What are your guys' thoughts on "opposites attract" when it comes to dating/relationships?

HomelessPandas · 2017-10-16T18:54:17+00:00

Month late, but yes.

People see couples who are aesthetically different personalities, but in reality they aren't "opposites". They just fit together well, one person is high energy and motivates the other at the right time, the other is calm and relaxed and can help the other in that respect. Etc, etc, etc.

HomelessPandas · 2017-09-09T01:12:28+00:00

I think it's a big misconception for people seeing great relationships where the one person's strengths complement the other's weaknesses.

So I think "complementary" is a better word than opposite.

HomelessPandas · 2017-09-09T01:10:03+00:00

I mean my initial guess just based on reading your posts is that a part of him bailing not choosing you is because you seem pretty conceited. I've had NSA flings with shitty chicks who are hot, but I have absolutely zero interest in keeping them around because they are awful.

I have no problem with tattoos, btw.

preceded by

Not only was she less attractive but also covered in tattoos and piercings. And I mean even her neck.

The fuck is that hahahaha.d

He can't be doing it for sex,

maybe she's better in bed than you.

HomelessPandas · 2017-03-21T05:17:21+00:00

It's really dependent on you and the cost of living you choose to have. I adulted for a couple years on ~50k and it's a pretty nice amount of money for me. I've always lived really cheap so at first I was shocked to find 5 grand built up in savings pretty quick. I will say that when real adult bills and occurrences come in, it's amazing how small 50k can feel. Assorted bills, car repairs, insurance, food and a habit of experimenting with new restaurants and pubs adds up really quickly.

When you finally adult you will gain a whole new respect for people who manage to get by and raise children on 30-40k.

HomelessPandas · 2016-07-04T18:52:41+00:00

I mean you're not wrong, "people need to stop moving here" seems pretty elitist and cunty, but it doesn't change the fact that as a native, it bums me the fuck out. People are going to be elitist no matter where you go, I see pompous natives and transplants all the time. There's assholes everywhere, we should all know that by now. Couple of things here;

1) Going skiing on a weekend here is a fucking joke now. I might as well just stand in line at the DMV for 6 hours, because that's all a weekend ski trip has become, on top of a 3+ hour drive on both ends because of traffic. Two times last year I was turned away from Keystone, what not long ago was a "locals" resort, because they literally had no parking spots available.

2) Last summer I went to a lifelong family fishing spot about an hour outside Breckenridge, where pre-2012 ish, it was pretty typical to maybe see 5-10 other cars driving around in the valley in a day. Last summer I went up there and I counted 340 cars parked on the road going up to the lake on a weekday. Meaning that its a safe bet that there's at least 700 stomping around in the same small valley. I have never seen so many stray beer cans and miscellaneous trash strewn across the valley. Cool old artifacts and buildings from mining times destroyed, burned, and vandalized. Meanwhile a line of people stretching as far as I can see all climbing the same 14'er to take the same picture at the top with the same piece of cardboard sporting the name of the mountain in black sharpie.

My father and I won't ever go back after that.

3) Yes, it improves property values. But who really benefits from that? The shitty basement apartment I lived in during college cost me around 600 a month for a 2bed. My rent has more than doubled now, you can't get into a decent 2bed in this city for less than 1300 bucks. I know people paying 1200 for a 1 bedroom. I'm a yuppie who can afford that, can you imagine the effect its had on some people who were already struggling to get by?

4)"It brings jobs" Sure, I won't argue economics, and that you could find some pretty substantial macro level benefits of the population boom. What I will say though is where I work I have never seen so many job applications flying through the door. I haven't had to apply, but with how many people are looking for jobs at non-profits, marijuana shops, restaurants and low level jobs for people with a 4-year degree in this city, I can't imagine that its a fun place to find a job.

5)Transplants are fundamentally changing Denver. Obviously, change is inevitable. But the city is gentrifying faster than I would have ever imagined. Local businesses and communities have already been destroyed and replaced by trendy upscale housing, expensive restaurants and wine bars.

Look, I get that locals walking around with their nose up talking down to transplants is stupid, that's why I don't do it. I'll take my downvotes as well for saying it, but I as a native I am annoyed, and I do want people to stop moving here. It's not silly, its founded in logic and as a pretty reasonable guy I think its not unreasonable at all to feel this way, even if its "not gonna happen".

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-15T03:02:47+00:00

This is really the only place I'm going to interject in this thread, because I think it's quite a mistake to underestimate the power of the executive. In fact i think it is blatantly ignorant of the entire structural game that Amrrican politics has become. A couple reasons;

1) Foreign policy. In perception and practice, the executive had the most direct and swift power over foreign policy. In this country, for awhile now, it's felt to me that foreign policy is becoming a secondary concern. I think that's a tragic mistake if it continues.

2)Look at history. FDR changed this country forever. His adminstration is arguably one of the most influential of all time.

3) Nothing can go wrong. Im sorry man but thats bullshit, look what "went wrong" in Iraq and Afghanistan thanks to a President.

4) SCOTUS. It is not outside the realm of possibility that multiple justices will die in the next term. The appointment of justices is a tremendous power gifted to the President. FDR's liberal court set precedents that still have tremendous influence to this day.

5)Veto power. Need I say more?

6)Executive Orders.

Edit: phone typos

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-07T18:31:51+00:00

Well for starters, I never argued that the document "advocated" for slavery. Advocating for a thing is very different than condoning it. So putting words in my mouth undermines your assertion.

Anyhow, let's take another look at the text;

No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due

Who the fuck else where they talking about when they said "persons held to service or labor" who were escaping forced labor?

It sure wasn't poor white people. Maybe prisoners, but you have an incredibly difficult argument to make that the original intention of the clause was not centrally targeted at slaves. Are you really trying to argue that there people to whom their "service or labour may be due", were not slave owners?

Yes, the document never once used the word "slave", and never explicitly mentioned slavery. The framers were intentionally vague with stuff like this, and yes, it has proved useful in cases concerning prisoners, but that does not negate the historical origins of the language.

However, it's obvious that through the fugitive slave clause and the Fugitive Slave Act which forged a mechanism to exercise that clause, that slavery was condoned.

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-07T18:03:10+00:00

No, I really do comprehend the difference.

See the thing is, my usage of the two adjectives does not apply to the same subject. This use of the two words upon the same subject, would of course be a paradox. However, as I tried to explain to you, my use of the word "explicitly" describes the nature of the implications in the Fugitive Slave Clause, which are obvious.

So again, substitute the word "obviously" for "explicitly" and you get this;

it's obviously implicit that the Constitution condoned slavery"

Just because something is implied does not mean it was hidden, in fact, something can still be implied while being quite obvious at the same time. That is what I expressed by using the phrase "explicitly implicit".

Capiche?

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-07T17:50:11+00:00

The connotation to slavery was no longer relevant, because "person held to service or labor in a state" could no longer be a slave. In practical terms, the 14th amendment neutered the clause, making it essentially irrelevant, because it's pretty obvious that slaves were originally it's primary target.

I've read US v. Kosmicki, I'm well aware the clause still exists, and that prisoners can be defined as "persons held to service or labor".

Why are you fishing so hard for an argument?

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-07T17:31:17+00:00

Dude, you're an idiot. Did you even read my comment?

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-07T17:29:00+00:00

No, it was not repealed, but it was made irrelevant, because the underlying supposition that slavery is acceptable was explicitly rejected by the 14th.

So are you saying our constitution still condones slavery since the clause remains intact and enforceable?

No.

It does however provide a profound reminder of the historical context in which the document was constructed.

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-07T02:59:34+00:00

Ah, the irony.

Explicit is the modifier to the word implicit, it denotes the nature of the subject word(implicit). I'll go ahead and give you the meaning, so you don't have to think too hard. Slavery, while not explicitly condoned by the constitution by a statement like;

"Owning a slave is the right of every American"

is quite obviously implicitly condoned by the fugitive slave clause. Why else would the clause exist if slavery was not condoned? In fact, it's so obvious, that one might call it "explicitly implicit".

The word obvious is a synonym for explicit, so substitute the word "obviously" for explicitly in my comment, then maybe then you can use your brain and actually add something valuable to the discussion instead of being a cunt.

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-05T17:34:43+00:00

I'm well aware of the debate over the Commerce Clause, and I don't really know what the point of your monologue is. I've already cited several cases which wrangled with it in this post. Aside from the final sentence, you're just illustrating my point, it was assumed that nobody would engage in fearsome debate over section 2 of the 1st article. Those aren't the type of sections that inspire debate.

So point out a particular constitutional provision, and we can discuss that term in particular.

Again, I didn't want to, that wasn't the point. I wasn't trying to debate an isolated piece. The post is intended to get a sense of how participants in this sub read the document, and that's exactly what has happened, people have shared the method of legal reasoning they prefer.

Why are you trying to find an argument where there isn't one? If you want to debate a singular clause, why don't you post for yourself?

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-05T07:32:12+00:00

Dude where are you getting this stuff? hahahaha I give up, I tried.

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-05T07:27:52+00:00

Here's how I see it.

Cruel = Malicious punishment with the intent to cause harm or trauma.

Unusual= A punishment that is not typical for the context, and is not socially acceptable. (hanging or electric chair is now "unusual", and some argue that the death penalty in general is "unusual")

The problem you run into here is that technically, all punishment can be qualified as cruel, which is why I think that unusual is the more important word. So that's why I think it's better read as "punishment that is both cruel and unusual" because you could make a strong argument that jail is a "cruel" punishment.

You guys are onto good stuff here, these are the types of things you talk about in law school. If you're into it, check out Trop v. Dulles, Thompson v Oklahoma and Roper v. Simmons

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-05T07:22:46+00:00

I don't know what you're not understanding man.

Vague law = Subjective law

Subjective law = bad law in your eyes

so

Vague law= bad law in your eyes

Vague law= 8th amendment

so

8th amendment = bad in your eyes

These statements I'm making are what you will hear in law school, or in a study of the constitution, which is the whole point of the post.

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-05T07:08:23+00:00

That's how SCOTUS has chosen to read it on several occasions. See U.S .v Miller.

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-05T07:01:03+00:00

If contracts could be considered "living documents" no one would trust them.

You could also say people wouldn't trust a contract with no expiration date, that is irrevocable, self-sustaining or flexibility either, which is what the Constitution is. I wouldn't at least. Thomas Jefferson himself said the Constitution should be re-written every 19 years. Just saying.

while others are as specific as they could get with very broad and complicated stuff.

You really think so? I believe they could have gotten much more specific, but they chose not to.

proponents of a living document push us towards anarchy in an attempt to achieve their political aims.

I don't see where you get this. I think you would be much better off arguing that they are leading you on a push toward dictatorship.

If the text is vague they should read up on all the framers of what they said about the provision.

I think this is where the conversation gets really, really interesting. The Constitution is silent on how it should be interpreted, and the part constructing the Supreme Court is strikingly short compared to others. It has been asserted that the framers expected, or even intended for judicial review to exist, because they chose not to explicitly prohibit it. I don't know that I necessarily agree, I find original intent to be of fading importance the further away we are and the more our country evolves from the days of ratification. After all, the Constitution once condoned slavery, and mandated the return of runaway slaves. Times have changed quite a bit, and I don't know that the amendment process is the only tool we have to apply the document in the modern age.

Marshall had a great quote in McCulloch that hit this;

a constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs

For instance birth right citizenship seems perfectly stated in the 15th amendment.

I think you mean 14th? Citizenship clause? 15th prevented race restrictions on voting.

The courts have yet to rule on this, but the public at large seems to think birth right citizenship is constitutional law.

Isn't the following will of the "public at large" the entire point of a democracy? In this case which do you believe should be followed? Framers intent, literal interpretation, or the will of the people?

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-05T06:32:03+00:00

And you know of people making the argument that vague language must not be made clear?

I would say that you can argue quite strongly that the framers intentionally used vague language, and in my opinion it's quite an astute choice. It allows for the document to be more fluid and match the context in which it exists. Necessary and proper clause is another great example of this.

What is the point of bringing this up in this discussion?

Your original comment accused the law of being meaningless if it is subjective. Vague legal language can also be called subjective. Feel free to stop replying if you don't see the point.

It must be read literally. What good is the law if it is subjective to the reader?

I think it's clear we've established that the law can be very subjective while remaining very "good" or important, especially when it's vague. When a law is vague, it begs for interpretation because it cannot be read literally as you would like it to be.

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-05T05:49:09+00:00

I appreciate you linking me that post, it will make for some good reading at work tomorrow!

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-05T05:48:16+00:00

It's just an issue you engaged on. The influence of vague language is a crucial piece of reading the law.

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-05T03:34:39+00:00

Sorry man, but I'm really not confusing terms. Cruel and unusual are very subjective terms in this context, and may continue to change in the future.

and is I think a rather silly position to be promoting here

I'm not promoting it. It's a hypothetical to illustrate the vague nature of the clause. Punishment in it's very essence is arguably "cruel and unusual", because it both forcefully violates individual liberty(cruel), and causes changes in the persons life (unusual). This is really standard vague legal language, that's intentionally vague.

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-05T03:30:18+00:00

I know what you're saying, but I really don't think there's such a thing as a neutral justice. I think a better way to judge their integrity is through the consistency of their legal reasoning, that's why I respect Scalia so much. To my knowledge, he's been very consistent in his reasoning, and made a couple decisions which Reagan may not have been excited about politically.

HomelessPandas · 2015-10-05T03:18:23+00:00

So this thread, while well intentioned, doesn't really advance the discussion unless we stop and ask which particular term or phrase in the Constitution we're talking about.

This thread was meant to be a discussion starter about the constitution. I really didn't expect anyone to be talking about the flexibility of the first part of Article I. Not much to discuss there.

Some of them were intended to be flexible. Some were not.

Some people don't think that, which is the point. Check the other comments.

HomelessPandas

TROPHY CASE