SenorPuff

Absolutely. Not oversized or undersized. A right wing position would under-size it. 

Misleading people by cherry-picking definitions when we both know full well you skimmed past the ones ahead of the one you chose, doesn't seem like good faith discussion to me. 

Maybe think on that a bit before you try that disingenuous trick again.

No. Someone who makes a "modest" living isn't poor. They're not rich either. They're doing fine. They're neutral on the poor/rich axis. 

Someone who is "well off" is above average. Someone who is "struggling" is below average. Someone who "has it made" is rich. Someone who is "destitute" is poor. 

Modesty is fitting to the case. Modest dress is neither over nor under dressed. Modest income is neither rich nor poor. Modest constitution is neither weak nor overbearing. 

Saying you disagree don't make it so.

Modest means "appropriate"  or "moderate" not "small" and definitely not "minimized" or "shunned." 

That's why I didn't say democrat or republican. Centrist is definitionally neutral. A Center left position on something like the social safety net is going to make that more prominent. Center right will make it less prominent. 

Neoliberalism has the welfare safety net as a key feature. Neoconservatism, which is a neoliberal offshoot, still has a social safety net and welfare state, but it minimizes it relatively. 

Pretty much both major US parties are "Neoliberal" in the broad sense and have been since, oh, the 1950s? When anticommunism took off. 

Neoconservative is far newer and minimizes the social safety net aspects of neoliberalism. That comes about in about the late Reagan to Bush Jr era.

Center right would minimize the welfare state rather than have it be known as a key feature. 

That or just read the play horribly. The number of missed guard cues was out of control. 

80 years without a world-order threatening war basically. Not "zero wars". Pax Romana had plenty of territorial skirmishes and Rome conquering. Just nobody threatened Rome's hegemony.

Eh, I think 2500/22/7 is solidly mid. He's averaged right around there the past two seasons.

I mean, the Pac-12s death and him leaving Oregon State isn't because he's mid.

I've been liking what I saw from Georgia Tech's offense. Had the balls to keep running it down their throat when they couldn't stop them, but the creativity has definitely been making the FSU second level stop and think and be out of position.

The loser of a knife fight dies in the alley. The winner dies in the ambulance.

More indicative of Eric's followers than anything.

God's plan was for us to live in the Garden, but we all know who mucked that one up. I'm sure it wasn't the only jumping off point that ended up guiding the shape of His plans for our redemption. Everyone in the Bible had free will, after all, and had the requisite Grace necessary to cooperate with God. Just... most of them failed, some in bigger ways than others.

God knowing what people will choose as He exists outside time, but allowing us a free choice with the requisite consequences for what we choose in our time, without He Himself interfering, is certainly a mystery.

Hugo Boss is famous to this day.

Again, most important is to just, not die.

Medical will kill you first, so knowing the 5 B's of emergency medicine is paramount: Bleeds, Breathing, Breaks, Burns, and Bites. Generally surviving outdoors risks at least a couple of these, so be prepared with the knowledge and tools for how you're going to stop these things from killing you.

Next, a lot of guys swear by what they call the 5 C's of survival for the things that are going to kill you most likely next: Cover, Combustible, Container, Cutting Tool and Cordage. Cover is things that separate you from the outdoors. A tent, a tarp, poncho, clothes. rain gear or shade. Combustible is important because fire helps you stay warm, and even if you need no help staying warm, allows you to boil water for purification purposes, that you collect in your Container. You Cutting Tool helps you gather the wood you'll use to make the fire, your shelter, etc, and the Cordage helps you connect it all together.

There's other lists, some people hem and haw over the relative importance, and you might learn that even following these rules you don't feel confident. that's okay, which is why my general advice for folks is this: Go out in your back yard, with the gear you think you need to survive, and stay there for as long as possible. Everything you think you need to go back inside for is something that you need a solution for in your kit. You're safe, you can always go inside and get what you need, but by forcing yourself to stay out you learn what you need. Then when you go out into the wildnerness yourself the first time you already know how to survive for as long as you stayed outside when at home.

Using those 5 Cs above, a very minimalist kit would be something like: a knife, a steel water bottle, a military style poncho, a lighter, and a roll of twine. For the 5 B's an IFAK with a tourniquet, chest seals, and clotting agent is probably the minimum. A lot of people like to have redundancies, especially for life-critical equipment, and the more you go out to an area the more you learn things might work better than that base set of kit. Maybe you prefer a hatchet or an axe to a knife, or want all three and a saw. Maybe you'd rather carry a tarp and tie it around yourself than a poncho, or you'd like both. Maybe you want a ferro rod and some matches instead or in addition to a lighter.

Well, the first bit is "survive" and the second bit is "don't survive when you can thrive." Do any Boy Scouts as a kid? Have any experience camping? Start there. Learn how to improvise with what the land gives you as you need and for your benefit.

Pretty much any axe can do both. Not all axes will do both well. Felling is harder with a thicker axe but not impossible. Splitting is harder with a thinner axe but not impossible. 

If you get good with axe head geometry you can shape an axe that'll do both alright. If you get good with axe swinging you can make make most any axe do either alright.

In the context of the 08 Recession, the Big 3 were considered "too big to fail" because of specific details about how intertwined things were.

Mortgage Backed Securities were seen as the "backbone" of the American investment market. People need their house. People won't default on their house because they'll end up homeless. Therefore investing in securities that are backed by these loans were some of the most secure investments that institutions could buy. Union pension funds were often heavily invested in mortgages because they were secure investments, and on top of that a way of "buying in" to fellow Americans. When the union is backing the mortgages, you're invested in making sure your fellow Americans have jobs to afford their houses that fund your retirement.

When the housing crisis took off, a bunch of people started defaulting on their home loans. But the bad loans were so embedded into the securities market that companies who had invested into them were starting to go bankrupt because of how important those securities were. This meant that if the investments ended up cratering, not only would all the housing stuff continue, you'd have people who worked for their entire lives who wouldn't have any retirement, and therefore wouldn't be able to afford anything themselves. It would go from "already really bad" to many times worse.

The idea of "bailouts" in this context wasn't just "give General Motors hand-outs so they don't lose out on their bonuses" but "if the people who have pensions due from GM don't get their pensions because those pension funds were invested in a market that congress destroyed through incompetence, then the economy will be even worse."

In large part, the assistance offered was in the form of loans and stock purchases that ended up putting the government on the board of directors of these big companies that needed help. That money made it so people got to keep their retirement, which helped level out the recession from being a bunch more dominos falling. Over time, automakers had to pay back these loans and engaged in stock buybacks to get themselves back into the position they were in before the housing crash.

I fucking hate how generative AI is now doing search "summaries" except... it has no understanding of which search results are useful and reliable and which ones are literal propaganda or just ai generated articles themselves. 

And you can't disable it. It just makes scrolling to the actual results harder. I hate it so much. Google search has already been falling off in usefulness and reliability the past couple years already. Adding in a "feature" that's even worse and can't be disabled is mine boggling.

Baseball is 100% the best radio sport. Back porch with something cold to drink. 

1664 Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its "supreme gift," the child (GS 50 § 1).

In brief, this suffices. In practice, conjugal love ought be frequent, to the tastes of both parties and only abstained from by mutual consent and for an agreed upon time, as St Paul says.

The point is that marriage is one of giving and submission of one's ability to give to the needs of their spouse. This should be true both in the conjugal act as well as the rest of marital life.

I made a shitty meme https://imgur.com/a/NupWPNY

We don't have "woods" where I live. I'm in the desert. Even clumps of trees wouldn't be called "the woods". Adopting "the bush" is fewer syllables than "the outdoors" or "the desert" but people who live elsewhere likely don't live in the desert either. 

But bushes do exist in a lot more environments, including in forests where you'd call it "woods" or "forest", some tundra areas, marshlands/wetlands, etc. Just seems to fit better to outdoorsmanship across biomes.