Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

          

Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: attacking sensible gun owners
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 18 (view)
 
attacking sensible gun owners
Posted: 12/1/2006 6:30:13 AM
I have a Constitutional right to defend myself in my own home.

If somebody is in my home, threatening me or others, I want him DOWN!

The absolute, very best weapon for that is a firearm. No competition!

I do not want the intruder to have any chance whatsoever of ducking to avoid mace spray, overpowering my fancy karate moves, deflecting the knife I have thrown at him, pulling the Taser tongs out of his bulky clothing they did not penetrate, him getting back up, and so on.

Thus, a gun is the required weapon here!

That said, I do NOT need a fully automatic assault rifle, a machine gun, a bazooka, or even a handgun for that task.

The best firearm for this situation is a short-barrelled shotgun. It will put him down. I don't have to be a "good shot" in a panic situation, and I can't carry it in my pocket into the 7-11 for a hold-up. This preferred weapon is not at all heavy, and can be used even by a little 5'1", 100-lb gal.

I have a right to own a firearm, but it can be argued that right doesn't meany ANY kind of gun, including a handgun.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Iranian paper: Great war to wipe out Israel coming
Posted: 11/19/2006 9:25:06 AM
If any organization (including possibly, MEMRI) has a history of deceit, it is not efficient to spend time chasing down the source documents of each story they publish to see if they are truthful or not this particluar time.

Nor is it logical for me to assume that whatever they say, the opposite must be true.

The first course is tedious and shows the source a respect they no longer deserve. The second course is intellectual laziness.

The only logical course is to ignore them from that point on, and to inform others of their uselessness.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Dating Advice
Posted: 11/19/2006 8:50:02 AM
Good answer.

It seems to me that women frequently wonder if it is okay to ask this question or that question, etc.

My answer is this: if you can't even ask a man a simple direct question, then THAT is a problem. Men (at least we honest ones) are pretty straightforward creatures, with a minimum of nuance and shading, not much beating around the bush. In fact, a lot of us stink at subtlety, so you are better off spelling things out for us very clearly. It's okay, really.

We understand directness just fine, as long as it is not delivered in a whiny or acccusatory tone. The old saying "not just what you say, but how you say it"...

You want to know whether he is ready to date you exclusively? Just ask.

THEN, after that, you may discuss the issue of whether you both should take down your profiles, etc.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 3 (view)
 
For unions, a Supreme test of fairness
Posted: 11/5/2006 9:03:44 PM
Here's a proposal for fairness.

If you make unions get members' express permission to use union dues for political campaigns (which seems fair because the workers provide the union's money) then let's impose a similar rule on management.

The corporation then cannot spend money on politics without express permission from the individual shareholders (who provide THEIR money), and none of that convenient proxy stuff either.

So where Exxon would have said they were going to pay a $3 per-common-share dividend, they can now say to their stockholder, "Can we use part of your dividend to re-elect Congressman Jones?"

How well do you think the multinationals will like my fair and balanced proposal?
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 12 (view)
 
No description in the self-description box?
Posted: 11/5/2006 8:48:36 PM
Sorry, but I have to agree with the last two posts. If you are putting yourself on the market, why not at least try to tell people what you are interested in?

If you are into skydiving, white-water kayaking, getting tattoos together, and dancing in noisy clubs every Saturday night, I will know you are not the gal for me and I will move on without wasting your time or mine. Isn't that a good thing?
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Separate Bedrooms....?
Posted: 11/5/2006 8:44:56 PM
I like sleeping together much better.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Financial Responsibility- love don't pay the rent
Posted: 11/5/2006 8:40:24 PM
If you need to run a credit check just to find out if a person is reliable, then you don't know that person very well yet, do you? Their week-to-week behavior will tell you about their spending habits, their ability to hold a job, etc.

Maybe if you are being proposed to, you might inquire into someone's background.

But if you are doing that with someone you have just started dating, you are being way too invasive of their privacy. A couple of dinners doesn't give anyone the right to do that kind of snooping.

That's like checking the medicine chest, or snoopping in his/her sock drawers when they are in the bathroom, the first time you are at their place. I caught a woman doing that to me once, and that was the end of that evening right there!
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 73 (view)
 
Soulmates? Do they / can they exist??
Posted: 11/5/2006 8:27:44 PM
I know a lady who is 53 years old, never married, and still looking for that "perfect soulmate". As she has spent decades waiting for her perfect fit, she has missed out on having a family and slept alone most of the last 30 years.

If waiting for your "soulmate" really means you don't want to make any compromises or "lower your standards", then it may just be an impossible Cinderella fantasy that is being chased, to the exclusion of a very nice but "imperfect" reality left unfulfilled.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Now is this the right attitude
Posted: 10/29/2006 7:45:29 AM
Mominatrix,

Who said anything about being bitter? That's a hell of a "crapola" negative assumption you make, and I think you owe me an apology.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 8 (view)
 
Now is this the right attitude
Posted: 10/24/2006 6:40:43 PM
Considering how many women's ads say "tall men only", what would you think of a man's ad that said "big breasts only"?
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Has anything like this ever happened to you?
Posted: 10/21/2006 8:39:13 AM
I'm so sorry you got mistreated terribly, whcih you did. Too bad that woman was CRAZY enough to take back the deadbeat, absent sperm donor over someone who wanted to be a real father.

I disagree that a lot of women would have made this same lousy choice. Most women are more interested in a real father than just a biological father.

Too bad for those poor kids, especially.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 27 (view)
 
I am everything he wants : But he just doesnt want me.
Posted: 10/21/2006 8:30:50 AM
You sound pretty good to me.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 7 (view)
 
How many chances do you give someone you love?
Posted: 10/21/2006 8:21:55 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if there were some really nice guy who likes you and you are breaking HIS heart the way you keep throwing yourself at this complete jerk over and over again.

It may be a self-esteem issue. Are you afraid you can't do better?
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 145 (view)
 
When it comes to the opposite sex, what is your weakness?
Posted: 10/21/2006 8:19:16 AM
Smiles and laughter.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 91 (view)
 
Do christians have the right to impose their views/values on the larger society ?
Posted: 9/24/2006 4:13:43 PM
1st - Don Feder, Benjamin Hart, and Tim LaHaye did not write our constitution.

2nd - secular humanism is a social philosophy, but it is not a religion

3rd - Not that it is anybody's business, but I do happen to believe in God. I am not an atheist. But I'm not a Christian, either.

4th - I am not saying the founding fathers were or were not christians on an individual basis. That is not my point.

However, if they wanted Christianity to be a guiding influence in our government policies, they were pretty conspicuous about not mentioning that.

4th - The same text in Romans that you mention was used by the Christian Church for centuries to justify what they called "the divine right of kings", calling upon their parishioners to be subject to their sovereign no matter how unjust he might seem, and let God deal with the sovereign. If Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Hancock had listened to that, there would have been no American Revolution at all, and this conversation would not be occuring.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 90 (view)
 
Do christians have the right to impose their views/values on the larger society ?
Posted: 9/24/2006 3:23:34 PM
Thanks for the input, but I wasn't talking about President Bush or war. I was just raising the question of where does this stuff come from about the US being "founded as a Christian nation". People quote this every day as if it is a proven fact, like the existence of air or gravity.

What is the historical basis for this? I have asked this question many times, and nobody has ever been able to give me a direct answer such as

***James Madison said in a letter to Alexander Hamilton in 1785 that "our nation is founded upon Christian principles, embodied in our Constitution". It is in the Library of Congress.***

Why has nobody ever given me such a historical source? Because the founding fathers never made any such claim!

They KNEW the dangers of bringing religion into government to create an all-powerful despotism that none could dare speak out against. They were educated men who knew the horrific things that had been done in their own ancestral Europe when kings and popes (politics and religion) got together. These men were very suspicious of centralized authority, after having just fought a secular despot, King George III. There is no way these same men would have endorsed organized religion's influence on government.

To claim they acted in such a self-contradictory fashion is just silly.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 9/24/2006 1:37:06 PM
The definition of evolution is ***NOT*** a matter of opinion, folks! It is what I and CountIbli said it is. We didn't make this stuff up out of our personal opinions or beliefs.

Wheteher you believe it or not is another question, but the **DEFINITION** is quite firm and can be found in any decent encyclopedia, aways the same concepts even if the choice of wording varies a little.

That is one difference between science and some other fields. Terms ARE defined.

As for evolution being a matter of "the strong over the weak", that can be a little misleading, because the word "strong" is somewhat vague.

Being better at hiding could hardly be called being "strong", but it can certainly be a survival advantage. Common ants are not strong, but they are very successful because they work together.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 89 (view)
 
Do christians have the right to impose their views/values on the larger society ?
Posted: 9/24/2006 8:17:32 AM
This for ladyus:

You say this nation was "founded on Christian values"?

Okay, then all biases aside - I would be happy for you to demonstrate this to me. Find me one single reference to the Bible, Jesus, or "christian values" in our Constitution or Bill of Rights, written by these "God-fearing" founding fathers.

We are not "founded on Christian values" just because some people like to keep saying it.

If I can get a bunch of people to go on TV talk shows and say "there is no gravity" a million times, that wouldn't make it true, would it Ladyus?
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Too much sexual chemistry?
Posted: 9/16/2006 8:56:05 PM
I actually have a degree in math (not joking, actually true) and I have some important math for the originator of this thread.

New Relationship + No Condom = Child Support

I have seen this "theorem" proven multiple times.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 98 (view)
 
Returning gifts when the relationship ends
Posted: 9/16/2006 8:39:18 PM
According to etiquette experts, the rule is this:

If a gift is given for your own use, because someone wants you to have it, you get to keep it forever.

If a set of "gifts" is given for shared use, it should be returned if the sharing has ended. I don't guess you would want to keep just your tickets, because then you would be sitting next to him and get repulsed by him all over again, right? (Just kidding!)
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Is the second affair more or less devastating?
Posted: 9/16/2006 8:32:20 PM
If I were to accidentally shoot myself while cleaning my own gun, I would feel kind of stupid.

If I were to do it a second time, I would fell like the world's BIGGEST idiot, and I would say to myself that I should have got rid of that gun after the first time.

Same principle.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 203 (view)
 
u can't have a plutonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 9/16/2006 8:23:06 PM
Vicarious, I'm 49 years old, and I have seen this before in my life. It was always bad news. Every time.

She was disrespecting you something awful.

If she really loved you, would she have done things that she KNEW were hurtful to you? Of course not!

You had to save your self-resepect, at least.

There will be some days in this life when it will be all you have, my young friend.

There are plenty of fish in the sea.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 87 (view)
 
Ever Wonder Why Single Men Do Not like Single mothers?
Posted: 9/16/2006 8:11:52 PM
You are 27 years old. When I was that age, quite a few of the women I dated, and the one I married had a child. At that age, it's pretty normal.

Unfortunately for you, there are also plenty of women your age who DON'T have children yet. Many guys in your age group would rather start their own family instead of raising "some other guy's kid".

Also, they may be concerned that they may have to be around your ex, because of the child. Who wants that?

I'm sorry your first guy couldn't or wouldn't stick around or you had to get rid of him, but this is part of the after-effect of that event.

It just means you have to choose from a smaller, more open-minded pool of guys.

At my age, 49, it is a lot different. My little-kid-rearing years are done! Over!
I will deal with teens, 15 and up, but no younger.

Good luck.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 9/16/2006 7:02:23 PM
Good question, because people are always misrepresenting evolution from either ignorance or bias. And you are right, evolution is not about how life began. Nobody has a good scientific answer for that, so right now, I guess God is as good an answer as any other. Back to the main topic. There are actually two words in question here: "evolution" and "theory".
********************************************************************
First, the word "THEORY" does not imply scientists are unsure evolution actually happens. The fossil record is pretty darned clear. People send guys to the electric chair on one-tenth of this much evidence and call the case open and shut, fry him, and go to their beds with clear consciences.

For example, Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton offered two very different "theories" of exactly HOW gravity works, but that doesn't mean we have any doubt that gravity iDOES work. If in doubt, hold a 12-pound sledge hammer directly over your big toe, while you are within the earth's gravity field, say out loud that you don't believe in either "theory" of gravity, and then let go of the hammer. In science, the word "theory" is very specific. It does NOT mean just a "guess".

The "theory" part is the how, not the what!

The bones in the ground tell the what - evolution HAPPENED, and I personally don't think we are the one life form on the planet that is exempt just because we are offended by the idea.

******************************************************************

The "EVOLUTION" part is this. "Any difference that makes you more likely to mate and have and raise offspring, obviously makes you more able to pass your biological characteristics on (including that difference) to another generation than the other guy who has fewer offspring. In the end, evolution is all about surviving and mating."

"This **difference** can include being more attractive to the opposite sex, being more attentive to your young, being able to detect light where others can't, having a better sense of smell, being more able to survive long enough to reach maturity and have sex in the first place, being able to digest food more efficiently than the other guy when food is short, being better able to withstand a changing climate, being able to outrun predators just a little better, being a little better at hiding, being able to work with others, being big enough to beat the snot out of your sexual rivals, etc."

"Given sufficient time, these differences can add up sufficiently to create a variety so different that it no longer normally breeds with the older variety. That makes it a new SPECIES."

"The aforementioned differences are often not even noticeable or important until some important change in the environment occurs, so that the difference becomes an actual ADVANTAGE. (What good is a better ability to withstand cold until it actually DOES turn cold?) At these times of crisis in the environment, evolution is much more outwardly obvious"

THAT is basic evolution theory. There is much more to the subject - convergence, radiation, recessive and dominant genetics, etc.

*********************************************************************

Human breeders artificially do much the same thing as natural selection when they choose a stud to breed and castrate the other male cattle so they can't breed. Of course, a few thousand years of breeding won't produce a whole new species, and we are not throwing our cattle into a radically different environment just for fun, so we have never witnessed this in the 8,000 years of human breeding of cattle. If we have massive global warming, however, you WILL see it among the plants and animals that we humans don't shelter and take care of. The fossil record proves that, from over more than a billion years of Earth biological history.

It's like CSI: the physical evidence may not always tell us everything we'd like to know, but what it DOES tell us is always true

*********************************************************************
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 201 (view)
 
u can't have a plutonic friendship with opposite sex
Posted: 9/16/2006 5:45:44 PM
Maybe it's possible, but I would say it was only possible for singles.

Once you have a significant other of the the opposite sex, he is not going to like you going out with other guys. He will say,"You need friends, fine. Get a GIRL friend."

I'm sure the same is true if the gender roles are reversed. You think a wife would let her husband go out with other women, no matter how platonic it supposedly was?
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 116 (view)
 
Kissing The Ears
Posted: 9/14/2006 10:20:46 PM
Turn on, yes, absolutely. Very good erogenous zone.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Why dont guys want to talk on the phone?
Posted: 9/14/2006 10:17:32 PM
Neither of us can tell if there is any real "chemistry" over the phone, anyway. That takes eye contact, appearance, body language, etc.

Also, if I am a creep or stalker, or something else unpleasant, I am probably clever enough not to mention it just because I happen to be on the phone.

I talked with one very nice lady for 3 weeks, almost daily, before we met. We were having a great time. Then, when we finally did meet, she decided there was no "chemisrtry", it didn't "feel right" etc. No second date. I spent 3 weeks working up to that one 3-hour date.

Let's face it ladies, you want to know me? You're gonna have to meet me, anyway, so why waste all that time dithering about it?

Life is short. Let's move it along.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 29 (view)
 
Profile Cliches
Posted: 9/14/2006 10:03:32 PM
Interests - "Life", "Everything", and "Why don't you ask?"

That is just lazy. The whole point of a profile is to tell us something about yourself, isn't it?
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 17 (view)
 
At what point has the art of seduction gone to far?
Posted: 9/11/2006 8:28:26 PM
At least I found a way to get an answer out of you that's not wrapped up in drivelley verse!

Peace, man. Good night.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 16 (view)
 
At what point has the art of seduction gone to far?
Posted: 9/11/2006 8:16:51 PM
You got a smart f***ing mouth when you're online, don't you, punk?

I bet $1,000 you wouldn't have the stones to come see me and say that! I live at 2300 N. Mountain Avenue, #3, in San Bernardino, CA. Come on over and make my day, you little weasel.

Come on by, no-nuts!
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 8 (view)
 
Liberals to hold top leadership posts in Democrat-run US Congress
Posted: 9/11/2006 8:05:11 PM
We can exchange one set of idealogues for another, unless my party (the Dems) make some changes.

Somewhere along the line, Democrats made the terrible mistake of thinking that the way to be progressive was to have their party cater to every “victim’s group” that came down the pike. We now carry the banners for special interest groups who supposedly represent women, senior citizens, the racially oppressed, the physically or mentally challenged, those who bemoan the loss of every tree or insect, and so on, ad nauseum.

Just because I have some kind of misfortune or some non-profit “cause”, does that really mean my desires should always be made a national priority?

Why SHOULD a disabled person receive an outright preference in government hiring, putting their application above everyone else’s? Does being disabled make them more qualified or somehow more deserving? Equal treatment? Yes, absolutely! Preference? No.

Why SHOULD women and minorities have a clear-cut preference in obtaining loans from the Small Business Administration? Are their business ideas somehow more viable? Are they somehow “better” than other people? Equal treatment? Yes. Preference? No.

Why SHOULD a 65-year-old wealthy person get a bigger tax exemption just because he is 65? Does that make his money somehow different from that of a younger person? Equal treatment? Yes. Preference? No.

Why SHOULD an existing restaurant owner have to redesign his restaurant’s walkways, aisles, doors, restrooms, and elevators so that huge electric wheelchairs can go anywhere in his facility? Why not let the disabled patrons just penalize that owner by taking their business and their money elsewhere, instead of forcing him to raise his prices for everybody just to accommodate a few? After all, it is that owner’s private property, not a government building such as a library, school, or courthouse. Is that restaurant’s access really a matter of federal jurisdiction at all?

And what about people who insist it is their right to have as many children as they want, but then want tax deductions for all of them and want government assistance for all that healthcare – Medi-Cal, TANF, WIC and so on? Why SHOULD they have only reproductive rights, without any fiscal responsibilities?

When did it become more politically desirable to be a victim than to be a working person “pulling their own weight”? I am not sure exactly when that happened, but when it did and the Democrats became identified with it, they became thought of as the “whiner” party and that alienated a lot of Americans who prefer people to at least TRY to be somewhat self-reliant. Benjamin Franklin was a great liberal, and known as a generous and charitable man, but he also displayed his belief in hard work, responsibility, and initiative when he wrote that, “God helps those who help themselves.”

Of course, Democrats won't have to worry about winning if they keep letting the Republicans present themselves as the only guys with morals. I'm a Democrat and I have planty of morals!

 Allowing Medicare (and all other government programs) to negotiate group rates for lower drug prices for our citizens IS the moral thing to do. The REpublicans made that illegal and Medicare Part D is a joke!

 Asking all classes of society, including the wealthy, to share in the burdens of war and economic hard times, IS the moral thing to do. Instead, they keeping getting more tax cuts, while poor and middle-class kids join the military and actually do the fighting! Whose war is it anyway?

 Balancing the budget, so our children and grandchildren are not saddled with crippling debt from out-of-control deficit spending IS the moral thing to do.

 Start calling the current GOP leadership the “spend now, let our kids pay later” Republicans, because telling the truth IS the moral thing to do.

 Paying overtime rates for work over 40 hours a week IS the moral thing to do.

 Keeping student loans at fixed rates, so more people can wind up with good jobs and responsible positions in our society, IS the moral thing to do.

 Link corporate tax cuts and outsourcing with increased hiring here in the US, instead of just encouraging job flight overseas. That IS the moral thing to do.

 Preserving our national parks and the rest of our environment, as conservators for our children and grandchildren, IS the moral thing to do.

 Jailing white-collar criminals who manipulate US energy markets to create artificial shortages of necessary utilities IS the moral thing to do.

 Preserving a person’s right to legal counsel and trial by jury, regardless of their religion or politics or what they are accused of (even accused terrorists) IS the moral thing to do.

 Enforcing the “equal time” laws for political coverage on TV and radio stations, and enforcing a clear separation between “reporting” and “editorializing” IS the moral thing to do.

 Health care for everyone in need IS the moral thing to do, but so is being responsible enough to pay for it!

 Banning assault weapons, used by gangs and drug dealers to gun down children, IS the moral thing to do.

 Always insisting on national criminal record checks and psychiatric admission checks before the sale of any gun, at a shop or a gun show, IS the moral thing to do.

 Fixing Social Security without raising tax rates, without privatizing, and without cutting benefits is the moral thing to do. It is doable, too. Remove the income cap. No matter how much money you earn, you will always pay Social Security tax on it, whether you make $30,000 or $30 million a year. Keep the inheritance tax. Make it a flat 10%, and put every penny into Social Security. Start requiring employers to withhold Social Security taxes on all workers, even so-called individual “contractors”. In some industries (like construction), over half of this “casual labor” force is composed of illegal immigrants who will never voluntarily pay taxes because they are technically fugitives from the law.

 Last, but not least, the Democrats need to drop the position of allowing abortion anywhere, anytime in the first six months of pregnancy, for any woman who demands it, no questions asked. That is not what mainstream America wants, and the Democrats are completely out of touch on this issue. The majority of American women consistently do believe in a Constitutional right to privacy and they do support a woman’s right to choose abortion, in poll after poll, year after year. However, when they are asked about particulars, they do not support the use of later-term abortions for birth control reasons (poverty, absent father, etc.). Banning abortions in the second and third trimester, except where the mother’s physical health is in grave danger, would be the moral thing to do, and it is a more mainstream position. Fetuses are viable even before 6 months now, unlike when Roe vs. Wade was handed down. Female humans should not have blanket legal authority to kill their viable offspring. The government has a vital interest in protecting innocent life, and that interest must be balanced against the individual’s rights to privacy and control of their own body. Protecting viable, second and third-trimester babies IS CERTAINLY a moral thing to do, and the average person knows it, even if the more radical and shrill elements of the feminist movement seem not to.

I think Americans care a lot more about these issues than about whether Gay Joe marries Gay Gerald.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 15 (view)
 
At what point has the art of seduction gone to far?
Posted: 9/11/2006 7:42:26 PM
How do I ask for this thread to be deleted? What is the [procedure?
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Profile Cliches
Posted: 9/10/2006 10:24:22 AM
"Would love to travel" (Translation: I've been very dull my whole life, now please take me to Italy!)

"Seek professional" (Translation? I need a gigolo? A shrink?)

"Average" body type (Translation: between 110 and 210 lbs)

"Seek successful" (Translation: I'm tired of middle-income guys and their budget lifestyles.)

"Must love animals" (Translation: FIDO will be in bed with us, at ALL times, and the cat will wake you at at 5:30 am every day)

 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 9 (view)
 
At what point has the art of seduction gone to far?
Posted: 9/9/2006 5:32:48 PM
How about we drop the flame war, and the original poster clarifies the original question in a more pedestrian form that ordinary college graduates like myself can comprehend?

Sorry, dude, but the question got lost in the iambic pentameter or whatever it was you were metering out there...
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 8 (view)
 
Drama
Posted: 8/27/2006 11:28:29 AM
It is totally unfair to use the word "drama" as yet another reason to be critical of men in general, as one of the above posters did.

Women may use the word "drama" for all the following:
a man paying child support (like he is supposed to);
a man being in contact with a (possibly difficult) ex- because they have a child together;
a man having a difficult relationship with one of his children who has gone astray in life (and of course, THAT is his fault, too, right?)

Almost all streets are two-way, and I'm getting a little tired of hearing certain women on here **** about "men" like they were all the same clone or something. Your sexism is showing, and it is just as offensive to me as racism.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 7 (view)
 
A note of encouragement to girls
Posted: 8/13/2006 12:43:58 PM
I just wanted to say there are darn few women who are just born naturally unatttractive. (I don't like the words "ugly" for women, or "loser" for guys, for that matter).

Almost any woman with a decent figure, who takes care of herself can "clean up" pretty well. It's just amazing what a little makeup, a nice outfit, a good hairdo, and a POSITIVE ATTITUDE can do for a gal!

Hell, I have guy friends who work dirty, blue-collar jobs and you ladies wouldn't believe how handsome some of these same buddies look with a shave, a nice haircut, and a good suit!
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Is a secret rendezvous needed in relationship once in a while?
Posted: 8/12/2006 8:19:39 AM
"Secret rendezvous"? What a nice, innocent-sounding euphemism for something that has broken hearts, devastated children, destroyed families, stolen peace of mind, and permanently stained reputations.

Sneaking around on someone who trusts you is NEVER acceptable.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 270 (view)
 
Dixie Chicks and freedom of speech
Posted: 8/10/2006 5:40:21 PM
That sounds like a lot of anger, "dude".

Are you SUUURE that **YOU** don't have a giant stick stuck up your ass making you such a rude jerk to me, considering you do not even KNOW me???
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 37 (view)
 
atheism vs. christianity
Posted: 8/10/2006 5:26:24 AM
The atheist says that since you cannot prove the existence of God, I will assume he does not exist. This is actually very logical, because I follow the same reasoning when I assume there are no ghosts in my house. I can't prove there aren't, but it is sufficient for me that I can't prove there ARE any.

I find it interesting that many people in the USA seem to think everyone is pretty much either a Christian or an atheist.

I am neither.

But to say there is no truth greater than another implies there is no truth worth finding, only the searching is important.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 41 (view)
 
Do christians have the right to impose their views/values on the larger society ?
Posted: 8/10/2006 5:21:38 AM
I am going to go with what it literally says. I don't think people can say "this is the literal word of God" for some parts of the Bible, and then say "the language is symbolic or metaphorical" for other parts.

I say it again. - It says what it says!
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Young men see college campuses as unfriendly
Posted: 8/9/2006 11:25:25 PM
If a law school can favor minority students to bring their student population into a more idealized diverse demographic, and if the federal Small Business Administration can give prefernce to female business owners (both absolutely true), I don't see why declining male enrollment can't be bolstered through a similar "affirmative action" program for males.

Of course that's the problem with favoritism based on race, gender, nationality, etc, isn't it? Once you start favoring some group, you are automatically DISfavoring some other group.

Discrimination is always wrong, period. Either you believe that or you don't.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 40 (view)
 
Do christians have the right to impose their views/values on the larger society ?
Posted: 8/9/2006 10:59:27 PM
On the contrary, verse 3 (Authorized King James Version, Holman Bible Publishers in Nashville, TN, printed 1985) says "rulers", and verse 4 says "he beareth not the sword in vain".
Were Christian ministers punishing wayward parishioners at the point of a sword back then? This passage obviously refers to temporal secular rulers, including (verse 7) their collection of taxes ("tribute"). Did ministers also collect tribute?

This reference so obviously refers to temporal rule, in fact, that it was used as the basis for the whole "divine right of kings" theory throughout the Middle Ages and even unto the time of the American Revolution.

Maybe somebody once told you that he **interpereted** this passage to mean Church ministers, but it says what it says.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 32 (view)
 
if your ex cheated on you, and left you for that person
Posted: 8/9/2006 10:45:40 PM
Once an account is established elsewhere, that person is no longer welcome at my Fidelity & Trust location or within a hundred yards of my ATM (Always Trusty Manhood).
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Do christians have the right to impose their views/values on the larger society ?
Posted: 8/9/2006 9:46:21 PM
The Founding Fathers of our country violated the teachings of the apostle Paul in Romans, Chapter 13, when they defied King George. Here below are the first few verses, Paul telling Christians they have to put up with whatever the government does to them because God wills it.

****Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.****

What was that again about this being founded as a supposedly Christian nation?
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 268 (view)
 
Dixie Chicks and freedom of speech
Posted: 8/9/2006 9:37:25 PM
I support the First Amendment even for airheads like the Dixie Chicks and even for bigoted ***holes like Mel Gibson. Twenty years from now, nobody will remeber either one, but I hope we will still cherish the Bill of Rights.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 228 (view)
 
Who Is going to be the next US President?
Posted: 8/9/2006 9:14:20 PM
I think Edwards' "Two Americas" message will play well on the economic front, and a "start withdrawing and let Iraqis handle their own country" will play well, for him, too. The hawks like Hillary Clinton better, but she carries a LOT of baggage, especially on her husband (making her a JOKE, not very presidential) and on Iraq.

Edwards' lack of foreign policy experience at this point in our history means he would need a running mate with credibility on that front.

The Dem's worst possible choices: Hillary, Gore, Kerry, and anybody who can't appeal to good ole boy Southerners.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 62 (view)
 
Unbiased media now running doctored photos from Lebanon
Posted: 8/9/2006 9:06:09 PM
I just have one question. Why are all the news photos I have seen from Lebanon? Why are there no pictures of Israelis crying in front of THEIR bombed-out homes?
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 64 (view)
 
Why are looks so important??
Posted: 8/9/2006 8:59:08 PM
I don't see any women on here with profiles that say, "I don't care what you look like, guys. All men are welcome to contact me, regardless of height, weight, hairy or bald, full set of teeth or none". So yes, when it comes to dating, looks mattter. They matter less to some than others, but yes, they matter, to both men and women.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 9 (view)
 
a question for you guys
Posted: 8/9/2006 8:55:49 PM
If you don't even try, your chances are zero. That is the saddest, biggest "loser" of them all. That's how I see it.
 dogar2007
Joined: 5/24/2006
Msg: 31 (view)
 
can guys and girls just be close friends or do they all secretly want to fuck you?
Posted: 8/9/2006 8:53:06 PM
If he is unattached and uninvolved, and you are an attractive, intelligent, single woman with a "together" life and a good sense of humor and a good heart, then yes, he wants you or else he is gay. He is keeping his hat in the ring, hoping for a better shot at some possible future date.

If you are not the above things, then yeah, maybe he just likes having somebody to share his pizza with and has no guy friends for some unfathomable reason.
 
Show ALL Forums