redskinsfan92
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 1,827
- Reaction score
- 1,459
- Age
- 34
None of the mainstream media has even mentioned this. I searched all over for s mention. Not surprised. Doesn't fit their narrative.
Your buddy Dave has been single for three years and thinks "hey u up" is a valid strategy. Your other buddy Mike just got dumped and told you to "just be yourself."
You showed them her text. You asked them to decode the emoji. You drafted four responses and sent the screenshot to the group chat for a vote.
She's been waiting forty minutes.
Put the phone down. Stop crowdsourcing your love life. Type something that sounds like you. Hit send. Then go do literally anything else with your evening.
Three seconds. That's how long it took. Your shoes. Your posture. The way you held your drink. Whether you looked at the floor or looked at her.
She already filed you away. Interesting. Boring. Safe. Bold. Before you even opened your mouth.
Everything you say after that is just her confirming what she already decided.
So stop rehearsing lines. Fix the first three seconds. Stand tall. Look up. Smile like you mean it. Walk like you belong wherever you're standing.
The words come later. The impression comes first.
Trump managing to trick these people on election was one thing. That's how politics work and someone had to be elected, when every candidate on both the so-called "sides" simply serves their neoliberal plutocrat handlers, from Reagan to Obama. But I can't believe there are people who still genuinely think a career con man, staffing their government with an old network of parasitic, destructive plutocrats is working for the public good, and that there's some positive difference between him and the others.This is just another pathetic right-wing rationalization. "Look! Trump did a good thing! Praise him!"
Here's the deal - if bipartisan legislation has supermajority support, the executive doesn't get a pat on the ass for signing it. The alternative, a veto, just gets overridden.
Trump is just a figurehead to sign whatever McConnell sends him. Grow some standards.
Three seconds. That's how long it took. Your shoes. Your posture. The way you held your drink. Whether you looked at the floor or looked at her.
She already filed you away. Interesting. Boring. Safe. Bold. Before you even opened your mouth.
Everything you say after that is just her confirming what she already decided.
So stop rehearsing lines. Fix the first three seconds. Stand tall. Look up. Smile like you mean it. Walk like you belong wherever you're standing.
The words come later. The impression comes first.
The motive is always important. If 100% of Congress unanimously agrees on legislation, why are we giving Trump credit for signing it? His choices are to sign it, or have Congress simply overrule him to which it becomes law anyway.Cleaning the ocean is good regardless of his motivation.
It's the act that matters, why bother with the motivation behind it?
If you think Reagan and Obama were equally plutocratic, I have some snake oil to sell you.Trump managing to trick these people on election was one thing. That's how politics work and someone had to be elected, when every candidate on both the so-called "sides" simply serves their neoliberal plutocrat handlers, from Reagan to Obama.
What matters is the result = cleaning of the oceans. IThe motive is always important. If 100% of Congress unanimously agrees on legislation, why are we giving Trump credit for signing it? His choices are to sign it, or have Congress simply overrule him to which it becomes law anyway.
Details always matter. You're desperate to rationalize your support for Trump. This law was enacted was in spite of Trump, not because of him.What matters is the result = cleaning of the oceans. I
The details doesn't matter, it's merely a process towards the results.
hes doing it because he wants to plants atomic bombs there and plastic is in the wayNone of the mainstream media has even mentioned this. I searched all over for s mention. Not surprised. Doesn't fit their narrative.
I could talk to any woman I wasn't attracted to. Charming, funny, relaxed. Then a gorgeous woman looked my way and I'd become a sweating, babbling mess.
The fix took me years to find and ten minutes to learn. Nervousness and excitement are the same physical state — pounding heart, adrenaline, flushed face. Your brain just picks the label. And you can pick a better one.
Rule 16 shows you how. You feel the nerves, relabel them as excitement, and let that energy pour out as enthusiasm. Women notice the guy radiating it. They always do.
i think no one cares about saving earth because we will all die out of old age before something about in environment goes wrongAll politicians are motivated by self-interest. The whole American system was set up for that. Even an obviously "pro-environment" politician is acting out of his own interest - to get elected. We can all argue about who deserves the credit, but bottom line is the ocean might get a little cleaner.
Also, environmentalism, aka "saving the planet" is human self-interest. The planet isn't going anywhere. WE are...so obviously one line of thought is that mitigating environmental damage will extend our presence here. If mankind goes extinct, Earth will continue to exist, even with large amounts of plastic floating in its oceans, until it is swallowed by the sun.
I don't know which one of them you'd say is worse, and it doesn't matter. The point is they both serve their rentier handlers and that going into thinking one of them doesn't, like these people do with Trump, is a trap.If you think Reagan and Obama were equally plutocratic, I have some snake oil to sell you.
It’s only more Lib bitchin about 2016 still…How was it in spite of Trump?
Is who deserves the credit not the topic of the OP?All politicians are motivated by self-interest. The whole American system was set up for that. Even an obviously "pro-environment" politician is acting out of his own interest - to get elected. We can all argue about who deserves the credit, but bottom line is the ocean might get a little cleaner.
Already explained. You know how to read, right?How was it in spite of Trump?
You already quoted my explanation. Pleading ignorance is not an argument.I must have missed the explanation, can you quote exactly where you explain how it is "in spite of Trump"?
You asked her if she wanted to grab coffee. Then you asked if the time worked. Then you asked if the place was okay. Then you asked if she'd prefer tea.
Four questions. Four chances for her to say no. Four signals that you're terrified of making a decision.
Plan it. Pick the place. Pick the time. Tell her where to meet you. She'll either show up or she won't.
Either way, you look like a man instead of a scared little boy.
Irrelevant.Details always matter. You're desperate to rationalize your support for Trump. This law was enacted was in spite of Trump, not because of him.
Nope. That's wrong. Let's review the facts.One would then argue the semantics of the entire process and not just Trump.
U r putting emotions into a process thus being biased.
Now tell me, who's being desperate?
No assumption. The facts are that it is irrelevant what Trump thinks about a law unanimously passed by Congress but you'll do anything to give him credit.The assumption is that somehow Trump would be against it?
Again irrelevant and emotionally based argument.Nope. That's wrong. Let's review the facts.
This bill was passed with unanimous support. If Trump vetoes, the bill still becomes law when Congress overrides.
You so desperately want to give credit to Trump when it has nothing to do with him.
You asked her if she wanted to grab coffee. Then you asked if the time worked. Then you asked if the place was okay. Then you asked if she'd prefer tea.
Four questions. Four chances for her to say no. Four signals that you're terrified of making a decision.
Plan it. Pick the place. Pick the time. Tell her where to meet you. She'll either show up or she won't.
Either way, you look like a man instead of a scared little boy.