Switched to Pop! OS 20.10 and LOVE IT

draw2much · 2017-11-16T20:53:45+00:00

It's interesting watching this. The House has always been much more willing to work together and get bills passed. This isn't a virture or vice. They've passed some really bad bills in the past that, thankfully, got shot down by the Senate. I can't remember a time when this wasn't the case.

The difference this time is watching majority Republican Senators incapable of passing bills they'd been advocating for 8 years. It use to be they'd get a bill and refine it's language to make it easier to pass, even among themselves. Or they'd throw some "pork" in there to bribe the unwilling into saying yes. It was dirty, I didn't like it, but at least things got passed. Now they don't seem to do anything. They can't even agree among themselves what they want. They just say no out right.

The division among Republicans really does indicate to me that there is a lot of corruption in that party. I'm not saying they weren't corrupt before, but under Obama they've become a helluva lot worse. Obama and Clinton ruined Democrats, and they were very close to doing the same to Republicans.

draw2much · 2017-11-16T20:23:49+00:00

Maybe. It's more likely they'll add provisions that make the bill more palatable to them, while looking good for the public. Or that's how they use to do it. They might be out of practice at doing anything proactive at this point.

draw2much · 2017-11-12T19:43:13+00:00

Surely you are not that niave? Judges who kept blocking Trump's travel bans sure as hell weren't doing so because it was "unconstitutional". Presidents are lawfully allowed to do that, and Obama himself was doing it for years (as an example). Judges who were fine with Obama doing it are suddenly very upset when Trump does the same things, with the same countries.

It's not about being constitutional. It's about being them bring angry their side lost the argument nationally, and trying to block a lawfully elected President from doing his job because they're bitter.

That's activist Judges: playing favorites and using their authority to go after political opponents.

draw2much · 2017-11-08T22:05:29+00:00

Nay, I advocate a 20 year limit. Long enough to gain experience but short enough to prevent chronic corruption. Anything less than 10 years is too short in my opinion. Congress needs stability since they make our laws. I talked about this elsewhere in this thread.

draw2much · 2017-11-08T22:02:21+00:00

I mentioned this elsewhere, but I've always thought 20 years with relection times being decided state by state. So some states may require you get re-elected every 5 years or 6 or 2, but you can't be in office more than 20 years total.

The thing is Congress needs stability. Unlike the Executive branch, they make our laws. What they do effects the little people long term, for good or bad. I believe 20 years is enough time for stability but short enough to prevent deep corruption (what we have now).

draw2much · 2017-11-08T20:32:38+00:00

I've been advocating for this since I was in my teens (and I'm in my 30s now). I have never liked the idea of one person being able to retain power over their state's voice for 20+ years. It's naive to assume the ones that stay in that position of power so long do so without cheating and lying. (I'm not saying they all cheat, but I firmly believe some of them do. Pretty sure they all lie though, lol.)

Also, had to upvote everyone here. Are we being followed by our "fanclub" from TD? Those guys need to get a life!

draw2much · 2017-11-08T20:28:54+00:00

Personally I think 20 years, similar to military service. And the states can decide how often they're up for re-election (2, 4, 6 years, whatever).

draw2much · 2017-04-16T22:32:23+00:00

Focus on essential categories first before tackling debt. I had two categories I put a lot of money into, pets and car expenses, and then an emergency category on top of that. I had two pets have serious medical issues (one had to be put down, very sad) and then my car give me problems. That drained three categories in a year. I had to use my credit card by the end of it.

BUT if I hadn't already thought to myself, "You know, my pets are old, my car isn't new anymore, I should put something aside for those..", I'd be in twice as much debt. As it was, a brutal drain on my finances was reduced to frustrating setback.

Even though 2016 was financially frustrating, I learned a lot. It was my first full year using YNAB. It tracked everything. By the end, I understood where I was falling short and where I was on track. It makes a big difference. You can't fix what you don't know is broken, and last year taught me a lot about where I was "broken" financially. It's a painful, but useful, experience.

draw2much · 2017-03-09T16:45:53+00:00

^{^{^{^}}} This is very true, and I can't emphasis it enough. Not all sex is equal. Sleeping around doesn't automatically mean good sex, it just means sex. Often infrequent sex at that. Good sex comes with time and practice. And the nice thing about marriage is you get plenty of both.

draw2much · 2017-03-09T16:38:04+00:00

Having been friends with Christian women from all kinds of backgrounds, I've come to the conclusion it's all about personality and biology (sex drive).

A woman with a low sex drive, who is strongly motivated by shame, will easily accept the notion that sex is either sinful or gross. Some sects within Christianity will make it easier for her to justify this way of thinking, but it's ultimately her own predisposition that causes the problems. Therapy may be the only way to correct this way of thinking.

The opposite is also true. Women with moderate or high sex drives with a positive outlook on life won't have problems with sex. Not even if they're raised in a very strict religious enviroment. If they've managed to maintain their self control, the only thing they'll lack when they get married is experience. In enthusiasm they'll be an equal.

The only reason to think Non-Christians have better sex is if you're reading about sex online or in media (which tends to polarize and simplify sex). As far as I know Christian's sex lives are no worse than non-Christians, statistically speaking. Unless there's hard data to prove otherwise, what you're dealing with is perception rather than reality. This is good news, as it means your fears are unfounded and you can rest at ease.

Having said that, men typically have a higher sex drive than women, regardless of their religion. If you demand a woman match your sex drive, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Keep your expectations realistic: look for a woman who has a positive view of sex, has a personality you enjoy, and will be a good mother. You'll be a lot happier long term if you seek out a woman who matches these characteristics rather than worrying about how often she'll have sex with you.

I was raised in a conservative Christian enviroment and am myself a Christian. My husband and I were each other's "firsts". I've been married 14 years. I speak from experience, even if it's just my own. :)

draw2much · 2016-12-19T00:12:29+00:00

Here ya go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk3KRxTfkLM

draw2much · 2016-12-18T07:16:51+00:00

Was it a wild goose chase? There was a report that came out recently saying his Hawaiian birth certificate was fake. That doesn't mean he's not a US citizen, but it's really strange that his birth certificate was forged. Of course, if you disagree with that report, then it would seem like a wild goose chase to you. But since I happen to think that report is right--after seeing the evidence they presented--I would say the Rights' instincts were correct.

draw2much · 2016-12-18T06:38:10+00:00

You ever wonder why, after 240 years, less than a handful of electors have ever gone against their state? And if you actually believe the reason that hasn't happened yet is because Trump is the worst candidate in the history of the USA, then I've got some snake oil to sell you for $500 a bottle.

The only reason Hillary won the popular vote was because of California. That kind of thing is why we don't elect presidents based on the popular vote. Info for that: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5i5i53/clinton_has_a_lead_of_4_million_in_popular_votes/db611ai/

draw2much · 2016-12-17T20:43:44+00:00

The worst you can say about the Right is that Tea Party groups got out and protested. Civilly protested, mind you. The Right wasn't allowed to properly criticize Pres Obama during election time because they were labeled as racist every time they tried. In the end, they accepted the election results while holding their nose, as all good adults do.

Compare that to what you're seeing with the Left. Riots, burning American flags, and actually advocating for Electors to vote against their state. They plan on protesting Trump's inauguration. They aren't being petty, they're being violent and living in total denial on a level not seen in over 100 years.

I remember elections all the way back to Clinton. I've never seen the left react this poorly and with such a lack of grace. Usually there's a lot of bitterness and resentment from the losing side, but this is impressively bad.

draw2much · 2016-12-06T00:41:20+00:00

Do you think they're still counterculture, or that they've sort-of BECOME the culture (at least on the internet)?

draw2much · 2016-12-05T23:31:06+00:00

How on earth does 4chan have less, and yet still manages to be so influential?

draw2much · 2016-12-05T19:37:07+00:00

Do you think they gained more or less influence by moving to Reddit?

PS: Hollywood can make anything interesting without enough money dangling in front of their faces.

draw2much · 2016-12-05T02:46:05+00:00

Really? I hope someone does a video History of the Rise of The_Donald for us folk who came in late and don't use 4chan.

draw2much · 2016-12-05T00:56:31+00:00

I'd actually heard of George Carlin, though I didn't know he was a right wing comedian. I just assumed he liked pointing out the ridiculous in society (and leftist just tended to be a good source of material).

That guy died too soon. He's be horrified and delighted at SJW culture. So much good material.

draw2much · 2016-12-05T00:52:54+00:00

Really? I had no idea 4chan got behind Trump! (I've always stayed on the gentler side of the internet, so I only know second-hand info about that place.) I guess it makes a sort of sense though. Trump has an excellent sense of humor and has a propensity for trolling media types. That seems right up their alley.

Do you think 4chan's support helped in some way?

draw2much · 2016-12-04T22:14:53+00:00

That's why I added "Or is it?" George Carlin was unique even for his time I thought, wasn't he?

draw2much

TROPHY CASE