Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Dateing is all about race
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Dateing is all about race
Posted: 1/15/2019 6:06:05 AM
If, as you claim, the 'real you' is getting a 2% response rate, you are luckier than many guys on this site.

Using people to perform your inane experiment just reveals your character and shows that you are NOT an honest, sincere, caring person.
No one is required to find you attractive, in spite of what you may think about yourself.


I lived and worked in Europe (not military) and while things are 'different,' racism still exists. If you are suggesting otherwise, you are just plain wrong.

Discrimination used to be a good thing ... such as "Joe has discriminating taste in wine."
People discriminate on many levels - what kind of food they eat, what kind of films they watch, what kind of books they read.

You are just one of many crybabies who thinks you have a trait that people are unfairly discriminating against in the world of online dating.

There are a million threads on here from men who rant about women who won't date short guys, "mature" women who belittle men as immature because they won't date women in their age range, fat people who proclaim those who won't date them are shallow, etc., etc.

You can rage against the machine of online dating all you want, but people are NOT required to find you attractive.

Whether it is because of race or not, you can't control the features which people seek in others. Does your absurd "experiment" involve depicting a man of a particular "persuasion" who is successful when he reaches out to those of the same type? Not surprising. People have a tendency to be most comfortable with those who are similar to themselves - income, education, hobbies and, yes, cultural and social background (which is often intertwined with race). I don't know your "race," but even school children realize that there is more to a person than their skin color.

Being a crybaby and portraying yourself as a victim is one of the most unattractive traits a person can possess. It usually bleeds through.

Most likely, THAT is why people find you unappealing. However, with the defensiveness you have shown of your one note agenda (as demonstrated by your thread title), I doubt you are open to advancing your perspective.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Dateing is all about race
Posted: 1/14/2019 7:39:49 AM
What Constitutes a non Valid Thread

The Following Are Examples of Threads that will be Deleted by either a Forum Moderator, Staff, or
Voted(deleted) off By the User Community - no warnings are given as the rules are here to be read.


9. Rants about your inability to make online dating work for you, are tiresome and have no merit.

https://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts1345738.aspx
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 53 (view)
 
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 1/11/2019 3:51:22 PM
{Hopefully, Bunny is off for the weekend, and won't have to see this "pile"}
Hi, Chap -

In order to understand the USA's vehement protection of all types of expression, including "Hate Speech," you must look at it historically. Most Americans are blissfully unaware of the reasons we began to protect hate speech. As ironic as it seems now, many Southerners in the US objected to the rhetoric of famous black leaders, including Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, as being "Hate Speech" that was calculated to foment a race war. They wanted it stopped!!


U.S. law only began to protect hateful speech during the 1960s. The reason, in retrospect, is clear—repressive Southern state governments were trying to criminalize the civil-rights movement for its advocacy of change. White Southerners claimed (and many really believed) that the teachings of figures like Martin Luther King or Malcolm X were "hate speech" and would produce "race war." By the end of the decade, the Court had held that governments couldn't outlaw speech advocating law violation or even violent revolution. Neither Black Panthers nor the KKK nor Nazi groups could be marked off as beyond the pale purely on the basis of their message.


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/free-speech-isnt-free/283672/

Similarly, Europe's unfortunate holocaust history, to which you allude in your previous comment, shaped your own kind of laws that reflect what your society believes to be in the best interest of its populace.

As the article linked above so eloquently states:


Rauch responds that

"painful though hate speech may be for individual members of minorities or other targeted groups, its toleration is to their great collective benefit, because in a climate of free intellectual exchange hateful and bigoted ideas are refuted and discredited, not merely suppressed .... That is how we gay folks achieved the stunning gains we've made in America: by arguing toward truth."

I think he's right. But the argument isn't complete without conceding something most speech advocates don't like to admit:

Free speech does do harm.

It does a lot of harm.

And while it may produce social good much of the time, there's no guarantee—no "invisible hand" of the intellectual market—that ensures that on balance it does more good than harm. As Rauch says, it has produced a good result in the case of the gay-rights movement. But sometimes it doesn't.

Europeans remember a time when free speech didn't produce a happy ending. They don't live in a North Korea-style dystopia. They do "take free speech seriously," and in fact many of them think their system of free speech is freer than ours. Their view of human rights was forged immediately after World War II, and one lesson they took from it was that democratic institutions can be destroyed from within by forces like the Nazis who use mass communication to dehumanize whole races and religions, preparing the population to accept exclusion and even extermination. For that reason, some major human-rights instruments state that "incitement" to racial hatred, and "propaganda for war," not only may but must be forbidden. The same treaties strongly protect freedom of expression and opinion, but they set a boundary at what we call "hate speech."


If you do have a chance, please try to read the entire article, since it explains so much that helps make sense of the cultural differences we perceive in our interpretations of protected speech. It also provides some insight into the fact that, post-WWII, our free speech laws very closely resembled those of Europe's.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Questioning America First
Posted: 1/11/2019 11:49:05 AM
There is a whole office just to insure compliance:

https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac

And, YES, it is for the purpose of protecting Israel's interests, which seems a little focused, but has been around for a while.



Why it is coming up again at this point? I don't know, except that many Acts have to be renewed, so that may be the case.

justinelle, if this is something about which you have grave concerns, why not do your homework?
1) Research the purpose of the vote at this time
2) Research the history of the bill recently rejected in the Senate due to wording (that might conflict with First Amendment)
3) Research the change to wording in the NEW Bill
4) Research how all this differs fro the legislation that has been around since the "antiboycott" laws as part of the 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act (EAA)
THEN come back here and tell us how passing the bill rocks our world in any way that changes from the last 40 years, if you want to come across as a reasonable, thoughtful individual.

OR ... just continue to haphazardly type/cut/paste random "sky is falling" alarmist dire warnings that seem to apply to events that happened 40 years ago.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Questioning America First
Posted: 1/10/2019 4:25:20 PM
You're about 40 years too late, justinelle.
The power to counteract boycotts has been in place since the 1970s, with the Export Administration Act, most recently passed by Executive Order by President Obama, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)).

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/notice-regarding-export-administration-act

DECLARATION OF POLICY
SEC. 3.
(5) It is the policy of the United States—
(A) to oppose restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by foreign countries against other countries friendly to the United States or against any United States person;

http://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/eaa79.pdf

The foreign boycott provisions direct the President to issue regulations prohibiting the participation in boycotts against countries friendly
to the U.S. (Sec.502).

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30169.pdf

SEC. 502. FOREIGN BOYCOTTS.
(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are as follows:
(1) To counteract restrictive trade practices or boycotts
fostered or imposed by foreign countries
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 50 (view)
 
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 1/10/2019 9:14:35 AM
Here are some examples of "speech" NOT protected by the First Amendment:


WHICH TYPES OF SPEECH ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT?
Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
Some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list. Plagiarism of copyrighted material is also not protected.


https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/

It's the "Incitement to imminent lawless action" such as rallying one's followers with a proclamation that "we need to kill all ____ (insert descriptor: gay, black, Jewish, etc.) people" that will get the attention of the FBI. However, you can go round saying that "I think all ____ people are stupid" all day long, without suffering legal ramifications, as long as you are not threatening to harm them.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 49 (view)
 
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 1/10/2019 8:53:42 AM
To illustrate my contention that racism can be pushed underground, but not really prevented by legislation, here is the experience of a comedian who offers her perspective between the racism she experienced in the UK vs US:


Yashere told CBC's q show that the bluntness of Americans toward race is often jarring, but that she has come to appreciate it.

"I prefer good ol' fashioned American racism. 'Cause it's in your face. You know where you stand with American racism." Yashere told q host Shad.

"In England, the racism is very much more underground, more subtle. It's more insidious. You don't even know you're being discriminated against. It's, 'Hello. So nice to meet you.' Smile. Smile. Smile. And then you leave the room, and they say, 'We are never going to employ that woman.'"

A former engineer in London, Yashere said she would find bananas and pictures of monkeys at her job site.


https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-12-07/us-racism-vs-uk-racism-you-know-where-you-stand-american-racism-says-comedian


Also, I wanted to clarify my comment about the sanctity of our First Amendment. Of course, it was originally created to protect the populace from any restrictions against speaking out against the government. Probably the biggest concern we Americans have about altering Free Speech to bar Hate Speech, is WHO gets to make the decision as to what is Hate Speech? Is it simply good enough to contend one's feelings are hurt? What entity gets to define this type of speech and are we just on a slippery slope that says we are now in danger of legal repercussions for offending groups of people and getting criminally sanctioned for calling fat people fat, for example?

We do have laws that have serious penalties for Hate Crimes:
Hate Crimes
Hate crimes are the highest priority of the FBI’s Civil Rights program, not only because of the devastating impact they have on families and communities, but also because groups that preach hatred and intolerance can plant the seed of terrorism here in our country. The Bureau investigates hundreds of these cases every year and works to detect and deter further incidents through law enforcement training, public outreach, and partnerships with a myriad of community groups.

Traditionally, FBI investigations of hate crimes were limited to crimes in which the perpetrators acted based on a bias against the victim’s race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, investigations were restricted to those wherein the victim was engaged in a federally protected activity. With the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, the Bureau became authorized to investigate these crimes without this prohibition. This landmark legislation also expanded the role of the FBI to allow for the investigation of hate crimes committed against those based on biases of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or gender.
Thus far, offensive speech is NOT a crime. In our country, saying anything (with a few exceptions) is not a crime in itself, but it is self-policed, in the sense that boycotts are often the result, and action is taken if the person who stupidly utters some vile nonsense is affiliated with a larger for-profit entity. Witness the broadcasting network, ABC, and the firing of Roseanne Barr along with the cancellation of her show.

These conglomerates do NOT want the fallout from certain acts to adversely affect them. So, that brings us right back to the topic of the NFL protests. The owners are walking a fine line between respecting the differing attitudes of their patron base - those who are sympathetic to the protests and those who just want to be entertained as an escape from the real world and its ever-present conflicts (including racism).
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 48 (view)
 
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 1/10/2019 5:57:40 AM
Chap -

Like prostitution and abortion, for example, outlawing certain things does not make them stop, it just drives them underground.

I don't see that this article "suggests that the police are routinely involved in investigating such crimes," but it does show specific examples of "crimes" that we, in America, find very different. It certainly illustrates a difference in the concept of Free Speech between the two countries.

I agree that things are much better tolerance-wise, than even a couple of decades ago - witness the election of a mixed-race President in the US, as one example. We have a very different history than in the UK, with large-scale agricultural operations raising indigo and other crops, primarily for the purpose of supporting the demands of England and Europe, requiring a "large scale import of labor" (i.e. slavery). As you well know, the Americas are not the only colony which "the-sun-never-sets-on-the-empire-of-Britain" exploited, but Britain was insulated from the consequences. Look at this paper from 1946 (WWII era) detailing some of the problems brought on by the British-instituted plantation system.

http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/bitstream/1/2025643/1/BPT11987.pdf

So, the colonial plantation system, as instituted by the British, in our country and many others, gave the British the products they craved, while leaving the country of Britain at a long, insulated distance from the consequences of these mass movements of people, and as the paper quaintly states, "the general social consequences of their activities." Yes, America kept this entrenched system going for nearly 100 years after the Revolution, but we did abolish slavery as a result of the Civil War.

Now, I bring this up not to blame, but to illustrate that the history of our country with respect to the "consequences" of social and political upheaval stemming from the rightful changes to a way of life that was originally instituted for the purpose of supplying the Europeans, who enjoyed the spoils at a distance, is something that was not experienced by the British. While Britain certainly exploited slavery, Britain never had the sheer numbers of "imported labor" in their own country, making the transition to a free society a very different experience for your own country.

As slavery was abolished, we were faced with building an entirely new society on a scale the likes of which Britain never experienced on its own shores.

I believe prejudice (racism/sexism/ageism, etc.) will always exist. The best we can do is to give people equal rights (the Equal Rights Amendment for women was never ratified in the USA, by the way - women still don't have equal rights in the Constitution). We have chosen not to infringe on the freedom of Speech in our country, because we believe that it is an important right, and that the consequence is that it will just drive the speakers underground. The attitude here is that we would rather have these people speak out and know what they are thinking, and who and where they are, versus operating in the shadows, even if it means we are subjected to their very abhorrent opinions.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Questioning America First
Posted: 1/9/2019 5:51:21 PM

Where once, people who did not think as they should, were burned or lynched in public, now its the modern version, job losses and public vilification, so even speech is not quite so free.

Never forget

IF one controls the language people can use, then one controls how people think, as well as what they think about……….surely!!

^^^ What???

Why are you posting that dire warning in a thread about America?

You live in the UK, where there is a government ban on certain types of speech.
NOT so in USA, where we still have actual freedom of speech.

Once again, shouldn't you sweep your own side of the street, if you are concerned about the ramifications of how the government "controls the language people can use"?

http://listverse.com/2018/05/25/10-times-britain-said-no-to-free-speech/
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 46 (view)
 
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 1/9/2019 5:27:13 PM
^^^ What???

Why are you posting that dire warning in a thread about Free Speech in America?

You live in the UK, where there is a government ban on certain types of speech.
NOT so in USA, where we still have actual freedom of speech.

Once again, shouldn't you sweep your own side of the street, if you are concerned about the ramifications of how the government "controls the language people can use"?

http://listverse.com/2018/05/25/10-times-britain-said-no-to-free-speech/
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Questioning America First
Posted: 1/9/2019 8:58:49 AM
^^^ Very thoughtful, well reasoned response.

My problem is that we seem to be on "moral" (if that word can be used in the political arena) grounds, if we ask our allies to participate in trade sanctions against our "enemies" (Cuba, Libya, NK, etc.) - some of which are sanctioned by the UN - but since when do we ask our allies to actively support our other "friends"? Where does that stop? Is this some kind of artifact from the Facebook era of "friending" each other, only among superpowers?

On what grounds do we have the right to ask other countries, corporations or individuals to protect the interests of our buddies by taking actions that may infringe on their own power to make themselves heard in the marketplace and punishing them when they do not comply with our wishes?


I don't like this Bill.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 8104 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 1/9/2019 7:59:21 AM
Why so vulgar? Because you can't support the contention he told a "whole lot of lies" last night? Insults are the reply?

What, exactly, have I said that leads you to the conclusion I "support" him?
If you knew for whom I voted, it would take all the fun out of you calling me names and dismissing me as a "Trump supporter," when you can't back up the premise on the earlier post at #8095. That's all I'm asking ... what are the specifics?

Or are you so insulated by being surrounded by your cronies who seem to have no background in logic that you are comfortable piling on to someone who is merely asking for some "proof" to support a statement claiming they "heard ... a whole lot of lies thrown in." I am genuinely curious what you consider "lies."

If you can't support the contention that there were "a whole lot of lies thrown in" last night, no harm, no foul. But, if you cling to this premise in the face of conflicting evidence, and resort to dredging up old news, calling names, and making assumptions about a person's political leanings so that you can dismiss them on the grounds of being unworthy of a response, then that really makes you no better than Trump, does it?

I am a fan of critical thinking, but obviously, that is in short supply around here.

Oh, well. Back to your regularly scheduled programming, here on the insular political "debate" boards of pof.

P.S. You guys are totally BORING, which is a much bigger flaw than being moronic.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 8102 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 1/8/2019 11:37:39 PM
Just because I try to stimulate a reasoned debate versus a bunch of name calling, you stamp me a "Comrade Trump supporter"?

That's it? That's the best you can do?

Then you dredge up old examples of lies, versus accept the challenge of trying to illustrate the statement you made @Msg: 8095 about "a whole lot of lies thrown in" to this evening's address with actual examples that are broadly supported?

You guys are so limited in your ability to stretch your minds. Your narrow POV and inability to apply logical derivations are pathetic.

Talk about a waste of time.

ETA:

If I go to the link you provided @Msg: 8100, it says

"Smith quickly added perspective."

Far from claiming there were "lies."


This board is so D-List.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 8099 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 1/8/2019 10:57:25 PM
You know ... there was someone else in the last year or two, who used my quotes to reiterate their own position. Sounds familiar.

Anyway, this article covers items 1 (Dubious), 4 (Partly right, needs context) & 5 (Misleads):

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/jan/08/live-fact-checking-president-donald-trumps-immigra/

BTW, they rate the claim that the trade agreement will pay for the wall as "dubious" rather than false.

Item 2 was not quoted by you correctly. He called it a:
a) humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border,
b) humanitarian crisis. A crisis of the heart, and a crisis of the soul (subjective, and actually, offensive, IMO, considering his previous policies).
I didn't even see him use the word "emergency," let alone a National Emergency, which is what is required to appropriate funds from the Military budget, etc.


In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, which permits the president to pronounce a national emergency on a whim, at his discretion. The act offers no definition of “emergency.” It lays out no required criteria; it demands no showing by the president.

Declaring a national emergency also gives the president access to dozens of laws with specialized funds he otherwise would not have.


The jump to calling it a lie is a non-sequitur.

Item 3 - You made up a false quote. The correct quote is "The federal government remains shut down for one reason, and one reason only, because Democrats will not fund border security." This is true, because he said "remains."

Here's the transcript:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/trump-speech-transcript.html

Sorry, none of your examples stands up as a lie.
This board is so B-List.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 8097 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 1/8/2019 8:25:35 PM

lol at not lying “much”. It only seems that way to you because this staged campaign soft rant was much shorter than his usual unscripted rants.

Typical response on these boards, as if you are privy to the workings of my mind and the impact of a long versus short "rant" on how you are certain the take-away "seems that way to [me]." Here's a thought ... instead of the condescension, why not just ask what I meant by the qualifier "much"? I used it because "the great new trade deal we have made with Mexico" has not even come to fruition yet, so it's kind of hard to accuse him of lying about the outcome.


My post #8094 was in response to #8093 by love2laugh:
If Comrade Trump is telling dozens and dozens of lies a day, why are we going to expect that he is going to tell the truth about the border wall speech tonight?


If you or love2laugh have other specific examples of the "lies" you supposedly heard tonight, why not name that tune, so we can discuss specific points, instead of just waving your arms around and vaguely claiming there were a "whole lot of lies thrown in." That just makes you guys a liar(s), if it's not true.


Even the "failing New York Times" (see link I provided), who is no fan of his, said that most of what he stated "Needs context." That's not a lie, FYI.


I won't hold my breath.

These boards are same as they ever were. Lazy, self-styled "politicos" who get their jollies by mocking and deriding people who you may assume are politically different from you versus having any kind of meaningful exchange. Just comes down to boring name-calling and driving away anybody who you can intimidate. How stimulating ... NOT.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 8094 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 1/8/2019 6:48:13 PM
He didn't really lie much, except for claiming “The wall will also be paid for, indirectly by the great new trade deal we have made with Mexico.” Which is false.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/trump-speech.html
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Women can't hold conversations, that's why they're here
Posted: 1/8/2019 12:44:17 PM

I could not agree more with the OP.

The vast majority of women are absolutely incapable of holding a lucid, flowing and interesting conversation about anything much more than completely boring and inane, incosiquencial [sic] rubbish.

Hee Hee. Ooh, the irony, or should I say ironie?

See, OP? Now you have started to lure bitter guys with your dog whistle about women being responsible for behaving in a manner of which you approve, and now you have enough people to start a Wimmin Haters Club!

This is it - you have to choose between learning to really LIKE women, or end up in the same place this guy is 20 years from now. That could be YOU (read his profile, and note the homo-erotic main pic, BTW).

I believe you are still young enough to shape your future with women. It's not too late!
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Women can't hold conversations, that's why they're here
Posted: 1/8/2019 7:55:58 AM
Of course YOU are amusing, cooldog, but at least you are good-looking, so it's not as much of a chore to laugh with (or at?) you.


Listen, Kyle ... I don't know why I am willing to try to "help" you, with most folks on here, it's just a waste of time, but you seem like a nice guy, and you seem to be still malleable. I am going to lay some truths on you ... not interested in a debate, just hope you will think about these.


There are a gazillion threads on here based on a stupid rant that "people won't behave the way I want." Most of these threads are from embittered older people (largely men complaining about women) that feel a) they have tried to do everything short of pulling a rabbit out of a hat in order to meet someone and get a date. They are also convinced b) they have what it takes to attract the other gender (looks, charm, wit, etc.). Long story short, they are often quite delusional, on both counts.

GREAT TRUTH(S):
1. You can't control other people. Learn that NOW, while you are young. It will save you much grief.
2. Ranting about other people not measuring up to one's expectations just makes a person appear like a clueless whiner.
3. Whining, b!tching and ranting is a bad thing to do on a website where you ostensibly want to get dates. Your user ID will likely be googled by prospective "dates," then they will see what you posted.
4. Most women are TURNED OFF by whiners. It is the antithesis of confidence, since it demonstrates that a guy is not decisive and in control/in charge of his thoughts, direction and his own life in general. It makes a guy sound like a hapless victim ... flotsam at the mercy of the currents of the universe. Don't you remember your own post #60 in the "What are things you see in dating profiles that will make you sadly skip past them?" thread? You said "Arrogance or complaining." "Ranting" is just another form of complaining.

STOP. WHINING. NOW.

Go read the advice of ohenryx at Msg 9 in the "Spam and prostitution" thread:

https://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts16736624.aspx#16736692

Henry really LIKES women, as does cooldog. It comes across, here in the forums, and I am sure IRL as well. In turn, it makes them likeable by the women.

Most of the men who post "rants" about what women are doing wrong simply see women as a necessary evil to be tolerated in order to achieve their goal ... SEX. These guys will always be the ones that will never grok the whole dating concept. They will be losers, as far as their relationships with women, for their whole lives. After years of frustration, they eventually come back to dating boards ranting about and touting the concept of MGTOW, and how they are so happy now. Of course, they never really "go their own way," they just become involuntary celibates (INCELs) and continue to blame women for their own inability to attract one. Don't listen to them.

Do NOT fall for a girl just because you feel comfortable with her (I know you engineers/IT guys). You are somewhat at a disadvantage, because you did not grow up around females, so you need to demystify the experience a bit.

MORE GREAT TRUTHS:
5. Dating is NOT a hostage situation. It is NOT about negotiating to get the kitty. It is about learning to like the other person (if they are likeable) and liking who you are when you are with them. The rest should fall into place.
6. RELAX. In your mid 20s, you have plenty of time to GET COMFORTABLE WITH YOURSELF. That is the key to making others feel comfortable with you.
7. AGAIN ... Attracting a woman should not be just a means to an end (sex), it should be FUN. Have FUN with women (not just telling jokes) and women will have FUN with you. RELAX, RELAX, RELAX. You have decades in which you, a male, are still able to raise a family, etc., so don't rush it. Learn to enjoy being with a woman, since, if you are lucky, you may spend the rest of your life in the company of one or more.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 1114 (view)
 
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 1/7/2019 7:23:07 PM
^^^ Thanks for the response, Debbie Downer!


The ceremony is about the PEOPLE. I have supported the swearing in and LOVED seeing the new Americans and the pride on their faces.
Our new fellow Americans are awesome.

Who is saying anything about "educational opportunities to teach kids about our government processes"?

It is a party like no other. It is an opportunity to share their joy - see the pride and gratitude on the faces of our new citizens and their families and friends. It will change you forever. On second thought ... probably not YOU.

You must be so much fun ...
(and he wonders why he can't get a date)
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Women can't hold conversations, that's why they're here
Posted: 1/7/2019 4:01:39 PM
O.K.

Obviously, you do not have sisters.


You claim to be seeking a "relationship" (love, rainbow, unicorns farting popcorn), yet here you are ... assigning fault, blame, ranting, raving, etc. Claiming (hoping) that women are ruining their chances with ALL men, when they are simply not receptive to YOU.

Ahh, so young, and yet so bitter. Do you really want to proceed as if this is a combat situation?
You are a tender morsel on the verge of being gobbled up by the MGTOW crowd.

Have fun blaming women for your inability to attract them.


P.S. The jokes? Give it a rest. It just shows you are high maintenance and need continous affirmation that you are "funny." We have a regular poster like that. A lot of women find that exhausting, not amusing.


P.P.S. A mid-20s musician? For Gawd's sake GET OFF THIS SITE and enjoy your most valuable and productive "social" years. Go out in public to hear bands and jam, if you are not already in one. You are cute and should be able to pull gals in public, unless you tell them too many of your "funny jokes."

And quit the b!tching.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Questioning America First
Posted: 1/7/2019 8:29:49 AM

With Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) as the lead sponsor, the Combating BDS Act is expected to receive bipartisan support. Coincidentally, punishing corporations and individuals who support the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement is a top legislative priority for AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby. The bill was previously introduced (but never passed) last year, and gave state and local governments the authority to refuse to do business with US firms participating in a boycott against Israel. Similar anti-BDS legislation has already been adopted in 26 states. So far, two federal courts have ruled that punishing companies or individuals who boycott goods produced in Israel violates constitutionally-protected rights under the First Amendment.



Dylan Williams
?
@dylanotes
Courts have found state laws penalizing Israel & settlement boycotters to be unconstitutional, but GOP Senate leaders are making a bill authorizing & encouraging states to enact such laws their first order of business in a package to be voted on next weekhttps://www.haaretz.com/us-news/texas-speech-pathologist-fired-for-refusing-to-pledge-not-to-boycott-israel-1.6750517?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter …



More Dylan Williams Retweeted (((Ron Kampeas)))
Senate GOP bill includes controversial “Combating BDS Act” which authorizes & encourages states to enact measures penalizing those who boycott Israel or its settlements - measures courts have already enjoined as unconstitutional.

Here’s @ACLU’s analysis: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/aclu-statement-s-170-combating-bds-act …Dylan Williams added,
(((Ron Kampeas)))

@kampeas
Lawmakers reintroduce pro-Israel legislation that didn't make the cut in the last Congress - Jewish Telegraphic Agency https://www.jta.org/2019/01/04/united-states/lawmakers-reintroduce-pro-israel-legislation-that-didnt-make-the-cut-in-the-last-congress#.XC98NYpiSOw.twitter … via @jtanews
1 reply 11 retweets 13 likes
Reply 1




https://www.rt.com/usa/448190-us-senate-israel-boycott-law/


Not a good Bill. Did not pass before, hopefully, won't make the cut, this time.


Oh, now I see ... justinelle feels he has done his job fomenting Anti-Israel uprisings in his own country (UK), and is now trying to stir the sh!t over in USA.

https://brandeiscenter.com/uk-advocates-urge-anti-bds-legislation-after-high-court-decision/

Sweep your own side of the street, troublemaker.

[Still not a good bill, IMO.]
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 44 (view)
 
Is the right to free speech ending in America?
Posted: 1/7/2019 6:01:04 AM
Since this thread was last active, the US courts upheld the firing of the woman riding her bike next to the presidential motorcade, who flipped off Trump. She was fired, not because she flipped him off, but because she outed herself and posted the image on her own social media, which ran afoul of company policy, as I explained earlier.


https://www.passmanandkaplan.com/blog/2018/07/woman-who-flipped-off-president-loses-termination-lawsuit.shtml



Colin Kaepernick's lawsuit is moving forward and seems to be evolving from "collusion" to accusations of "retaliation."

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/9/6/17820158/colin-kaepernick-collusion-grievance-nfl-protest-donald-trump
 Calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 1112 (view)
 
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 1/3/2019 1:45:39 PM

It is so incredibly sad so to see so many of us don't understand that being an American in more than name only means that we understand oaths of allegiance are voluntary, not mandatory.


Becoming an American (Naturalized Citizen) requires the MANDATORY Oath of Allegiance.

Everyone should attend a citizenship ceremony, at least once. It will warm your heart.
 Calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 51 (view)
 
What's Your DMV?
Posted: 1/1/2019 5:58:00 PM
The OP's "DMV" is something that he is thrilled to consider. The problem is ... it only exists as an artifice in his own head.

He seems to have primarily based it on taking a hot Cuban girl, who works at a Gentlemen's Club, out to lunch on her day off.

Then, she took him to the Club, where she and her friends from work "put on a show" for him in a private room, for which he paid. The Cuban gal knows that you have to spread it around when you have a "live one." Her friends at the Club will do the same for her when they hook a sucker. As long as he can pay, they will play.
 Calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 26 (view)
 
What's Your DMV?
Posted: 12/28/2018 1:00:18 PM
Your algorithm seems one way. You have a "DMV" which you feel perfectly justified in applying to women, yet you are
continually amazed at the women on phone app dating sites that specify a height requirement for male respondents. The women making height criteria would be outraged if I specified a bra size. “Must be six feet tall.” “Must have 44DD tits.” Same thing, except women get a pass and I don’t. Duplicity is not attractive, Ms. Size Queen.


Nobody gives a shizzle how you "rank" women. However you paint it, it is just a point system.

Likewise, if women have requirements that leave you out of the running, why not respect it?
After all, you believe that "no woman is safe or out of my league," so you have many other options.

As far as chastising over-60 women for "complaining" that men their age won't date them, you already learned that simply being a "financially secure 63-year-old fit man" is not enough to attract women like your sexy neighbor, who refuses to date you.

Each person has their own criterion. For you, distance matters, for others, not so much.
When you come here lecturing others about "how to date," you need to realize not everyone wants what you want, like a LTR, for example.

Enjoy dating, until such a time as you find what you want, or give up trying.
But, never disparge others for their choices, priorities, or styles of dating/relating.

They are just as entitled as you may be to set their own standards.


P.S. This is a pretty ridiculous post, if you are truly having the success you claim to be having with dating.

Are you sure this isn't just a broadcast message to your ex, to show her you are still desirable?

Like I said, no one cares about your dating prowess, especially older gals who want to date someone in your age range, but for some reason are not desperate enough to date you.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Being on the Autism Spectrum
Posted: 12/19/2018 6:45:12 PM
Hey, how would you handle getting along with a stranger/girlfriend?

I see you have dragged this same story through a number of other communities with no success for at least a decade.

There is also some question about the veracity of your Aspie diagnosis. How did you manage to attend school and get a degree? You are very verbal ... why not translate German or edit Psych journals, instead of blowing your money on alcohol and internet hookers?


I have a family member who is truly autistic. He can't drive, he RIDES A BIKE TO HIS JOB. He bags groceries and PAYS RENT to his parents. How much do you pay your parents?

Maybe you feel lucky to have gotten an aspie diagnosis, because you get SSDI $$$, but it is crippling in the sense you are forced to live the diagnosis, whether it is accurate, or not. I don't buy it.

Your heart attack seems to have been a result of lifestyle choices.

Getting a date seems like it should be low on your priorities.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Being on the Autism Spectrum
Posted: 12/19/2018 9:20:36 AM
Oh, boo-hoo.

No reponse to throwing up while on a date while being "interviewed"?

Interesting that you focus on the "living elsewhere" aspect, when you are firmly entrenched in your parents' house. Wouldn't want to upset that apple-cart, would we?

I bet your parents would be happy to have the house to themselves for once, and would be glad to help you move.

Here is Pittsburgh's website for public housing, including those who qualify with low income and disabilities:

https://hacp.org/programs-services/
https://hacp.org/programs-services/disability-compliance-services/

In addition, in case you did not know this, your disabilities, combined with low income, make you eligible for a Medicaid program, which pays all your medical bills.

https://eligibility.com/medicaid/pennsylvania-pa

Yet, somehow, I am certain you have a rebuttal about why none of these ideas will work for you, much as I am sure you have guilt-tripped your parents into feeling responsible for your full-time care.

Well, we are not you parents and won't fall for all the sad reasons why the world should come around to accepting that you can do nothing other than cruise the internet all day and amuse yourself in debate boards while you wait for that special woman to fall into your lap.

Good luck with expecting the World to accommodate you , when you won't even extend yourself, a little bit!
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Being on the Autism Spectrum
Posted: 12/19/2018 6:09:18 AM
First off, for someone who claims in their profile to be "on the Autism spectrum so I won't get certain things," you seem to be pretty quick to interpret someone's observations as "trolling."

Second, you state in your initial post on the forums that
I still am [a Virgin] at nearly 45 due to severe social anxiety and such. I nearly freak out ordering food in a restaurant. I can't work as I have thrown up or passed out in job interviews due to anxiety.


How, exactly, do you think you are going to handle a date?

You can post a profile on any dating site you please, but you are no more entitled to a response/date than any of the thousands of guys who get rejected every day, who are completely independent, do NOT live with their parents, are taller than 5'4", can drive, have a job and a social circle. Quit feeling sorry for yourself, since "no woman [giving] a guy who is not an alpha male with a 6 pack and making $100,000 a year the time of day" is hardly your issue. You may as well add crybaby to your list of disabilities.


Here are some dating sites for Differently Abled that came up in a google search:
Whispers4U, Dating4Disabled, Special Bridge, Disabled Passions

Here's a thought, why not move to a large city, where you can apply for group housing and use public transportation, to get a taste of independence, before you seek a mommy to chauffeur you around to your appointments, do your shopping and prepare any meals that require browning for you?
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 429 (view)
 
A man's actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship survives or fails
Posted: 11/26/2018 5:11:40 PM

Msg 425: People who look down on or judge others for bad decisions really shouldn't.


So, it is hurtful when people look down on you, but you had no problem going into a relationship thinking you were the superior person?


Msg 336: when I met my second boyfriend, I knew I didn't love him so I figured he couldn't hurt me. I figured I could just grow to love him and because I was better than him I was in control.



And of course, the big reason women end up with jerks is the attraction to the bad boy, something really played up in romance movies and books.


You really have some odd beliefs about what "women" do and it is unfortunate that you rely on media intended for escapism as a barometer of what is "normal."
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 210 (view)
 
as long as they are willing to do two jobs--blow and hand :)
Posted: 11/23/2018 2:44:13 PM

Side note, I know a few long haul truck drivers who tell me companies like Walmart won't hire drivers unless they've put at least 20 years of safe driving under their belt. So, anytime you see a Walmart big rig out on the highway, now you'll know that driver behind the wheel has at least 20 years of a spotless driving record.

Oh, suuurre ... Maybe the drivers just haven't had their logs reviewed, properly.

Wal-Mart policies re: their OTR truckers are NOT anything of which to be proud.
Tracy Morgan's lawsuit alleged otherwise:
‘Walmart not only failed to condemn, but condoned this practice of its drivers routinely violating the F.M.S.C.A. Regulations,’ the suit says.
https://www.sleepapnea.org/3-years-later-tracy-morgan-jimmy-mack-walmart-and-drowsy-driving/

Too bad Wal-Mart "policies" didn't stop Kevin Roper, the Georgia truck driver, who’d been awake for 28 hours, and who was driving a WAL-MART big rig, from rear-ending a limo and killing comedian, James “Jimmy Mack” McNair, and seriously injuring actor Tracy Morgan.

The National Transportation Safety Board has sided with comedian Tracy Morgan in placing the blame for a deadly highway crash squarely on a sleep-deprived Wal-Mart truck driver.

Kevin Roper might have prevented the accident by slowing his vehicle to 45 mph, the posted limit along the stretch of New Jersey Turnpike then undergoing construction work. The truck had been traveling at ***65 mph*** (in a 45 mph), but is thought to have hit Morgan’s limo at 47-53 mph.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/12/shocking-images-of-tracy-morgan-crash-in-report-blaming-driver-of-wal-mart-truck/?utm_term=.72acf367f8d1
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 7864 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 11/18/2018 9:48:04 PM
RAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 294 (view)
 
A man's actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship survives or fails
Posted: 11/15/2018 8:31:05 AM
All the "busy-work" you do reading, polling, surveying and supposedly "analyzing" yourself is just another way to avoid looking at who you are. You have built up a respectable vocabulary of terminology to appear that you know what you are talking about, but you have not looked at your root issues.

July, you talk some good smack and it makes sense on a rational level, but those of us who have actually had experience with psychotherapy can tell you that it isn't merely the intellectual aspect that is important. It's just all a load of rationalization (i.e. excuses) in which to insulate yourself from the pain of true self-awareness.

First, building your self-esteem based on your interaction with men is just a house of cards solution. ANY form of external validation may feel good, but is not truly a part of who you are. It is always at risk of crashing around you.

Second, it is not the lack of a man which is your problem. Your root issue is your relationship with your parents; your father for abandoning you (and you will be forever at his mercy, seeking validation from OTHER men, until you deal with this) and your mother for making the choices she did that resulted in the abandonment. You have some harsh feelings and trust issues about your mom. Until you deal with these, it will permeate your being.

Third, fixing what is broken about you is not about YOU, it's about your children. You are modeling and passing on to them the same way of feeling about themselves from which you currently suffer. Lather, rinse, repeat.

In your case, professional analysis is a long-shot, long-term solution. IMO, it has a small chance of working, because you are not able to trust and open up to the level where you are willing to be vulnerable enough for successful interaction with a psycho-therapist. It IS however, a safe place to try some real intimacy and develop the skills to learn to trust another adult.

Anyway, you have the unfortunate personality type that is sort of like a magician, you can divert everyone's attention to another issue, while successfully avoiding looking at the real problems, then, magically, the problems either "disappear" or aren't your responsibility (until they keep coming back to bite you in the butt, that is).

Speaking of which, you are down to less than 3 months to achieve the certification you had 5 years (now 4 years and 9 months) to achieve, before you lose your current job and take a BIG cut in pay. Will you continue to avoid doing the certification you talked about in your thread "6 classes of single moms"?

https://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts16714975.aspx

I know you feel you can't afford the certification. It sounds like you are hoping to lose your current position so that you will qualify for some of the entitlement programs you believe will come to you with lower pay. Is that how you plan to live your life? Once again, you are modeling the future for your children.

So sad.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 7849 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 11/15/2018 7:02:43 AM

That's the same type of flag the Yanks used at Kasserine Pass and in Vietnam right?
Not to mention in the early stages of the Pacific war.


Speaking of which, the U.S. had to lend a white flag to the Italians less than 3 months after Kasserine Pass, when we took Tunisia. The Axis forces in Tunisia didn't have anything "white" left, even their panties, in their rush to surrender and the Allies took 275,000 German and Italian prisoners, more than at Stalingrad.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 289 (view)
 
A man's actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship survives or fails
Posted: 11/14/2018 11:07:33 AM

What ‘little’ there has been about him has been you pushing him away.


July is not equipped for the type of connection she craves. She can't be truly intimate (or in love), because she can't be vulnerable. She will never trust anyone enough for that.

She has never experienced intimacy on a personal level nor witnessed it while growing up, so has no first hand knowledge of the way real intimacy works. This is reflected in her odd statements about finding someone "perfect," who does not see you the same way. How can someone be "perfect," if they are not interested in you? Only if you can assess them from a distance, superficially. All of her relationships are at an emotional distance.

That is one reason for her incessant checklists, surveys, polls, etc. She has no idea what is truly "normal" in a relationship, but seems to believe 3rd hand accounts/studies are the way to embody it in her own life. It explains her very narrow perspective on how life must be for everyone else. She thinks by "understanding" intimacy intellectually, she can recognize it and attract it to her own life.

July is a fatherless daughter. He kept the family at arm's length with his drinking. She has serious abandonment issues and will never truly trust a man. She made a decision abut having kids at 15, because she wanted to create some beings that were dependent on her, and couldn't leave (i.e. no abandonment).

It is sad to see she has recreated the fatherless child scenario all over again for her own "family."

https://wehavekids.com/family-relationships/When-Daddy-Dont-Love-Their-Daughters-What-Happens-to-Women-Whose-Fathers-Werent-There-for-Them

July will always screw the pooch by preemptively sabotaging any potential for a true connection, since she can't face the fear of being abandoned again.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 154 (view)
 
migrant caravan
Posted: 11/13/2018 8:13:05 PM
They're approaching the Badlands ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uktutdblzxo&start_radio=1&list=RDuktutdblzxo&t=0
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 7830 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 11/10/2018 10:15:04 PM
Interestingly, I found a lengthy academic treatise from Northwestern University (2003) that claims Gore would have beat Bush if Florida felons had been allowed to vote at the time. This conclusion flies in the face of those offered by the Guardian and Vox.com, which hypothesize there could be a Republican advantage to granting Florida felons voting rights (which I think is pure B.S. - else why would Scott have reversed Crist's Clemency Program?). See page 792:

"Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States"

Impact on Presidential Elections
Although the outcome of the extraordinarily
close 2000 presidential election could have
been altered by a large number of factors, it
would almost certainly have been reversed
had voting rights been extended to any category
of disenfranchised felons. Even though
Al Gore won a plurality of the popular vote,
defeating the Republican George W. Bush by
over 500,000 votes, he lost narrowly in the
Electoral College. Had disenfranchised felons
been permitted to vote, we estimate that
Gore’s margin of victory in the popular vote
would have surpassed 1 million votes, as
shown in Table 4a. Regardless of the popular
vote, however, one state—Florida—held the
balance of power. If disenfranchised felons
in Florida had been permitted to vote, Democrat
Gore would certainly have carried the
state, and the election.



http://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/4111Readings14_small.pdf


So, I have a couple of problems with this statement:
Research shows it isn’t so simple. It’s true that the criminal justice system disproportionately ensnares black Americans, but in raw numbers, the largest cohort of ex-felons in Florida are white men, who tend to vote for Republicans.

A 2012 study by a researcher at Northwestern found that if ex-felons had been able to vote in the 2000 election, it might have actually bolstered the vote totals for George Bush’s narrow victory. A recent study from Vox had similar findings.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/09/florida-amendment-4-felons-voting-rights-response-activists

I have seen the Vox publication, but I wonder why they didn't provide a better source for the Northwestern study of 2012? Anyway, the Northwestern paper I reference above, from 2003, directly contradicts the Guardian position, and their claims about the conclusion of some study produced by Northwestern in 2012.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 7827 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 11/10/2018 12:52:08 PM
Vlad -

To clarify, while there are MORE "Not Black" vs Black Felons (per the category used in the Vox study),
there are still MORE Black Felons than WHITE Felons. So if the term "Not Black" was construed to mean WHITE, that is where the B.S. lies.

Per the 2010 Census, the pop in 2010 FL was 18.84 Million.

57.9 percent White (non-Hispanic) = 10,908,360 > incarcerated at rate of - 626/100,000 x 10,908,360 = 68,286 White Felons versus

15.2 percent Black (non-Hispanic) = 2,863,680 > incarcerated at rate of - 2,555/100,000 x 2,863,680 = 73,167 Black Felons.

There are still MORE Black Felons than WHITE Felons.

As I said earlier, this statement


the majority of felons in florida are white.............


is still pure Bullsh!t, and I don't see that statement anywhere in the Vox article. As a matter of fact, the only place that the word "White" is mentioned is in the definition ["We defined nonblack as white, Hispanic, Asian, and other due to data limitations"], not in any of the Tables:

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/11/2/18049510/felon-voting-rights-amendment-4-florida

So, this must be your own personal conclusion after reading the article:

the majority of felons in florida are white.............

I think you confused "Not Black" with White. Common mistake, I suppose. AND, while I bet that misconception could have been leveraged to sway the vote for Amendment 4, I doubt the Republicans would make that mistake.

Vox.com is liberal leaning and that article was likely designed to mitigate the fear of Black voter numbers increasing, in showing that they were outnumbered by other races.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 7826 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 11/10/2018 9:59:00 AM
Vlad -
O.K. the Vox article/study uses: "a small group of ex-felons from 2007 to 2011 under then-governor (and then-Republican) Charlie Crist. (Florida vests the governor with the exclusive power to restore the vote through an executive clemency process.) Crist restored the right to vote to about 150,000 ex-felons convicted of less serious offenses."

I didn't read the "Rules Of Executive Clemency,"
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/morse/files/crist_2007_policy.pdf
but voting rights will be restored to all felons "except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation."

I don't see the exact numbers in the article in Vox, but looking at the bar graphs, Blacks represent about 55k and "Not Black" (this apparently includes Asian, Native American, etc., and other "Not Blacks" since they state "We defined nonblack as white, Hispanic, Asian, and other due to data limitations.") would be the remainder, or 150,000 - 55k =95k. so, Blacks are about 37% of this population and Not Blacks are the remainder, or 63%


This Clemency happened during the same time-frame the other study was performed showing the Florida prison population described as follows:

Take a look at statistics collected in 2010 (well before this Amendment was proposed) where it shows the numbers of Black, Hispanic and White (non-Hispanic) prisoners per 100,000 people of that ethnic group:
White (non-Hispanic) - 626
Hispanic - 536
Black - 2,555

This is an apples and oranges scenarion, since it shows the number of people incarcerated versus their population. E.g. Out of 100,000 Blacks in Florida, 2,555=2.6% are incarcerated. Likewise, 0.6% of Whites and 0.5% of Hispanics (rounded to nearest tenth). OR Not Blacks (with fudge factor for Asians and "other" for which no figures are supplied) are incarcerated at the rate of 1.1% per 100,000.

A paper published in 2011 shows the results of Florida's 2010 Census:

According to the 2010 census, Florida’s population was 57.9 percent non-Hispanic White, 15.2 percent non-Hispanic Black, 22.5 percent Hispanic, 2.4 percent Asian, and 2.1 percent Other race/ethnicities.

https://www.flcenterfornursing.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=171&PortalId=0&TabId=151

So, in 2010, Blacks represent 15.2% of Florida's population and Not Blacks are the remainder = 84.9 (I know it isn't 100%, but I am using THEIR numbers, which have some rounding, obviously).

Anyway, the pop in 2010 FL was 18.84 Million.

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=population&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=state:12000&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

18,840,000 x 15.2%=2,863,680 Blacks, 74,456 Incarcerated at some point.


18,840,000 x 84.9%=15,995,160 Not Blacks, 175,947 Incarcerated at some point.


So based on this rough calculation, yes, I will concede that the number of "Not Black" people in Florida prisons are greater than the number of Black people. Therefore, it may be reasonable to assume that will carry over somewhat proportionally to pardoned Felons.

However, the flaw in the Vox study is only looking at results of the Voters who participated. 2016 was an extremely apathetic year. Notice the bar charts that show large numbers of pardoned Felons that did not even register to Vote. There is NO WAY to know how they might have voted. 2016 was one of the most unpredictable elections I have ever witnessed.

Anyway, we shall see what happens.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 7824 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 11/10/2018 7:58:25 AM

But according to this article it would seem it could add many many republican votes because the majority of felons in florida are white.............


I doubt that very much (i.e. what a load of crap with a capital POO), but if the statistics were conveniently "skewed" to support that premise, it sounds like something that would have been helpful in securing the vote that passed Amendment 4 to restore voting rights.

Yes, there are many Republicans in Florida. No, I do not believe for a minute that "the majority of felons in florida are white."

Take a look at statistics collected in 2010 (well before this Amendment was proposed) where it shows the numbers of Black, Hispanic and White (non-Hispanic) prisoners per 100,000 people of that ethnic group:
White (non-Hispanic) - 626
Hispanic - 536
Black - 2,555

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/FL.html

So, maybe they tried to convince people there were more "Whites" than Hispanics or another skewed interpretation, but there is NO WAY that these stats have changed appreciably since 2010.

As a matter of fact, former felons had the right to vote "automatically restored" under the previous Florida Governor, Charlie Crist, but the current Florida Governor, Republican Rick Scott, did away with it. Now, you don't REALLY think he would have taken that kind of action, if he felt the party would benefit from additional "Republican voters," do you?



What did Amendment 4 change about voting rights of convicted felons?

Amendment 4 was designed to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation.[3] As of 2018, people with prior felonies never regain the right to vote in Florida, until and unless a state board restores an individual's voting rights. Under former Florida Governor Charlie Crist, (who was elected as a Republican, changed his affiliation to unaffiliated toward the end of his term in office, and registered as a Democrat after his time as governor) the Executive Clemency Board automatically restored the rights of felons who had completed their sentences, paid restitution, and had no pending criminal charges. Current governor Rick Scott (R) eliminated those reforms made by the Crist administration.[4] Under Scott's administration, convicted felons must wait five or seven years, depending on the type of offense, after the completion of their sentences to request that the board consider the restoration of their voting and other civil rights.[5][6]


https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_4,_Voting_Rights_Restoration_for_Felons_Initiative_(2018)

Of course, the powers that be have used (non-voting, currently incarcerated) prisoners for years in the count for constituents in order to keep control of certain districts. It is known as "prison gerrymandering" and was declared unconstitutional by a Federal Judge in 2016. Florida is the most egregious state for this practice.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131224040019/www.miamiherald.com/2013/09/28/3655483/fred-grimm-putting-the-con-in.html
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 7810 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 11/7/2018 10:23:08 AM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/florida-felons-voting-rights/index.html

These are felons who have paid their debt to society.

Not including murderers or those convicted of a sex crime.

Each state makes their own laws regarding the rights of felons, including voting.

https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286

10 states have a potential permanent ban.
Florida was among the most repressive with respect to voting - a lifetime ban.

The Florida law was seen by many as the suppression of people based on class/education/race, considering who makes up most of the felons.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 10 (view)
 
DEMOCRATS TAKE THE HOUSE. THE END OF TRUMP?
Posted: 11/7/2018 6:56:52 AM
^^^ Umm ... that was deliberate.


Dennis was still on the ballot as a Republican candidate for the Nevada state legislature,

Voters who wanted to see a Republican take that seat HAD to vote for Hof, since he was the only Republican on the ballot for that office.

Now, a Republican will be appointed.

“Given the make-up of the district, he was going to win. Based on previous experience (candidates have died before) and the fact that Nevada does not allow write-in candidates (that’s how many states would deal with this), Hof will win the election. The overwhelming Republican majority of voters will not vote for the Democratic challenger. Since two of the three counties (that make up Assembly District 36) are Republican-controlled, they can outvote the Clark element, where the Democratic voters are mostly located.”

Lokken continued, “I have to assume the Republican caucus of the Assembly will be relieved. There was apparent concern about Hof’s pending election victory, dealing with a brothel owner, and a controversial one at that.”

Nye County GOP Chair Joe Burdzinski is yet another who is anticipating a victory for Hof this November, despite his death. “Elections in the past have always favored Republicans over Democrats in Assembly District 36 and all of Nye County,” he said.

However, Burdzinski still took the time to emphasize his belief that voters need to hit the polls and cast their votes in favor of Hof.

“People need to vote for Dennis Hof so a Republican can be appointed to that seat. In that case, when Dennis wins, Nevada NRS clearly states that a Republican would have to be appointed to that position,”


https://www.dennishof.com/nevada-experts-voters-expected-to-elect-a-dead-man/
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 105 (view)
 
migrant caravan
Posted: 11/3/2018 10:42:14 AM
Trump does not seem to understand the role/authority of various gov't entities (big surprise, right?).

DOD has rejected the DHS request for troops it viewed as emergency law enforcement at border.


The Posse Comitatus law forbids the US military from enforcing domestic laws, unless there's no other choice. Military analysts say Trump can easily use the National Guard, US Marshals or personnel from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to back up border officers if need be.


https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/02/politics/white-house-pentagon-troops-border/index.html

Of course, the White House can grant additional authorities to the DOD. We'll see.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Cancelled/rescheduled date. Feeling vulnerable & irritated, thoughts?
Posted: 11/3/2018 4:59:25 AM
Katy_124 -

I think what the REAL problem appears to be is that you are a Fake, AKA "Troll", and for years have been using these boards to feed your implausible fantasy life by posting convoluted and obviously male-driven scenarios that you can use to indulge your masturbatory fetishes. You are a guy "pretending" to be a girl and coming up with the most unlikely scenarios OVER and OVER.


Believe it or not, I was a young woman once, and NEVER had such complicated social interactions as repeatedly afflict you.

This is far from the first time you have been called out. Just reference post #12 in the thread "How do I make peace with this silent/unpleasant rejection?":




What makes you think it's not real?!


because your story matches the archetypal young male fantasy: hot young woman is instantly drawn to guy, he 'lands' her with little effort or uncertainty, sexual gratification happens quickly, and she continues to cede all the power in the interaction even if he rejects her, by hanging around and hoping for more.
(incidentally, this is the archetypal young female fantasy too, except you insert 'emotional and' in front of 'sexual.')


https://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts16305142.aspx
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Unfriended, then re-friended woman who rejected me. What did this tell her?
Posted: 11/2/2018 11:05:45 AM
That you are a 12-year old girl masquerading as a grown man.

Seriously, WHY keep track of someone who dumped you? Ugh.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 34 (view)
 
Western men seeking love abroad
Posted: 11/1/2018 11:41:05 AM

Ah, the old mail order bride trick! Trump got him one of those


I believe he got himself TWO of those.

Lucky for him, they weren't materialistic and only married him for true love.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 114 (view)
 
A man's actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship survives or fails
Posted: 10/30/2018 3:48:54 PM

Msg 94: There's a reason divorce rates for couples where the wife makes more money are skyhigh. There's an inherent power from being the one who makes more. And in my experience it made my ex extremely unhappy and led to the biggest problem in our relationship.

Another sweeping generalization based on anectdotal evidence that is WRONG according to "Scholarly studies."

Msg 95: You are first quoting a general statistic, then your unique situation. Your unique situation doesn't apply to the general stat.

Quite so, dragonbytes.
It turns out that it is not the male in the relationship where the woman makes more that is dissatisfied, it is the FEMALE.

“Bringing this closer to home, when wives believe that the statuses they worked so hard to achieve at work are at risk because of their husbands’ lower job status, they could experience a different kind of status spillover, which would include feeling embarrassed by or resentful of their spouses’ lower job status, and fearing that their status could be compromised by that of their husbands,” the study explains.


https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article148558804.html


Or it takes a loser who mooches.


You just reallly seem to have all the answers, and are extremely judgmental and demeaning of others who do not live according to your formulaic standards. I have evidence of a well-paid colleague, whose hubby was the stay-at-home parent and it worked very well for them and their children. Scoff all you like, but a relationship is not a checklist situation.

At some point, you will have to address the reason you ran away from growing up enough before you had children to know who you are. You still don't really know, because you avoided the situation by plunging yourself into the role of "mother," before you even knew who you were as an individual. If you liked yourself, you would not be so fearful of being alone/on your own, and would not need to seek the brief respites of feeling good about yourself that are fed by your FWB sex exchanges.


Besides, this whole thread is so FOS, as per usual.

A man's actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship survives or fails


Seriously? The success of a relationship is the responsibility of the man?

You seem to have no end of excuses about your situation; you need to lose weight, wear makeup, move out, but god forbid you should get your own place, you might have to face yourself ... everything is something external and superficial. Nothing involves you looking at who you are. Good luck with that!
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Western men seeking love abroad
Posted: 10/29/2018 2:54:01 AM

Don't really know what all the fuss is about..From what i hear and see..Most of today's Australian / Western women don't want to settle down and are very happy with there careers and independence..

Ok fair enough but why should Aussie / Western men be criticized for thinking outside the square and following there heart.??? ...Taking a chance..


Whom are you addressing? Are you debating yourself?

Look, you got advice from people who have been there/done that.

Where is the fuss?
Who is criticizing?

The only part of your post that deserves criticism is the premise that if you go to the Ukraine, you will be shielded from "materialism." Nothing could be further from the truth.

As far as "thinking outside the box," you have got to be kidding. The mail order bride industry has been around for hundreds of years. There is nothing unusual about it. Search the threads on pof for "mail order," and you will find entries back to 2005. Redundant as can be.


Anyway, you did not start this thread for advice, since you are not really interested in meeting women. I recognize you as lightningboy1/lightningman1 from 2009.


So, were you hoping people would get upset about men going overseas? No one cares. Fill your boots. Book a flight.

As for you, 1) you can't afford it, 2) you are too passive and would never initiate a meeting.

So, the whole topic was just for kicks and grins in the hopes you would create a controversy? Brother, you are about one coffee date fantasy away from MGTOW.

Quit looking for excuses to peddle to your family about why you can't meet women and just come to grips with the fact you're not that interested.

Not everyone is destined to be "coupled."
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 167 (view)
 
Do you care what a person does for work?
Posted: 10/28/2018 1:16:29 PM
I avoid people who are in "Sales."
Feels as if everything is a "pitch."
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 63 (view)
 
A man's actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship survives or fails
Posted: 10/28/2018 11:37:55 AM
Yes, it kind of works...

Anyway, I meant navel-gazing, not thinking about submarines (naval).

Too late to edit.
 calliopedreams
Joined: 11/21/2017
Msg: 61 (view)
 
A man's actions are the key variable that determines whether a relationship survives or fails
Posted: 10/28/2018 10:21:28 AM
July -

By publishing all your "must have" checklists, polls and requirements for height, strength, salary, etc. you are only illustrating that you are still mentally and emotionally dependent on certain external factors in order to feel secure and worthy.

Things that you assume others have done or want that are similar to your journey does not mean they are universally true.

As ONE example, I have never been influenced by a partner's salary, since I always made a significant living, because I chose a different route by going to school early, and entering a lucrative profession. I can honestly say I never fretted about being childless/less fertile (or even getting married) in my 20s.

There are other examples, but I doubt they will make any difference, because you are still laboring under the idea that you need to carefully control the dating/mating process. I think your post about the way in which you thought you could control the reaction men have to a particular picture you planned to put on your profile shows the level of disconnect.

Anyway, we are all just fingers on a keyboard. Most of us don't give a ratz behind about what becomes of other people on these boards, but some may get annoyed by the constant naval-gazing that is done in public. Myself, I am just perplexed by the simple concepts that seem to elude people (NOT just you) that are presumably adults.

I think you are really in the same place you were 10 years ago, where you still feel a desperation to be accepted by a man or men, except your driver now is not because you are afraid of becoming "less fertile" with age, but because you think yourself not worthy of a mate (which was your actual motivation in the first marriage, but you like to think it was being driven to have kids, because you still have not dealt with your fundamental feelings of insecurity and worthlessness). Anyway, you get to blame kids for both situations you have created for yourself. The first was "lack of," and now you are less attractive because you have them. Quite a paradox, wouldn't you say?

If you are genuinely optimistic, good for you.
If you are just trying to convince yourself of a fairy tale, to avoid the pain of working on yourself, get help.

 
Show ALL Forums