Unsafe Act Quotes

All conservative ideologies justify existing inequities as the natural order of things, inevitable outcomes of human nature. If the very rich are naturally so much more capable than the rest of us, why must they be provided with so many artificial privileges under the law, so many bailouts, subsidies and other special considerations - at our expense? Their "naturally superior talents" include unprincipled and illegal subterfuge such as price-fixing, stock manipulation, insider training, fraud, tax evasion, the legal enforcement of unfair competition, ecological spoliation, harmful products and unsafe work conditions. One might expect naturally superior people not to act in such rapacious and venal ways. Differences in talent and capacity as might exist between individuals do not excuse the crimes and injustices that are endemic to the corporate business system.

If someone would have talked in school about safe touch and unsafe touch, I believe I would have spoken up as a child and not been victimized over and over again for years, but that day never came, which is why my mission now is to protect children from the childhood I could not be protected from.

Not knowing how to regulate their own painful, aversive feelings, such as shame and anger, makes people with BPD walking powder kegs. Because of their deficits, they tend to regulate emotional pain with actions that bring quick, short-term relief, such as cutting themselves (parasuicidal acts) using drugs or alcohol, shopping or overspending, binge eating, anorexia, gambling, or engaging in unsafe sex. The consequence of these behaviors is usually more emotional pain. Alternatively, they may cope by avoiding or dissociating from the trigger or the actual emotion they are feeling. Some people with BPD may have developed too much control of their emotional responses. They may be described as emotionally over-controlled or emotionally constipated.

When ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) claims that home birth and midwives are unsafe, they imply that the women who choose it and the midwives that provide it are acting irresponsibly and selfishly. They stigmatize normal birth just as the political right has stigmatized abortion. And they stigmatize women. "Our country has created a mythology of women who are irresponsible and don't care," says Paltrow. "We talk about welfare queens, crack moms, and murderous women who have abortions." A culture that allows such language to permeate our national subconscious inevitably dehumanizes all women, including mothers. Lyon argues that this thinking perpetuates a phrase often invoked in exam rooms and delivery rooms: The goal is to have a healthy baby. "This phrase is used over and over and over to shut down women's requests," she says. "The context needs to be that the goal is a healthy mom. Because mothers never make decisions without thinking about that healthy baby. And to suggest otherwise is insulting and degrading and disrespectful." What's best for women is best for babies. ... The goal is to have a healthy family.

This produces teen vulnerability to peer pressure and emotional contagion. Moreover, such pressure is typically “deviance training,” increasing the odds of violence, substance abuse, crime, unsafe sex, and poor health habits (few teen gangs pressure kids to join them in tooth flossing followed by random acts of kindness). For example, in college dorms the excessive drinker is more likely to influence the teetotaling roommate than the reverse. The incidence of eating disorders in adolescents spreads among peers with a pattern resembling viral contagion. The same occurs with depression among female adolescents, reflecting their tendency to “co-ruminate” on problems, reinforcing one another’s negative affect.

With the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, the United States cracked down on false and misleading labels, unsafe ingredients in food, and the adulteration of medical and food products. In 1930, the watchdog bureau became known as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Later laws in 1938 covered medical devices and cosmetics, and a 1962 law added scientific rigor to the drug industry.

People who are uninvolved in character growth can be unsafe, because they are shut off from awareness of their own problems and God’s resources to transform those problems. Instead, they act out of their unconscious hurts, and then hurt others.

On a movie set, the cry is 'Back to one!' to alert the cast and extras to reset to their original positions before the camera is rolled for the next take. Whenever I arrived at a place where the film business felt uncomfortable or downright unsafe for me, the place I often returned to was the theater. Onstage, we trust the material works, we assume all the actors are genuinely talented, and the work itself is the focus, unencumbered by the bullshit that often interferes with moviemaking. Back to one indeed.

And lastly were the single women. They would run the gamut from somewhat pretty to somewhat plain, dreadful, incurable diseases that had relegated them to lives of obscurity and boredom. They were hardly unattractive, each having something special to offer, but their figures and faces were more real than the latest Hollywood celebrity gracing the magazine cover at their local supermarket checkout. Outcasts in a non-substantive culture which worshipped only facade, they were hoping for the romance found in the pages of the Harlequins and Harold Robbins novels they read in their bedrooms, a pint of ice cream at their side. Their bedroom was their sanctuary, a place where they could dream of being taken and loved, worshipped and lusted after. If they were lucky, they would take home from Cozumel a sweet memory they would make last a lifetime. Evidence that they had lived. If they were unlucky, they would cross paths with a swarthy local Lothario or worse, a butch cruising for the vulnerable. The unsafe mix of inexperience and loneliness would lead them to acts so shameful and degrading they would never be able to enjoy the innocence of another Harlequin.

[…] fantasy does not exist comfortably with reality. It has a natural tendency to realise itself: to remake the world in its own image. The harmless wanker with the video-machine can at any moment, turn into the desperate rapist with a gun. The 'reality principle' by which the normal sexual act is regulated is a principle of personal encounter, which enjoins us to respect the other person, and to respect, also, the sanctity of his body, as the tangible expression of another self. The world of fantasy obeys no such rule, and is governed by monstrous myths and illusions which are at war with the human world — the illusions, for example, that women wish to be raped, that children have only to be awakened in order to give and receive the intensest sexual pleasure, that violence is not an affront but an affirmation of a natural right. All such myths, nurtured in fantasy, threaten not merely the consciousness of the man who lives by them, but also the moral structure of his surrounding world. They render the world unsafe for self and other, and cause the subject to look on everyone, not as an end in himself, but as a possible means to his private pleasure. In his world, the sexual encounter has been 'fetishised', to use the apt Marxian term, and every other human reality has been poisoned by the sense of the expendability and replaceability of the other.

Pornography can be harmful to sexual healing in many ways. It conveys the idea of unlimited sexual access to women, children, and men. Pornography exploits the people who act in it as well as the public who buys it. It uses sexual stimulation to make money, reinforcing the commodity view of sex. Pornography evokes strong emotions, such as fear and shame, and encourages sexual arousal to abusive ideas and images. Pornography often depicts sex from the perspective of someone who has unsafe, impulsive, compulsive, and extreme sexual interests. It frequently perpetuates destructive and false impressions about sex. People are reduced to objects that are used for stimulation and that can be controlled by other people. Staged scenes in porn can make sexual violence and humiliation appear pleasurable, increasing our tolerance of coercion in sexual relationships. The sex in porn is typically devoid of genuine affection, respect, responsibility, and connection. And without these pillars of healthy sex, it tends to reinforce a type of sex that can never fully satisfy.

In the real world, however, the claim that censorship or enforced orthodoxy protects minorities and the marginalized has been comprehensively disproved, again and again and again. “Censorship has always been on the side of authoritarianism, conformity, ignorance, and the status quo,” write Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman in their book Free Speech on Campus, “and advocates for free speech have always been on the side of making societies more democratic, more diverse, more tolerant, more educated, and more open to progress.”30 They and former American Civil Liberties Union president Nadine Strossen, in her powerful book Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship, list the horrors and oppressions which have befallen minorities in the name of making society safe from dangerous ideas. “Laws censoring ‘hate speech’ have predictably been enforced against those who lack political power,” writes Strossen.31 In America, under the Alien and Sedition Acts, authorities censored and imprisoned sympathizers of the opposition party (including members of Congress) and shut down opposition newspapers; under the Comstock laws, they censored works by Aristophanes, Balzac, Oscar Wilde, and James Joyce (among others); under the World War I anti-sedition laws, they convicted more than a thousand peace activists, including the Socialist presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs, who ran for president in 1920 from a prison cell.32 In more recent times, when the University of Michigan adopted one of the first college speech codes in 1988, the code was seized upon to charge Blacks with racist speech at least twenty times.33 When the United Kingdom passed a hate-speech law, the first person to be convicted was a Black man who cursed a white police officer.34 When Canadian courts agreed with feminists that pornography could be legally restricted, authorities in Toronto promptly charged Canada’s oldest gay bookstore with obscenity and seized copies of the lesbian magazine Bad Attitude.35 All around the world, authorities quite uncoincidentally find that “hateful” and “unsafe” speech is speech which is critical of them—not least in the United States, where, in 1954, the U.S. Postal Service used obscenity laws to censor ONE, a gay magazine whose cover article (“You Can’t Print It!”) just happened to criticize the censorship policies of the U.S. Postal Service.

As it turned out, Mary Jo White and other attorneys for the Sacklers and Purdue had been quietly negotiating with the Trump administration for months. Inside the DOJ, the line prosecutors who had assembled both the civil and the criminal cases started to experience tremendous pressure from the political leadership to wrap up their investigations of Purdue and the Sacklers prior to the 2020 presidential election in November. A decision had been made at high levels of the Trump administration that this matter would be resolved quickly and with a soft touch. Some of the career attorneys at Justice were deeply unhappy with this move, so much so that they wrote confidential memos registering their objections, to preserve a record of what they believed to be a miscarriage of justice. One morning two weeks before the election, Jeffrey Rosen, the deputy attorney general for the Trump administration, convened a press conference in which he announced a “global resolution” of the federal investigations into Purdue and the Sacklers. The company was pleading guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and to violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as well as to two counts of conspiracy to violate the federal Anti-kickback Statute, Rosen announced. No executives would face individual charges. In fact, no individual executives were mentioned at all: it was as if the corporation had acted autonomously, like a driverless car. (In depositions related to Purdue’s bankruptcy which were held after the DOJ settlement, two former CEOs, John Stewart and Mark Timney, both declined to answer questions, invoking their Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves.) Rosen touted the total value of the federal penalties against Purdue as “more than $8 billion.” And, in keeping with what had by now become a standard pattern, the press obligingly repeated that number in the headlines. Of course, anyone who was paying attention knew that the total value of Purdue’s cash and assets was only around $1 billion, and nobody was suggesting that the Sacklers would be on the hook to pay Purdue’s fines. So the $8 billion figure was misleading, much as the $10–$12 billion estimate of the value of the Sacklers’ settlement proposal had been misleading—an artificial number without any real practical meaning, designed chiefly to be reproduced in headlines. As for the Sacklers, Rosen announced that they had agreed to pay $225 million to resolve a separate civil charge that they had violated the False Claims Act. According to the investigation, Richard, David, Jonathan, Kathe, and Mortimer had “knowingly caused the submission of false and fraudulent claims to federal health care benefit programs” for opioids that “were prescribed for uses that were unsafe, ineffective, and medically unnecessary.” But there would be no criminal charges. In fact, according to a deposition of David Sackler, the Department of Justice concluded its investigation without so much as interviewing any member of the family. The authorities were so deferential toward the Sacklers that nobody had even bothered to question them.

Aquinas and his followers could help, and did. In a pristine “state of nature,” they decided, man was totally free but totally unsafe. He was prey not only to the elements and wild animals, but to his fellow man, for whom freedom was license to act not as zoon politikon, but as homo lupus. In Thomas Hobbes’s famous formulation, life ends up being “nasty, brutish, and short.” To correct this, right reason dictates a solution. To avoid killing one another off, men make an agreement. They trade in their natural rights in exchange for civil rights, which are now recognized and protected by the community and those who wield authority in its name.

Often, our emotions lead us to believe that the problem at hand is unsolvable when in reality the true problem is not properly identified. Begin by isolating and identifying the actual emotional challenge. What needs are unmet in this situation? For Connor, from a tertiary perspective, it is support and validation. For Suneel, it would be respect and the safety to express his opinions. What meaning is being given to the situation? Again, for Connor it would be that he is unworthy. For Suneel, it would be that vulnerability is unsafe. By taking a moment to witness the strong emotions, we can identify the core wound that causes the response. It is essential to remember that our emotions are here to serve us—they are like alarm bells that are telling us a core wound is being triggered and our needs are unmet. To better illustrate this concept, consider how you feel when you are hungry. Hunger is a feeling that exists to elicit a response out of us. It is telling us that we need to be fed. Other emotions act in the same manner—they exist to elicit a change that will help us.

Here's the thing: love has to feel safe in order for us to be open to receiving it. But the reality for many of us is that the only version of "love" we experienced as children did not consistently feel safe. Because trauma bonds are neurobiologically conditioned and familiar, we continue to eek safety in habitual patterns, regardless of how unsafe they continue to make us and those around us feel. With few of us ever feeling peaceful and at ease, we stay stuck in cycles of stress reactivity, often acting like cornered animals with each other, creating or escalating conflict rather than joining together in truly loving and collaborative relationships.

A right relationship with a parent gives the child someone to turn to who can take the sting out of shame (when feeling something is wrong with who they are), reduce separation (when being rejected, unwelcome, or uninvited), and lower alarm (when feeling unsafe physically and emotionally).

Amy was mentally packing for a midnight flight to the mail coach to Dover (plan C), when Jane’s gentle voice cut through the listing of ovine pedigrees. "Such a pity about the tapestries," was all she said. Her voice was pitched low but somehow it carried over both the shouting men. Amy glanced sharply at Jane, and was rewarded by a swift kick to the ankle. Had that been a ‘say something now!’ kick, or a ‘be quiet and sit still’ kick? Amy kicked back in inquiry. Jane put her foot down hard over Amy’s. Amy decided that could be interpreted as either ‘be quiet and sit still’ or ‘please stop kicking me now!' Aunt Prudence had snapped out of her reverie with what was nearly an audible click. "Tapestries?" she inquired eagerly. "Why, yes, Mama," Jane replied demurely. "I had hoped that while Amy and I were in France we might be granted access to the tapestries at the Tuilleries." Jane’s quiet words sent the table into a state of electric expectancy. Forks hovered over plates in mid-air; wineglasses tilted halfway to open mouths; little Ned paused in the act of slipping a pea down the back of Agnes’s dress. Even Miss Gwen stopped glaring long enough to eye Jane with what looked more like speculation than rancour. "Not the Gobelins series of Daphne and Apollo!" cried Aunt Prudence. "But, of course, Aunt Prudence," Amy plunged in. Amy just barely restrained herself from turning and flinging her arms around her cousin. Aunt Prudence had spent long hours lamenting that she had never taken the time before the war to copy the pattern of the tapestries that hung in the Tuilleries Palace. "Jane and I had hoped to sketch them for you, hadn’t we, Jane?" "We had," Jane affirmed, her graceful neck dipping in assent. "Yet if Papa feels that France remains unsafe, we shall bow to his greater wisdom." At the other end of the table, Aunt Prudence was wavering. Literally. Torn between her trust in her husband and her burning desire for needlepoint patterns, she swayed a bit in her chair, the feather in her small silk turban quivering with her agitation. "It surely can’t be as unsafe as that, can it, Bertrand?" She leant across the table to peer at her husband through eyes gone nearsighted from long hours over her embroidery frame. "After all, if dear Edouard is willing to take responsibility for the girls…" "Edouard will take very good care of us, I’m sure, Aunt Prudence! If you’ll just read his letter, you’ll see – ouch!" Jane had kicked her again.

shame is a sticky emotion that makes us feel unsafe, so the more we convince ourselves that one thing is true and that thing is that I’m a bad parent, the more we dig ourselves into a hole, act in ways that don’t feel good, and become even more convinced of our unworthiness.

How can we possibly act curious when others are either attacking us or heading for cover? People who routinely seek to find out why others are feeling unsafe do so because they have learned that getting at the source of fear and discomfort is the best way to return to dialogue. Either they’ve seen others do it or they’ve stumbled on the formula themselves. Either way, they realize that the cure to silence or violence isn’t to respond in kind, but to get at the underlying source. This calls for genuine curiosity—at a time when you’re likely to be feeling frustrated or angry.

On March 28, 2013, President Barack Obama signed the short-term spending bill HR 933 into law to prevent the government from shutting down. Discreetly slipped inside the bill, however, was an additional rider—section 735, dubbed the Farmer Assurance Provision.   Environmental activists had their own nickname for it: the “Monsanto Protection Act.” Outraged, they argued that the rider—which had been written by Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), in collaboration with Monsanto itself[1]—would provide big agribusiness with immunity from judicial oversight. In effect, it would allow the US Department of Agriculture to approve of the planting of genetically modified crops even if the judiciary had declared them unsafe.

Nicotine patches are somewhere in between gum and cigarettes. They contain more nicotine than the gum, but since you absorb it slowly through your skin throughout the day, you get sustained focus and energy. When I tried nicotine patches, I’d take the smallest-dose patch I could find and cut it in half (even though it says not to on the label). I’d leave it on for one to two hours, so I would get 1–4 mg of nicotine during that time. Nicotine inhalers are relatively hard to find, but Nicorette makes them, and they have no chemicals at all. It’s just a sponge with nicotine and a little plastic straw that you suck through to get nicotine-scented air. I like these because they’re free of nasty chemicals, but the downside is that the act of sucking on something appears to be addictive. I found myself wanting to take a puff from one when I was sitting at my desk, even when I didn’t need or want the energy from it—so I quit! Nicotine lozenges, like nicotine gum, are full of crappy chemicals and sweeteners such as aspartame, acesulfame potassium (ace-K), and sucralose. The safest one I’ve found is the Nicorette mini lozenge, which is very small and contains no aspartame. You do get a small dose of unsafe sweetener, but it’s so tiny that it’s unlikely to matter much. When I take half of the smallest, 2 mg lozenge, I feel a cognitive shift in about fifteen minutes. These lozenges are easy to find in the United States. And make sure to get the mini lozenges, as the large Nicorette lozenges are full of chemicals you don’t want to put in your body. Nicotine spray is a more recent invention. Each spray of 1 mg of nicotine contains vanishingly small amounts of sucralose. You spray it under your tongue and feel it quickly, making it an excellent option when you want a burst of sustained energy. I’ve done more than one interview while on this, and I find it’s great for jet lag or when you have a heavy day ahead of you and want to maintain focus. If you do decide to try nicotine, treat it carefully. A safe

Ensuring Transaction Safety Buying a verified Wise account can be a smart move for those who want to streamline their financial transactions. However, ensuring that your purchase is safe and secure is crucial. How can you make sure your transaction goes smoothly without falling into traps? Let’s delve into the essentials of transaction safety to help you buy with confidence. If you want to more information just contact now- 24 Hours Reply/Contact ➥ WhatsApp: +1 (516) 262-8831 ➥ Telegram: @buyeliteshop ➥ Skype: BuyEliteLive ➥ Email: buyeliteshop@gmail.com Secure Payment Methods Choosing the right payment method is the first step towards a safe transaction. Always opt for payment options that offer buyer protection, like PayPal or credit cards. These methods provide an extra layer of security, allowing you to dispute charges if something goes awry. Think about using payment gateways that offer encryption. This ensures your financial details remain private and secure. Have you ever had a transaction that felt unsafe? Always prioritize payment methods that you trust. Verifying Account Authenticity Before purchasing, ensure the Wise account is genuinely verified. Ask the seller for proof of verification, such as screenshots or official emails from Wise. This step helps you confirm the account’s legitimacy and that it meets your needs. Consider asking for a demonstration or limited access before finalizing the purchase. This allows you to check the account's functionality yourself. What measures do you take to verify authenticity when buying online? Using Escrow Services Escrow services act as a middleman, holding your payment until you confirm receipt of what you bought. This can be a game-changer for transaction safety. It ensures both parties fulfill their obligations before money changes hands. Research reputable escrow services and see how they can protect your transaction. Have you tried using escrow before? It might be the safety net you need when buying a verified Wise account. Ensuring transaction safety requires vigilance and the right tools. By adopting secure payment methods, verifying authenticity, and using escrow services, you can safeguard your purchase effectively. Take these steps seriously to protect your money and peace of mind. Legal Considerations When considering the purchase of a verified Wise account, it's crucial to understand the legal implications involved. While having a verified account can streamline transactions and enhance security, you must be aware of the potential risks and regulations associated with this process. Navigating these legal waters requires careful attention to terms of service, possible legal risks, and country-specific regulations. Understanding Terms Of Service Wise, like many financial platforms, has detailed terms of service that users must adhere to. These terms outline what you can and cannot do with your account. Purchasing a verified account may violate these rules, leading to account suspension or legal action. Always read the terms thoroughly before proceeding with any purchase. Do you know what Wise prohibits? They typically restrict account transfers between individuals, especially if it involves altering verification details. Understanding these nuances can save you from unexpected pitfalls and ensure you're on the right side of the law. If you want to more information just contact now- 24 Hours Reply/Contact ➥ WhatsApp: +1 (516) 262-8831 ➥ Telegram: @buyeliteshop ➥ Skype: BuyEliteLive ➥ Email: buyeliteshop@gmail.com Potential Legal Risks Buying a verified account might seem like a shortcut, but it can expose you to significant legal risks. If the account is linked to fraudulent activities, you could be held liable. Imagine facing legal proceedings for actions you weren’t even aware of! Moreover, the original account ho

When booking hotels online, mistakes or bad experiences can happen — even on trusted platforms like Expedia. In fact, 3 out of 10 travelers face some kind of issue, from incorrect room assignments to misleading listings. If you're in this group, it’s important to know that Expedia does have a direct phone line for complaints. You can call ✈️ +1(888) 714-9824 ☎️ to speak with a representative who can help resolve hotel-related problems fast. Whether it’s a billing error or a stay gone wrong, help is a phone call away. Let’s say you arrive at your hotel and the room doesn’t match the photos — missing amenities, a lower-tier room, or worse — it’s time to take action. Call ✈️ +1(888) 714-9824 ☎️ immediately before accepting the room. The sooner you reach out, the more Expedia can help. If you wait until after checkout, your options might be limited. Always document issues with photos and time stamps before calling ✈️ +1(888) 714-9824 ☎️ so you have clear proof when explaining your situation to the support team. Even if your issue seems small, such as no Wi-Fi, noisy surroundings, or a cleanliness problem, you deserve the quality you paid for. Don’t hesitate to reach Expedia by phone. Call ✈️ +1(888) 714-9824 ☎️ and clearly describe the problem. Representatives are trained to act quickly when a guest’s comfort is at risk. If your room was not ready on time or the hotel tried to add hidden fees, report that as well. Expedia takes these complaints seriously when you use ✈️ +1(888) 714-9824 ☎️ to speak directly with their hotel dispute team. What if the hotel refuses to help? That’s where Expedia's customer service really steps up. They act as a mediator between you and the property. Dial ✈️ +1(888) 714-9824 ☎️, and Expedia will contact the hotel directly on your behalf. This can lead to refunds, room changes, or vouchers — depending on the situation. Make sure to have your itinerary number ready before you call ✈️ +1(888) 714-9824 ☎️, as it helps them pull up your reservation faster and get things moving without delay. Expedia also handles more serious complaints, such as safety issues, discrimination, or hotel policy violations. If you felt unsafe or experienced poor treatment during your stay, report it to ✈️ +1(888) 714-9824 ☎️ right away. The support team will document everything and escalate the issue if needed. This isn't just about refunds — it’s also about accountability. If you were relocated or forced to leave without cause, call ✈️ +1(888) 714-9824 ☎️ so Expedia can investigate and take proper steps against the hotel if necessary. Don’t rely only on leaving a review — if you want direct action, the phone line is your best bet. Reviews help future travelers, but they don’t solve your problem. Call ✈️ +1(888) 714-9824 ☎️ for real-time resolution. Some travelers receive partial or full refunds, depending on the case. The process is faster when you’ve gathered receipts, emails, and photos in advance. Use those to support your story when speaking with someone at ✈️ +1(888) 714-9824 ☎️ who can actually make things happen on your behalf. Maybe your issue wasn’t with the hotel itself, but with billing — like being double-charged or seeing incorrect totals. In that case, too, ✈️ +1(888) 714-9824 ☎️ is your go-to contact. Expedia’s system may not reflect last-minute hotel charges, so calling is the quickest way to correct discrepancies. Have your payment method and booking confirmation available before calling ✈️ +1(888) 714-9824 ☎️, and explain what’s wrong in clear, short sentences to help the agent assist you faster. If you had a bad experience and were promised a resolution at the hotel desk but nothing changed, follow up after checkout. Call ✈️ +1(888) 714-9824 ☎️ and share the details. Many travelers assume that once they leave, it’s too late to fix things. That’s not true — Expedia allows post-checkout complaints within a reasonable time. You ca

What is a Verified PayPal Account? A verified PayPal account is one that has completed PayPal’s verification process, which usually involves linking and confirming a bank account or credit card. This process elevates the account's trust score, allowing users access to more features and providing both buyers and sellers with higher confidence during transactions. Think of it like getting a stamp of approval from PayPal—a badge that says, "This account is legit." Telegram:- @sellsusa WhatsApp:- +1 (606) 264-0854 Email: sellsusa2@gmail.com Facebook: Pege Sellsusa1▰▰▰▰ YouTube: Sellsusa01 ▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰ ▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰ Why Does Verification Matter? Imagine trying to purchase a product from an unknown seller without any way to guarantee their legitimacy. That’s precisely the problem resolved through verification. Verified accounts enjoy higher transaction limits, lower chances of getting flagged, and invite trust from other users. Verification acts like a passport in the digital monetary world, opening doors to smoother and safer transactions. How to B u y a Verified PayPal Account Safely Understanding the Risks Before diving into the marketplace, you should recognize that buying verified PayPal accounts comes with risks. Some accounts might be compromised, stolen, or blacklisted, causing you serious troubles like immediate suspension or loss of funds. It's imperative to vet the source meticulously and know what you're getting into. Trusted Sources vs Unsafe Markets Where you buy matters big time. Trusted sources can mean direct sellers with proven track records, or legitimate resellers operating with transparency. Unsafe markets – think of shady forums or anonymous online listings – are a breeding ground for fraud and fake accounts. Always prioritize vendors with verified customer feedback and clear refund policies.

Here’s the whole country, busy replacing vinyl with cassette tapes and CDs and worrying if it’s going to have to go through the whole process again a year or so from now with the new DAT tapes and mini-discs; since the Berlin Wall tumbled last November, millions are poised for the leap into cyberspace, where everything glitters and soars, but nothing dribbles or squishes; the summer is getting into spandex and roller blades; the number of AIDS cases is now within a stone’s throw, one way or the other, of a hundred thousand; awhile ago the Variety had been closed down because, said an article in the Daily News, “158 acts of unsafe sex” had been observed there by a plainclothes inspector over—what?

Between fatherlessness and sexual abuse, my entire frame of reference for people God made male was built on the experience of their doing. One man’s absence taught me men were incapable of loving. Only in short, sporadic flashes of affection would they be able to do what they’d said they’d do. Made up of an inconsistent spine straightened out by everything else but their own flesh and blood, I refused to believe men could stand for truth, ever. The other man was not a real one at all, but while becoming a man, he decided to act out his urges on a child. A girl child whose first introduction to male affection wouldn’t be her daddy’s hug but another male’s lusts. The consequence being that a man’s touch sounded like everything unsafe. Sexual abuse, for me, turned male intimacy into an undignified practice of the male ego, to which I would only be a body to conquer and not a person to love.2 I didn’t know it with the same amount of assurance yet but all the while, another man was loving me, always.

While the estate team's defence may have been relevant to some of the Belleville properties, when applied specifically the the farms of Easterton and Westerton of Glenbanchor it was at best a gross distortion of reality, at worst duplicitous and even dishonest. Their houses were not unsafe; their farms were not too small; their land was not unsuitable for cultivation; the people did not leave of their own volition. The laird was not acting in their best interest but in the estate's, while the claim that no-one was evicted who wished to remain was a downright lie. And, as Fraser-Mackintosh laid bare, the Colonel could have stopped the evictions, but chose not to.

Coinbase Unauthorized Transaction – Take Action Now Call 1-888-603-2603 if you've noticed a Coinbase unauthorized transaction in your account — time is critical, and fast action can save your crypto. What Is a Coinbase Unauthorized Transaction? When a transaction occurs on your Coinbase account without your knowledge or approval, it’s considered an unauthorized transaction. Whether it's a small amount or your entire balance, this is a serious issue that usually means your account was compromised. Why This Happens Some common reasons include: Your email or password was leaked You clicked on a fake Coinbase link (phishing) You used public Wi-Fi or an unsafe device Someone got access to your recovery phrase Whatever the cause, you need to act immediately to secure your funds and prevent more damage. What to Do First Here’s a step-by-step plan if you’ve been affected: 1. Secure Your Login Change your Coinbase password and enable 2FA right away. Log out of all devices. 2. Get Help Fast Submit a support request to Coinbase through the app or website. At the same time, call 1-888-603-2603 to get help securing your account and stopping further losses. 3. Collect Evidence Take screenshots of all suspicious activity. Write down dates, amounts, and any messages related to the transaction. 4. Stay Alert Keep monitoring your account. If you see any new logins or trades you didn’t make, act again quickly. How to Protect Yourself Next Time To avoid this happening again: Use a strong, unique password Avoid public Wi-Fi and unknown devices Never share your login or recovery phrase Store large amounts of crypto in a hardware wallet Final Warning A Coinbase unauthorized transaction is not a mistake — it’s a warning sign. Your account is at risk, and your money could be gone for good. Don’t wait. Call 1-888-603-2603 right now and take full control of your crypto security.