Actually, not much has changed at all. Eisenhower reportedly would have preferred the Democratic nomination. Quite a few viewed Nixon as a "Me-too" Republican. Hell, look at Bush II's domestic agenda: federal oversight of local education and prescription drug benefits. Sounds vaguely liberal (in an American political context) to me.
What I've been claiming is that a girl "in your arms, in tears, and hearing her say, "I wish I could find someone like you..." Like me, only an ape." is absolutely, positively not even marginally interested.
A girl who is seeing someone while pining after another guy is a girl to be avoided.
The only two scenarios I've ever seen where a girl would do what is described while actually wanting a guy to come after her is when there is some sort of make up break up pattern or she's kind of a slut; the two are obviously not mutually incompatible. Other than that, girls I've ever known who have been deeply interested will in fact sit around for the phone; when she doesn't do that anymore, its over. She may go out with the guy, but her interest has taken a fatal hit.
What exactly are you reading? I mean, it certainly isn't what I wrote. Without substantially modifying my assertions, there is no way to get from "she's moved on with her life" to "nobody would ever cheat or break up with someone".
If she has moved on then she has MOVED ON. Moving on is different from banging some guy while pining away for the other guy. The only times I have ever known a woman to want to get together with a guy she used to be interested in, they had dated seriously already. And now that I think of it, all the guys in those situations had cheated on the girls.
That is a real possibility. I still believe that were she remotely interested, there probably wouldn't be another guy at all. She'd do the hang out thing, get bored and move on.
If a girl is really interested, she'll tend to focus on that guy. In the scenario presented, the nice guy was only receiving attention because he was someone to complain to about the guy she actually wants. He was their to comfort her, to fill the place of another girl. He's basically the gay male friend, so to speak. His deeper affections will not be welcomed.
It is the Neanderthal that she wants. Any other conclusion is a romantic comedy.
One thing that I've never seen anyone bring up is how problematic the hookup/hang out type dating is.
A lot of people rag on the "nice guys" for hanging out with the girls hoping to get somewhere, but what do the guys that succeed in getting the girl (for more than a slam bam) do? They hang out with the girl hoping to get somewhere. The only difference is that the girl is interested in the second scenario and not the first. That the scenarios are damn nearly identical does not seem to phase anyone.
It isn't even a matter, necessarily, of paying attention. I was interested in this girl and she brought up her "thing" with a professor. So, I figured "she's into some other guy" and didn't sweat it. Turned out she was interested in me, even though she stupidly used her time with me to talk about another guy (who, shock and surprise was cheating on his girlfriend with her.)
The one study that I know of concludes that women will lie through their teeth about the number of men they have slept with, whereas men either are honest or possibly slightly DE-flate the number.
"I wonder if it just means that these bad guys are all sleeping with a smaller subset of women"
I believe that it is rather that the subset of men (say, 10% -20%) sleep with 80-ish% of all women. Women will sleep with these guys, but "it doesn't count" because {insert rationalization here}.
This is true. It is also what they will be furiously complaining about in six months.
Odd how being the kind of guy that women say they want will get you nowhere. Being the kind of guy they routinely complain about will get you laid. Later, they complain that you are not more like the guy they say they want. If you become that guy, you'll be single within the year. If you ignore what she SAYS she wants and remain the guy she ACTUALLY chose, then you should be good for the long haul.
So, to sum up. If you want to have a girlfriend that loves you to pieces, though she does sometimes complain, then ignore, assert and do what you want. If you want to get rid of a girlfriend, be sweet, kind and loving.
This is what democracy has always been. It is the most powerful groups dominating the smaller groups on particular topics. Usually, this is the largest number of people, the Divine Right of (50% + 1), dominating and controlling the minority. Other times, it is the politicians themselves. This is politics as an alternative form of civil war. This is democracy.
Formerly, there was a widespread understanding of this and what distinguished democracies from republics.
[Please note the capitalization below. It is significant.]
Here are two very similar scenarios.
A state wants to do something which is popular locally but anathema nationally. It goes up for a vote locally and wins. A republican (party unimportant) who lives elsewhere may think it a bad idea, but as he is not a citizen of that state it does not occur to him to try and stop it. A democrat (party unimportant) who lives elsewhere and disapproves of it, can and likely will try to galvanize support to suppress the law.
The federal government wants do do something, which has majority support, but that support is regionalized. It would be democratic to pass it and simply force all those opposed to obey. A republican (again, party unimportant) who thinks that something to be a good course of action in general, may be wholeheartedly opposed to federal action due to an abhorrence of forcing a people do what they themselves are opposed to.
I don't think I've been as clear as I could have been, or possibly at all, but I hope that the gist at least comes across okay.
Ex post facto had a particular legal meaning when the Constitution was written. When the constitution was adopted, all the current common law came with it.
The prohibition against ex post facto laws means that a law cannot be passed tomorrow which retroactively makes what you did today illegal.
What laws like the one under discussion do is to make what was/may have been illegal in the past, legal. It would be like if someone was in the court system for illegal possession of twinkies and the legislature made twinkies legal, there would simply be more violation. All people imprisoned for possession of twinkies would be released.
This has been going on since before almost anyone on here was born. Hell, when Teddy Roosevelt was president, he didn't think something was constitutional, said so and was responded to with "what's the Constitution between friends?"
The constitution grants very little actual power to Congress, the President or the courts. As it is in their interest to do so, each branch sporadically pushes the envelope of what they can do. Over time, this results in a far more powerful government than was ever envisioned. By the time some people notice, they are much older and these new powers are accepted by the younger generations as normal.
Not that this lets "we the people" off the hook, either. Once upon a time, there was a well known distinction between republics and democracies. Democracy was bad. It was the proverbial two wolves and a sheep deciding what was for dinner. As most people, most of the time are wolves in the scenario, we the people demanded things which are not ours. Complaints there might be when we are on the losing end, but as most of the time we aren't, we don't complain when we get someone else's goodies.
Not engaging in advocacy for Rep. Paul, but it was hearing him this year that reminded me of how much more common arguments about the unconstitutionality of certain federal government powers were when I was younger and I'm only 35. Paul is, as far as I can see, the last of his breed. There very well may be no one else after he is gone.
The voucher belongs to the parents. They can send their kid with their voucher where ever the hell they want. There can be all sorts of schools with all sorts of foci.
That's the idea, anyway.
Something off on the side, outside of the regular system for people who have very difficult to deal with handicaps might be a good thing.
Huey P. Long had an interesting argument when he commanded (he was lord and master of all Louisiana, in case you didn't know) that private school kids would get textbooks too. The government was not giving the textbooks to the schools (in this case Catholic), they were giving the books to the kids and that is alright.
I do believe that getting the government out of education is probably for the best.
Slashdot Mirror
Good thing no one is paying attention now or you'd be visited by some moderators with baseball bats ;)
But that was funny heh
Actually, not much has changed at all. Eisenhower reportedly would have preferred the Democratic nomination. Quite a few viewed Nixon as a "Me-too" Republican. Hell, look at Bush II's domestic agenda: federal oversight of local education and prescription drug benefits. Sounds vaguely liberal (in an American political context) to me.
What I've been claiming is that a girl "in your arms, in tears, and hearing her say, "I wish I could find someone like you..." Like me, only an ape." is absolutely, positively not even marginally interested.
A girl who is seeing someone while pining after another guy is a girl to be avoided.
The only two scenarios I've ever seen where a girl would do what is described while actually wanting a guy to come after her is when there is some sort of make up break up pattern or she's kind of a slut; the two are obviously not mutually incompatible. Other than that, girls I've ever known who have been deeply interested will in fact sit around for the phone; when she doesn't do that anymore, its over. She may go out with the guy, but her interest has taken a fatal hit.
What exactly are you reading? I mean, it certainly isn't what I wrote. Without substantially modifying my assertions, there is no way to get from "she's moved on with her life" to "nobody would ever cheat or break up with someone".
If she has moved on then she has MOVED ON. Moving on is different from banging some guy while pining away for the other guy. The only times I have ever known a woman to want to get together with a guy she used to be interested in, they had dated seriously already. And now that I think of it, all the guys in those situations had cheated on the girls.
If she's moved on with her life, she is no longer interested.
That is a real possibility. I still believe that were she remotely interested, there probably wouldn't be another guy at all. She'd do the hang out thing, get bored and move on.
If a girl is really interested, she'll tend to focus on that guy. In the scenario presented, the nice guy was only receiving attention because he was someone to complain to about the guy she actually wants. He was their to comfort her, to fill the place of another girl. He's basically the gay male friend, so to speak. His deeper affections will not be welcomed.
It is the Neanderthal that she wants. Any other conclusion is a romantic comedy.
One thing that I've never seen anyone bring up is how problematic the hookup/hang out type dating is.
A lot of people rag on the "nice guys" for hanging out with the girls hoping to get somewhere, but what do the guys that succeed in getting the girl (for more than a slam bam) do? They hang out with the girl hoping to get somewhere. The only difference is that the girl is interested in the second scenario and not the first. That the scenarios are damn nearly identical does not seem to phase anyone.
It isn't even a matter, necessarily, of paying attention. I was interested in this girl and she brought up her "thing" with a professor. So, I figured "she's into some other guy" and didn't sweat it. Turned out she was interested in me, even though she stupidly used her time with me to talk about another guy (who, shock and surprise was cheating on his girlfriend with her.)
I'm not saying "Don't do it."
I am saying that if she was interested in him in the first place there would NOT BE ANOTHER GUY AT ALL.
According to the only study like it that I know of, men tend to NOT lie when self-reporting sexual activity. Women lie a lot.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3936-fake-liedetector-reveals-womens-sex-lies.html
Naturally, it is all fault of men or society.
The one study that I know of concludes that women will lie through their teeth about the number of men they have slept with, whereas men either are honest or possibly slightly DE-flate the number.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3936-fake-liedetector-reveals-womens-sex-lies.html
"I wonder if it just means that these bad guys are all sleeping with a smaller subset of women"
I believe that it is rather that the subset of men (say, 10% -20%) sleep with 80-ish% of all women. Women will sleep with these guys, but "it doesn't count" because {insert rationalization here}.
This is true. It is also what they will be furiously complaining about in six months.
Odd how being the kind of guy that women say they want will get you nowhere. Being the kind of guy they routinely complain about will get you laid. Later, they complain that you are not more like the guy they say they want. If you become that guy, you'll be single within the year. If you ignore what she SAYS she wants and remain the guy she ACTUALLY chose, then you should be good for the long haul.
So, to sum up. If you want to have a girlfriend that loves you to pieces, though she does sometimes complain, then ignore, assert and do what you want. If you want to get rid of a girlfriend, be sweet, kind and loving.
Funny.
"But I don't think of you in that way"
"I don't want to ruin our friendship"
etc.
To be fair, it is in the tags.
I checked out Metisse as I had never heard of it before. Very neat.
My mistake! Thanks for the correction.
This is what democracy has always been. It is the most powerful groups dominating the smaller groups on particular topics. Usually, this is the largest number of people, the Divine Right of (50% + 1), dominating and controlling the minority. Other times, it is the politicians themselves. This is politics as an alternative form of civil war. This is democracy.
Formerly, there was a widespread understanding of this and what distinguished democracies from republics.
[Please note the capitalization below. It is significant.]
Here are two very similar scenarios.
A state wants to do something which is popular locally but anathema nationally. It goes up for a vote locally and wins. A republican (party unimportant) who lives elsewhere may think it a bad idea, but as he is not a citizen of that state it does not occur to him to try and stop it. A democrat (party unimportant) who lives elsewhere and disapproves of it, can and likely will try to galvanize support to suppress the law.
The federal government wants do do something, which has majority support, but that support is regionalized. It would be democratic to pass it and simply force all those opposed to obey. A republican (again, party unimportant) who thinks that something to be a good course of action in general, may be wholeheartedly opposed to federal action due to an abhorrence of forcing a people do what they themselves are opposed to.
I don't think I've been as clear as I could have been, or possibly at all, but I hope that the gist at least comes across okay.
Ex post facto had a particular legal meaning when the Constitution was written. When the constitution was adopted, all the current common law came with it.
The prohibition against ex post facto laws means that a law cannot be passed tomorrow which retroactively makes what you did today illegal.
What laws like the one under discussion do is to make what was/may have been illegal in the past, legal. It would be like if someone was in the court system for illegal possession of twinkies and the legislature made twinkies legal, there would simply be more violation. All people imprisoned for possession of twinkies would be released.
This has been going on since before almost anyone on here was born. Hell, when Teddy Roosevelt was president, he didn't think something was constitutional, said so and was responded to with "what's the Constitution between friends?"
The constitution grants very little actual power to Congress, the President or the courts. As it is in their interest to do so, each branch sporadically pushes the envelope of what they can do. Over time, this results in a far more powerful government than was ever envisioned. By the time some people notice, they are much older and these new powers are accepted by the younger generations as normal.
Not that this lets "we the people" off the hook, either. Once upon a time, there was a well known distinction between republics and democracies. Democracy was bad. It was the proverbial two wolves and a sheep deciding what was for dinner. As most people, most of the time are wolves in the scenario, we the people demanded things which are not ours. Complaints there might be when we are on the losing end, but as most of the time we aren't, we don't complain when we get someone else's goodies.
Not engaging in advocacy for Rep. Paul, but it was hearing him this year that reminded me of how much more common arguments about the unconstitutionality of certain federal government powers were when I was younger and I'm only 35. Paul is, as far as I can see, the last of his breed. There very well may be no one else after he is gone.
Man I wish I had some mod points
The voucher belongs to the parents. They can send their kid with their voucher where ever the hell they want. There can be all sorts of schools with all sorts of foci.
That's the idea, anyway.
Something off on the side, outside of the regular system for people who have very difficult to deal with handicaps might be a good thing.
Huey P. Long had an interesting argument when he commanded (he was lord and master of all Louisiana, in case you didn't know) that private school kids would get textbooks too. The government was not giving the textbooks to the schools (in this case Catholic), they were giving the books to the kids and that is alright.
I do believe that getting the government out of education is probably for the best.
"The students are the losers across the board."
:)
Ah, the sweet smell of equalitarianism...
Cute and Cuddly Cthulhu: Your comfort come the apocalypse.
:)
Thanks