Reddy

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 10:11 AM) I can't speak for anyone else, but IMO, people can be open and honest with each other TO A POINT. It's simply accepted that you don't tell her everything you think or feel, and she doesn't tell you everything, either, because let's face it...we're a flawed species, and some things are better left unsaid. If I have a crazy ass dream about having sex with a plethora of other women, or even an ex-girlfriend, would waking up and telling my wife about that awesome dream be a good idea? f*** no. But it would be open and honest. haha obviously you're right, but i meant honest in terms of the discussion we've been having with each other. answering each others' questions truthfully, not hiding information or thoughts because we're worried about how the other will feel or react. obviously no one's perfect at this because at the end of the day we DO have agendas, I get it, but meh - I personally don't really feel like she's hiding anything, which brings us to: She did pick A. Besides X and Y, the other option I put on the table was let's take some more time for us, but also see how it relates to the relationship. Yes, I know you think SHE'S convinced me that this breakup was a good idea all along (sky is green), but I actually think I've convinced myself of that. Like anyone, I've been doing a lot of soul searching and discovered some things about myself that I'm actually not all that fond of, and want to work on. I'm doing that for ME. And thus why I feel like I'm glad this all happened. If it hadn't now, it would have further down the road and we'd probably be living together and it'd be a helluva lot WORSE. Our relationship had really started sucking - I just hadn't noticed. I know you think she's got something on the side, but that's so, so far from the realm of her capabilities. She 1) would feel INCREDIBLY guilty 2) her parents went through an affair so even though we're not together, I don't think she could handle that emotionally 3) she told me that even the thought of seeing someone else almost makes her sick. Again, I don't have proof of anything. All I have are words... and faith in the person I know she is. I'd rather be this person who puts himself out there and gets hurt than the person who never takes a risk and sits back a closed-hearted cynic.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:18 PM) Man, you are in a crazy 1-1 relationship. I have no opinion on whether she's seeing anybody else or not. I will say this: if you get back together, that would be a surprise ending to this story for me. I just get the feeling something is amiss. Update on the 23-year-old woman who left my 29-year-old friend for some 35-year old teacher's aide with 3 kids and a $20,000 a year paycheck. My friend now has decided to not try to get her back in February. He still is hooked on her, though. He needs to meet somebody else, and fast. This 23-year-old sounds a bit unstable to me. I wonder what this girl in your situation would do if you met somebody else. That actually could happen. If I were you, I'd be open to any possibilities with new women. I wouldn't wait on her. It does sound to me like you are head over heels for her. Like my friend, I think you should look elsewhere. If she comes back before you meet somebody, fine. If not, hopefully you'll meet a great woman, woman of your dreams who wants to be with you. yep. who knows? all i know is that in THIS moment I'm a lot happier than I was before. so I'm gonna ride that till it's no longer the case.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 01:59 PM) What would people wear for an interview conducted over Skype (university professor position)? I'll probably do shirt and tie, would people do more/less than that? do. not. wear. pants.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 05:17 PM) If you attend games, then you are writing the check. I don't mind the idea of a player like Bourn, even if it were replacing Viciedo, but Bourn is simply not going to be an option due to his pending price tag. $15 million is a ton for a marginal upgrade. Please review the Guidelines of the board, specifically: "Personal attacks towards other posters will not be tolerated. People will be treated with respect at all times." i mean... he has a point... i don't think nostradamus is that offensive... and also i agree with you. bourn ain't worth it.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 01:20 PM) ...or so you think. I'm not saying I know one way or another...but from the sound of it...this girl could convince you the sky is green on a bright sunny day, and you'd not only believe her...but it'd actually be green when you looked at it. By and large, I think your compromised by your undying love for this girl. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing...it happens to all of us...it has too. This is coming down to exactly what I said it would come down too...the places in life you both happen to be, right now, are in conflict. The only things you can do is 1) move on, or 2) wait for her to get there. IIII know, none of you believe that two people can actually be open and honest with each other, but regardless of what y'all think, that's exactly what we're doing. I don't think we're ready to get back together yet either. It's still too soon. I want more time to figure out and decide if this really is a smart decision or not. I have more to figure out just like she does. All we agreed on is that our feelings for each other are still really strong, and we'd like to give it another shot in the near future. And she hasn't convinced me of anything. I was completely prepared to walk yesterday if she said no, or even I don't know. I said as much to her. I told her if that, by the end of this conversation and after our date, the answer was still "i don't know" then we need to go our separate ways, go no contact, move on, and truly heal. We're still doing low contact, we're still not jumping into anything and pretending this is anything it's not. If at ANY point, one of us decides we want out, we're gonna tell the other. If I decide I need to see other people to know if this is the right thing to do or not, I'll tell her, and I'll do it. Vice versa. Like I said, this could still be bumpy, and it could still end badly, but I'm willing to risk a couple more months working things through. In the scheme of things, what are a couple months? If we ride off into the sunset together those months won't matter. If we don't, and a few months from now, a year from now, I'm with someone else, then those months won't matter either! The potential benefit of doing this work far outweighs the cost.

question for the pro gun crowd: A father of one of the slain kids comes up to you and asks, "what can we do to better protect our kids from this kind of thing happening in the future?" what do you say?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:48 AM) You can't be serious here. Speed limit laws? Drug laws? and you don't see us repealing those laws do you? would anyone suggest we should??

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:40 AM) This all relates to 2012 in so many ways. During the first two decades following the ratification of the Second Amendment, public opposition to standing armies, among Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike, persisted and manifested itself locally as a general reluctance to create a professional armed police force, instead relying on county sheriffs, constables and night watchmen to enforce local ordinances.[90] Though sometimes compensated, often these positions were unpaid—held as a matter of civic duty. In these early decades, law enforcement officers were rarely armed with firearms, using clubs as their sole defensive weapon.[90] In serious emergencies, a posse comitatus, militia company, or group of vigilantes assumed law enforcement duties; these individuals were more likely than the local sheriff to be armed with firearms.[90] On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring: [E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[91] The act also gave specific instructions to domestic weapon manufacturers "that from and after five years from the passing of this act, muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound."[91] In practice, private acquisition and maintenance of rifles and muskets meeting specifications and readily available for militia duty proved problematic; estimates of compliance ranged from 10 to 65 percent.[92] Compliance with the enrollment provisions was also poor. In addition to the exemptions granted by the law for custom-house officers and their clerks, post-officers and stage drivers employed in the care and conveyance of U.S. mail, ferrymen, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners and those deployed at sea in active service; state legislatures granted numerous exemptions under Section 2 of the Act, including exemptions for: clergy, conscientious objectors, teachers, students, and jurors. And though a number of able-bodied white men remained available for service, many simply did not show up for militia duty. Penalties for failure to appear were enforced sporadically and selectively.[93] None are mentioned in the legislation.[91] The first test of the militia system occurred in July 1794, when a group of disaffected Pennsylvania farmers rebelled against federal tax collectors whom they viewed as illegitimate tools of tyrannical power.[94] Attempts by the four adjoining states to raise a militia for nationalization to suppress the insurrection proved inadequate. When officials resorted to drafting men, they faced bitter resistance. Forthcoming soldiers consisted primarily of draftees or paid substitutes as well as poor enlistees lured by enlistment bonuses. The officers, however, were of a higher quality, responding out of a sense of civic duty and patriotism, and generally critical of the rank and file.[95] Most of the 13,000 soldiers lacked the required weaponry; the war department provided nearly two-thirds of them with guns.[95] In October, President George Washington and General Harry Lee marched on the 7,000 rebels who conceded without fighting. The episode provoked criticism of the citizen militia and inspired calls for a universal militia. Secretary of War Henry Knox and President John Adams had lobbied Congress to establish federal armories to stock imported weapons and encourage domestic production.[95] Congress did subsequently pass "[a]n act for the erecting and repairing of Arsenals and Magazines" on April 2, 1794, two months prior to the insurrection.[96] Nevertheless, the militia continued to deteriorate and twenty years later, the militia's poor condition contributed to several losses in the War of 1812, including the sacking of Washington, D.C. and the White House being burned down in 1814.[93] how dare you use historical fact to prove your points...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:18 AM) More restrictions doesn't stop this from happening. I don't understand why people believe that. She did everything by the book (allegedly) and even with more difficult restrictions she still could have obtained guns. Shotguns, handsguns, rifles, whatever. A deranged, mentally unstable kid stole his mother's weapons and went on a pre-mediated murder spree. No new law you want to impose except an outright ban would have stopped him. give. me. your. proof.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:07 AM) Link? Because I really doubt that's true nor relevant to the point. Are we now basing decisions on majority rules? I guess gay marriage and abortion really should be illegal now... actually over 50% now support gay marriage.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:02 AM) Well done. i actually think there is a similarity when people say we should follow the constitution TO THE LETTER even though it's a near 250 year old document that deserves to be updated. Just like nobody actually thinks we should follow the old testament to the letter. it's actually the same concept, and much more closely correlated than voting to gun rights.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:03 AM) They also had no idea what the hell the internet or TV was. Why should you get free speech on that? Let the government have it. They were referring to local newspapers. And you can't pick and choose which ammendments you want to interpret literally and which you wan to be 'living'. just like you can't with the bible right?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:02 AM) What you're missing though is why can't I turn that exact logic back on you with regards to voting rights? The response to any argument that you should have an ID to vote is "ZOMG! Voting is a right in the constitution and it cannot be infringed! Ever! No matter what!" because a lot more people agree that you should have the right to vote in this country than believe you should have the right to own an assault rifle. democracy remember?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:59 AM) The mother herself screwed up here. he was removed from school because she didn't like the way the school was treating him. there are records of him having 'difficulty', and not in the learning sense. There is a person on record saying that he used to babysit the kid when he was 8 or 9 and was told by the mom to never turn his back on him. She knew even then he was a potential time bomb, but did nothing. There were signs, but the mother covered them up. thus she shouldn't have had the right to keep a gun in that house.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:58 AM) I'm just laughing at the flopping back and forth on the generalities here. Sometimes it is OK for municipalities to over ride, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it is OK to listen to the constitution, others it isn't. Even when it is in direct contradiction of what was just said at times. exactly. the world isn't black and white.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:55 AM) The only defense needed is it is my right per the constitution to own a gun. You don't like guns and want to restrict that or outright take it away. If I want to legally by a Glock 19, I can do so. I should not have to prove to you, or anyone else, WHY I NEED it. I want it. I went thru background checks, waiting periods, have no criminal record, I got my gun. More paperwork than it took to vote. You want all these restriction on a right. Take away this one, and the next one becomes easier. Talking bad about the government? Well, we need to put a stop to that! You see it in dictatorships all the time, and even now in the UN where Russia, China and others want to seize control over what is on the internet as they are tired of their people seeing truth out there. 5 year old child: "But I WAAAANT it!" Grown Ass American: "But I WAAAAANT it!" pathetic. it is not your inalienable right to have a semi-automatic weapon. the founders who wrote the constitution had NO IDEA what a semi or automatic weapon was because they didn't exist. they wrote that as a member of a militia your right to keep and bear a weapon should not be infringed - referring to muskets and single shot rifles. you really don't think it deserves to be updated for 2012? how do you feel about leviticus? do you have a wife or girlfriend? when she's menstruating do you keep her outside and burn the sheets? if not, you're not following the laws of an ancient text to the letter!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:54 AM) So you're admitting that your new requirements would have done nothing. Good! Glad we agree. his mother wouldn't have been able to own the guns. take off the blinders.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:52 AM) How about equitable to an abortion doctor? It is interesting how the arguments for the two issues are so similar. The side that is pro- doesn't want to cede any ground on the idea that it will lead to a slippery slope which will end up in the complete loss of the issue for the group. The common sense stuff in the middle gets completely lost because of the negatively political ground given up by the slippery slope. nobody disagrees that a 6 year old girl is a person. and nobody disagrees that a 40 year old teacher is a person. there's your difference.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:50 AM) You are aware that the current shooter did not acquire his guns legally, aren't you? So no matter what rules you had in place, he would have still got them. There ARE background checks, which stopped him from actually purchasing one himself. 1) his mother bought them legally 2) there was nothing in his background that would have set off a red flag on his check. he had no criminal record.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:49 AM) Obesity is a national epidemic. Cheeseburgers kill people all the time! Come on. didn't you get that memo from Michelle? You shoudl have to justify why you want it, for the good of the country. if it saves just one life, it is worth it. i would love, just once, for you to have an opinion that is supported by something other than sarcasm and snark. do you even KNOW why you hold the opinions you do? can you defend your positions without comparing them to completely unrelated subjects and creating false correlations? i don't think you can.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:48 AM) And you still would have the right to vote... yeah i know. but comparing voting to owning a weapon that can kill 26 people in the span of a couple minutes... well... i just don't really think they're equatable

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:46 AM) The justification is because it is my right and I want it. Who are you to decide that for me? Maybe you should need to justify that cheeseburger you want to order for lunch when they decide to regulate what you eat next. can i use a cheeseburger to kill 20 children?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:44 AM) Buy a Bushmaster at your local Wal-Mart! Because no home should be without one! that's f***ing disgusting.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:41 AM) Listen, making it illegal to have semi-automatic guns and handguns would, without a doubt, lower the murder rate in this country. Though the number would obviously be much higher, even just a 1% decrease in the murder rate in this country would be worth it. If you disagree, then you are pro-murder. truth.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 04:16 PM) I'm just not going to send my kids to public school. Teachers are spoiled rotten by their unions, they're f***ing terrible at their jobs and they clearly aren't safe. Besides, all public schools really are anymore is indoctrination centers to send kids for a life in the Democratic party (sure as hell dont teach math or science worth a damn anymore). Just forsake our broken public school system and you'll be fine. hahahahahahahaha yeah you are right that good schooling leads people to think more liberally. i really do understand why all you neo-cons are scared of it.