have to deal with all the time.

    The difference of course is that women have proved that they aren't trustworthy while men have not yet proven that.

    On a personal relationship level, a woman's input might be welcome, especially if it's supportive. On a broad, overall level, I personally don't care to hear anything women have to say on this issue, good or bad. It's irrelevant. This is a product for use by men.

    Shall we discuss feminine hygiene products? Would you really care to hear mens' input there?

    Reply

  • CorkOnTheFork

    CorkOnTheFork

    March 11, 2015, 12:34 am

    AMA means what it says bro, but if you want me to go into specifics about myself...

    I was raised Unitarian and later Quaker, being closer with my mom's side of the family than my dad's (all of which are full-on baptists). I've been openly gay for the better part of 4 years now, my dad's been religious most of his life but only started to get really into it in 2007, when he joined up with a church as a media coordinator. He now makes sermons into TV programs for middle-eastern/african countries and is taking classes in pentecostal doctrine. We've said some pretty horrible stuff to each other in this time and made one uneasy truce after another which are either forgotten about or ignored.

    Reply

  • wonkifier

    wonkifier

    March 11, 2015, 2:14 am

    >Now, no. When I answered, yes.

    Why the difference?

    The basis for your statement was still rooted in your personal opinion, not an authoritative statement of context.

    I dont' meen to harp on it... it just annoys me when people just announce things authoritatively without any reference to why they think they can. There is no single accepted way of reading the Bible... so there is no basis upon which to make a flat assertion of context, without support.

    > I don't give a damn about credentials

    Then why'd you bring them up?

    Reply

  • Ocin

    Ocin

    March 10, 2015, 11:29 pm

    >That's a sharp quip for sure but for intelligent conversation needs more substance.

    No, for intelligent conversation to take place you need more brain.

    >The people that call themselves Palestinians nor any of their ancestors have ever decided what happens in "Palestine". If by "Palestine" you mean all of current Israel and Palestinian territories, then the Turks and Brits and now the Iraelis have been deciding.

    So much for self-determination, eh?

    >And that will happen when Palestinians start to compromise.

    The Palestinians have always been willing to compromise. Israel simply doesn't wish for a real peace. Get a damn clue you ignorant cocksucking troglodyte.

    Reply

  • jarde

    jarde

    March 11, 2015, 8:25 am

    It's not a move that's just some formality, moving everything to Holland is a huge ass move, I'm sure his accountants and lawyers brought the idea to him, to which he said yes. Also U2's company's in Ireland are structured so that they pay as little tax as possible. To the working stiff in Ireland, which has no choice but to pay their taxes, it's kind of unfair. He uses every loophole available to rich people to avoid paying his share in running the Irish infrastructure. And then he talks about helping the poor?

    Reply

  • SicSemperTyrannis

    SicSemperTyrannis

    March 10, 2015, 8:57 am

    The money is going directly to the leukemia-lymphoma society. The way it works is that the LLS gets a certain number of spots in big time marathons. These marathons have pretty stringent invitation restrictions (especially Boston and maybe NY). So either you have to be fast enough to be invited, or you can get one of these reserved invites through a charity organizations. Team in Training runners don't have to pay an entry fee or have the time required to enter the marathon, in return they raise a set amount for the charity.

    Reply

Leave a comment