Morality vs Effect

When discussing general libertarian arguments and points, as all of us Ron Paul supporters do, it is important to remember that there exist more than one criterion whereby our positions can be supported. All too often I see the Ron Paul supporter debating issues and ending up in a jam when disagreements rise over facts and statistics.<--break-> Does welfare really reduce poverty levels? Has terrorism decreased since the 'War on Terror'? Are different actions taken by Congress allowed by the Constitution? The list goes on and on, and converting people over to Ron Paul's side is not always an easy task.



With that said, when all else fails there is a tool in your pocket that can be very persuasive: the argument from morality. Some socialist and big-government actions can have *supposed* positive side effects but that alone does not justify the action. Laws are, and should be, based on morality before the effects of that law should be taken into consideration. When you run out of arguments, all you have to ask is whether or not the use of force and violence, the two things that the government employs to do its bidding, is morally acceptable.



Sure no one likes poverty but does that mean that the government should be allowed to force a portion of my income away from me to attempt (rather unsuccessfully I might add) to eradicate poverty? Sure the poor might want "free" education for their children but does that mean the state should be allowed to take away some of my money and advocate their own educational agenda with it? Sure some narcotics may have harmful long-term effects BUT should ANYONE be able to force me to put or not put anything into my own body?

The resounding obvious answer, of course, is "no".

I also often see the argument from the Rule of Law standpoint, which is, in itself, a noble idea but let us not forget that it can only be noble if the laws are based on morality. Sure many things are allowed or not allowed by the Constitution but to support action or inaction on that basis is to make the assumption that the Constitution is morally correct. Don't get me wrong, it's a great document but it still arguably has some flaws. Even such issues as slavery can be argued *for* from a utilitarian or Rule of Law standpoint... after all an industry that is able to employ slaves can become incredibly productive, and at times slave ownership was legally sound.

All too often Ron Paul supporters fall into the incorrect assumption, as is often pushed by our opponents, that our positions are not morally justified. Maybe it is the frequent iteration of this that causes many of us to actually start to believe it. The fact of the matter, however, is that as living creatures the greatest evil to us is the threat of force... in essence the death of free will. Even such issues as slavery can be argued *for* from a utilitarian standpoint... after all an industry that is able to employ slaves can become incredibly productive. The libertarian platform, apart from its effective policies, is actually the philosophy which has the most integrity (something us Ron Paul supporters are familiar with). If you believe good and evil exist in our world and know how to use rational thought then you will inevitably come to the conclusion that the decrease in size of the government is the stance that deserves your support.

Ron Paul's June Sprint

In June, what do the Daily Show, Colbert Report, and New Hampshire have in common? Yes, if you answered "Ron Paul" then you're right. If you didn't answer "Ron Paul" then apparently this is your first time visiting this site.

That's right ladies and gentlement, the internet's Ron Paul supporters have convinced Comedy Central and Ron Paul's campaign to get together and get him on both shows. It seems thus far that Ron Paul's supporters have been able to get him onto every show they have found necessary. Take a look:

http://www.interbridge.com/lineups.html#CR

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/show/CTVShows/20031021/dailyshow-default/20070330

While it has raised a little alarm that Ron Paul would do the Daily Show the day before the New Hampshire debate (June 5th), and risk neglecting perhaps his most crucial state, Ron Paul supporters are nevertheless happy to see the man in action on major television events 3x in some 10 days (of course neglecting the usual interviews he will get from news stations regarding his beautifully crafted words during the debate).

I am hopeful that this adherence to audience demands has inspired those who have already sent emails to TV and radio stations, as well as those who have considered doing so, to up the ante to get Dr. Paul on other major television programs. From what I have seen the next big giant to convince is, of course, "Larry King Live". It will be a true test of our persuasive skills.

PS I'd also like to see Ron Paul on "The View" since his words have already sparked controversy on there and perhaps The View-ership is an untapped source for Ron Paul as of yet. Special thanks to everyone who has been writing to the stations to get Ron Paul's words out there.


Created by Voltier Search Marketing

Ron Paul Facebook Group Raises $1000 in 2 Hours

Tonight Ron Paul's largest Facebook group, named "Congressman Ron Paul for President 2008" (http://usc.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2229718737) , which has some 7,000 members, was able to raise $1000 for Ron Paul's campaign in just 1 hour and 56 minutes.

It all started when the group's creator, Jeff Frazee, created the pledge campaign and posted the link (hosted by Fundabl.org) on the group's main wall and discussion board. The original deadline was for June 5th, the day of the next GOP debate (held in New Hampshire and hosted by CNN), but perhaps Mr. Frazee himself underestimated the commitment that even the average Ron Paul supporter has to the Congressman.

At 5:38 PM PST the announcement that the drive had begun was made:
1 hour and 56 minutes this is what members of the group saw:


And there you have it. With some 13+ days left on the clock, 35 college and high school students averaged just over $33 to raise over $1000 dollars for Congressman Ron Paul.

It seems that this is another symptom of Dr. Paul's loyal internet following. Ron Paul's largest Facebook group (mentioned earlier) is the 2nd largest for a GOP candidate behind Mitt Romney's (with over 11,000). However, Paul's group has been seeing significantly larger growth rates and is expected to surpass Romney's by early June. The candidate's support profile (http://usc.facebook.com/person.php?id=2330333861) is also growing at an alarming rate.

This is a first for me. I have never seen Facebook deliver and complete a campaign for this much this quickly. If anyone has any other Facebook drives that have generated substantial at lightning-speed I would be more than happy to hear about it. This big question still looming on the horizon is whether or not Paul's internet following will be successful in transferring the success over to the general public. If the last few weeks have shown anything, it's that this Congressman's campaign thus far has been anything but predictable.

Apparently Harvard Law Isn't That Great

Look at this picture and tell me what doesn't belong...Yep, if you zoom in on it you'll find something strange. Laurence Tribe, a popular Constitutional Law professor (and lawyer) has financially backed Barack Obama. From the very first moment I knew something was fishy but I just emailed the professor:

Dear Professor Tribe,

Although just about anyone's opinions on the idea of Constitutional Law would be trumped by your knowledge... I find it strange that you are a Barack Obama supporter. Here are a few reasons why I am confused, and feel free to correct me if any of my points are off:
- Barack Obama supports higher taxes: the Constitution talks about freedom (eg freedom to do what you want with the money you earn) and the Federal income tax is constitutionally ambiguous.
- Universal Healthcare: do people *really* have an automatic right to healthcare? Don't get me wrong the Constitution points out that there could be rights that are not defined specifically in the Constitution and that their absence in the document does not mean that they exist BUT despite that Universal Healthcare is probably unsustainable, would you really take away the freedom/right for a doctor refuse service? And don't forget that Universal Healthcare would deter people from going into the Medical field. We can never forget about incentive and sustainability when it comes to law.
- Net Neutrality- I love the internet but where do freedom and government restrictions go together? Restriction =/= Freedom. I understand that Congress has the right to 'regulate commerce' but from what I understand the term 'commerce' did not hold the same freedom back when the Constitution and its Amendments were written.
- 2nd Amendment- it seems pretty clear to me that Obama does not want to uphold the 2nd Amendment. You of all people should oppose this.

Professor, I'm just a random student on the other side of the country but of all the candidates for a Constitutional Law professor to endorse I find it strange that you don't endorse Representative Ron Paul. There is no other US politician alive who has adhered to the Constitution and the Rule of Law better than Ron Paul has. It's up to every individual to find out who they think is best for the country and while the thought of a Republican might make some cringe... I would recommend you at least take a look at some of his political stances.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Me

A constitutional law professor backing a socialist? Big government and the Constitution do not go hand in hand. Naturally enough you can understand my "shock" when I found this:

Loeb University Professor Laurence H. Tribe ’62, who taught Obama and employed him as a research assistant, remembers him as a “brilliant, personable, and obviously unique” person. Tribe said that Obama’s theoretical perspective on applying modern physics to law was “very impressive.”

Yep, Barack Obama just got the backing because Tribe knows him personally. REAL principled Dr. Tribe. I have a good Physics background so I won't even delve into how silly his "physics to law" was. You could *maybe* get away with biology but I don't see where magnetic flux overlaps Habeas Corpus.

On Michelle Malkin and Integrity

Well during the last week, for those of you who didn't see, was the 2nd GOP Debate conducted by Fox News (uh oh). Naturally enough Ron Paul had to fend off attacks from the moderators, but strangely was omitted from the abortion questions although he was an OB-GYN and would know better than all the other candidates on the issue...
Anyway Ron Paul and Giuliani went head-to-head (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDND5tcUFoI) and Ron Paul cited the official 9/11 Commission Report and apparently Rudy had not read it (either that or he was lying to get a cheap clap from the South Carolina crowd). Rudy called Ron Paul out and in perhaps the most heated moment I've seen in politics, Ron Paul did not back down. Boy does this man have mountains of integrity.
So anyway the Fox News reporters are picked up in the heated argument between the two and Michelle Malkin (here's a funny video of her, you'd think with her budget she'd be able to afford better editing- http://libertyguys.org/home/detail.asp?ArtID=1562) decided she'd sacrifice truth for a quick defamation against Paul. She decided she'd accuse Ron Paul of being part of the 9/11 "Truth" movement (read: those people who think the government did it all...). Here's the clip:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/170507smearjob.htm

When she decided to do this, you can imagine how irritated Paul's supporters became. Here's the email I sent to her:

While I am usually an avid Fox News viewer, I have noticed recently that the bias your channel possesses has become a bit too blunt and blatant. I always expect a bit of bias from my news channels but in the last few days it seems like Fox News has become desperate to discredit Representative Ron Paul. What's sad is that I, until recently, was a Giuliani supporter! Unfortunately I decided a long time ago that TRUTH is of a higher priority than the small bickering of bipartisanship.

With that said, when watching your channel try to rationalize Ron Paul doing well in your polls and then subsequently twisting his words (almost to the point of illegality) it seems like you guys have reached a point where even the average viewer can see the partisanship bleeding out of their TV.

As for TRUTH... Ron Paul is not part of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement. He has met with some groups before but has always been careful about his words and thus that is why you will not find any direct quotes condemning him as a believer in the movement. Ron Paul and 9/11 "Truth" Movement only have 1 variable in common, discomfort at the idea of a very large and overbearing government. Even in the debate Ron Paul referenced the official 9/11 Commission Report which specifically stated that bombing in Iraq and occupation in Saudi Arabia, among other factors, led to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden's decision to attack the United States of America. He cited a legitimate source and did not say one thing about the government "bringing the buildings down" or anything even remotely close. What is more staggering, and made me switch away from Giuliani support is that APPARENTLY Giuliani has not read the 9/11 Commission Report. THE MAYOR OF NYC AT THE TIME HAS NOT READ THE OFFICIAL REPORT REG
ARDING THE EVENT THAT KILLED THOUSANDS OF HIS CONSTITUENTS. He referred to the reference to the report as something he's "never heard before" and "absurd". Either he's a blatant liar or just plain ignorant (and therefore disrespectful of his citizens), and in both cases my resolve has been solidified.

I do not know much about this Ron Paul but after Giuliani's slip-up and your apparent *fear* of him... I think I will give him a look.

I understand Fox News has to pull ratings but in the end the news channel with the most integrity will be the only one standing.

Sincerely,
Me
My Location
American Citizen

Well apparently she got the point of all our emails and here's what she wrote on her blog later:

First, some corrections: Last week, on John Gibson's Fox News Channel show, "The Big Story," I was asked to comment on 9/11 conspiracy theorists and Ron Paul. Here's the video. In the segment, I referred to "Students and Scholars for Truth." The accurate name of the group I was referring to is "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth." (There's a separate group called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," which I've blogged about previously.) I also stated that Paul appeared on campus with Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth. This is incorrect. The incident I was referring to was an exchange that took place at a campaign house party, not during an on-campus joint appearance, as I mistakenly stated. I regret the errors and am forwarding this post to The Big Story producers so that they can air these corrections if they wish to do so.

So she backed off a bit but then later in her blog goes on to basically accuse Ron Paul of being a "Truther". While Ron Paul HAS met with conspiracy theorists, that does not mean he automatically sympathizes with them. Sure there are pictures of Rumsfield meeting with Saddam Hussein back in the day but certainly that doesn't make Rumsfield a delusional Iraqi dictator, does it? I'm sure many officials met with Osama bin Laden back when they were fighting the Soviets (and we were helping them) but that doesn't mean our administration consisted of a bunch of Mujahadeens, does it? Anyway I wrote her another email:

Dear Miss Malkin,

While I applaud you for editing your statements regarding Ron Paul and the "9/11 Truth Movement" (or whatever on Earth people want to call it), I'm still a bit bothered by what seems to be biased reporting. Sure Ron Paul has met with some of these groups but similarly many of our top officials have met with mediocre entities in the past (we all have seen the picture of Rumsfield shaking hands with Hussein, and lord know how many officials met with Osama bin Laden back when they were fighting the Soviets) but just because these people meet each other does not mean the completely agree with one another. As I said before, the only real place that these "scholars" (I'm a scholar and think their concerns are a bit of rubbish) and Ron Paul have in common is suspicion of the government.

Please be careful when attempting to put words into the mouths of people who haven't said exactly what you are implying they say. When Ron Paul says he wants a better investigation that does NOT mean he thinks our administration conducted 9/11... he's just saying that the government has covered things up in the past and there is nothing wrong with looking deeper into the event that changed the whole United States foreign policy. Nixon tried to cover up Watergate, we had the Dreyfus affair back in the day, Roman Catholic sex-abuse cases of recent years, the Iran-Contra affair, and recently the Plane affair scandal and Gonzalez firings (emails were "deleted"? How convenient...). This is to talk of our country alone, certainly most other countries have it a lot worse.

To deny that government occasionally cover things up is to blindly trust whatever government is in place. I bet if the Liberals were in the White House when 9/11 happened that you would be singing a different tune. Ron Paul does not have blind faith toward any government, regardless of party, and his suspicions of government activity is a common theme throughout the American public.

In closing I would just like to say that while I know you like the GOP in control of the government (nothing wrong with that), that you should be careful not to become too biased during your reporting. Your bias COULD help the GOP out, don't get me wrong, but in the end year down the road when we are old and fragile there will be nothing left but your legacy. You have the choice to pick between a biased reporter who, on a short timescale, helped the GOP to (keep) power or you could be a fearless reporter and author who always questioned what was spoon-fed to her and helped this nation be the best and most efficient that it could be.

Sincerely,
Me

PS: I apologize that some Ron Paul supporters have been classless with their emails. His supporters are very passionate and you have to remember that every group has its extremists. Cheers.

I think by now Malkin gets the point. Actually who am I kidding? She's just a female version of Hannity. An Asian version of Coulter. With that said, I'll leave you with some funny YouTube vids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsZ_Ep2HZiI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNjkiT-7vd0
Put 'em together and what do ya got? Hickery dickery dock...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSk4SUpWVuY&mode=related&search=

In the words of Dane Cook, "it's funny because it's so true".

Rule of Law: Rules Are Meant to Be Broken?

In what could be termed the "beginning of the beginning of the end", libertarians and US Constitutionalists are watching slowly as their movements start to become illegal. Such intra-national surveillance as wiretapping and public cameras usually are ignored by those who believe in freedom as the average person musters up the typical, "Well it only matters if you're breaking the law, if you don't have anything to hide then why do you care?". Well the time is starting to come where even though I have nothing to hide, I still have to fear my own government.

Here is what I am talking about:
Incident #1- It was recently publicized that the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force in Phoenix, Arizona passed out a couple years back. Take a look...
K, nothing too special there. Criminal activity can be suspect...


Whoa whoa whoa. Take a look on the upper left side of the pamphlet. It specifically points out...

Right-Wing Extremists:
-'defenders' of US Constitution against federal government and the UN (Super Patriots)

You hear that guys? Apparently upholding the US Constitution is something that is specific to terrorism. Well I suppose that makes sense since, uh, Bin Laden voted for the US Libertarian Party last year, right?

Incident #2- The Alabama Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has also decided that US Constitutionalists are suspected terrorists. On their website (although after it was exposed they took down the page for a while) they had these points to make...



So the government now apparently has no real respect for the US Constitution, the document our nation was founded upon.

There is a concept called the "Rule of Law" which is a clearly designed system/concept which integrates law into practice in a way that his both clear and fair. For those of you not familiar with the concept, there are some important points that were outlined by Albert Venn Dicey, one of the Commonwealth's old politicians and outspoken advocate of the Rule of Law : (From Wikipedia)

(1) the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power; (2) equality before the law or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary courts; and (3) the law of the constitution is a consequence of the rights of individuals as defined and enforced by the courts."

Note the first point. The United States has a 3-branch government defined by the Legislative branch (creates and repeals laws), Executive branch (enforcing laws as created and interpreted by the other 2 branches), and Judicial branch (interprets laws as written/created by the legislative branch). The US Constitution was created by what, at the time, could be considered legislative branch. Our Founding Fathers realized the need for the Rule of Law and thus gave specific jurisdiction to the 3 branches.

Now, when the government starts to pass out fliers stating that "defenders of the US Constitution" are suspected terrorists, we have a problem. A big problem. The Executive branch's disrespect for the Legislative branch's laws basically means that the Executive branch is now becoming more powerful than the Legislative and ultimately means that the President's administration is creating laws out of thin air. The difference between law and "law" now becomes less than just quotes. By the definition created by the quotes you could say a very large portion of congress are suspected terrorists.

The days of "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" are coming to a close. I break no laws but because of some of my beliefs I can be reported as a suspect and, who knows? Maybe get a free 1-way trip to Guantanamo. Of course this would just happen as they detain me without telling me what I am being arrested for (charged with). Guess what? That would be another part of Rule of Law being violated (Habeas corpus)! Wow, isn't our government on a roll...

These findings should annoy or infuriate you regardless of what your beliefs are. You think you have nothing to hide? You might not having anything to hide but that doesn't mean that you can't be arrested arbitrarily and have your life as a citizen go to ruins. Fight back.

Note: Special thanks to Chris Brunner (ChrisBrunner.com) and InfoWars.com for exposing the 2 incidents.

On Being a Male in the 21st Century

This is an article or essay that I wrote a month or two back and posted on a couple message boards. I'm proud to call it my own and have decided to make it my 1st post.

"I've been meaning to type out something like this for a while. I know I'm just another male on this site (dominated by males) but I feel that I've come to recognize things during the last year that are remarkable (which is why I'm making remaks about them). Read if you want or not, believe what I say or not but either way I'm still typing this out.
BTW the main subjects in this long essay are going to be ethics/morals and integrity, self-esteem/confidence, and, of course, the male-female dynamic (I'll try to keep the essay clean for the younger members and so the mods don't constantly have to keep an eye on the thread).

As many of you know during the last semester I spent my time abroad in Australia. The trip was amazing and strangely enough while I loved Australia it also gave me a new profound love for the United States. Our nation is one that has really streamlined production to satisfy the customers and you don't really appreciate it until you go somewhere that either doesn't *quite* have as good customer satisfaction or, of course, you go to some piss poor country that has next to nothing. Sure we have our problems but so does every other country. An even more curious thing I realized by travelling abroad and meeting tons of other travellers (mostly European and New Zealanders, aside from the obvious Australian inhabitants) is that people all seem to be the same. Sure culture is different here and there but that is dependent upon history and geography, etc. PEOPLE ARE ALL EERILY SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER. The things you and I worry about or love are the same things the French, German, English, South African people (and so on) worry about or love and while it might be seen as "boring" by some... it is awesome that strangers from across the globe can meet each other and learn to love and trust each other.

So people are all the same wherever you go on the globe. There can be extreme culture differences but don't think you wouldn't act like a type of people acts if you were in their shoes. There have been some interesting studies done recently that show even our morals, ethics, and beliefs are a lot more pre-determined by genetics than you would think they are. A Muslim born in Palestine may have it drummed into his head that innocent Isrealites are evil, and vice versa, but only after years of brainwashing and even then I don't doubt that deep down they know what is acceptable behavior or not.

So what do you guys believe in? If you don't think building a "platform" for your views on what is "right" and "wrong" then I believe you are sorely mistaken. Moral relativity has made a large stint in the last decade or so but don't for a second think that it makes your opinion on any given serious subject any less important.
A while ago (about a year ago) I recommended a book entitled "High Status Male" on this website and while I'm sure some took a look at it, it was a book that opened my eyes to a person's ethics and exactly what kind of profound effect it has on a person's mental health. It was only after listening to a long audiobook entitled "The Science of Self Confidence" by Stephen Covey that I realized how incredibly tied together a person's morals and their self-esteem are. This audiobook basically made the not-so-bold statement that a person's self-esteem is primarily dictated by what they believe to be right or wrong and their ability to act according to those beliefs. Most people only think about their view on a subject when that subject comes up and in a way I sort of resent that. You are given a brain so use it.

The audiobook listed some very basic activities that will help you figure out what is really important to you in life. For instance you could create a list of things that you feel are important in your life (ie family, friends, relationships, careers, health, etc) and prioritize them from most important to least important. There is no way of skimming through this as these are the things that you think count most in life, so sleep on it if you have to. Once you've prioritized then their only remains one thing to do... ACT ACCORDINGLY.

It is an amazing thing. You start acting according to your own code of ethics and you will very quickly start to realize how much better you feel about yourself and the decisions you've made. When you have no shame for things you've done, you then become PROUD in the most genuine sense. But one thing you will notice is that if you haven't though all your list of ethics through, and you are noticing contradiction within your views, that it is up to you to think with that brain of yours to edit that original list.

When you've found that your list is (nearly) perfect, without contradictions, and you've been acting accordingly then you will have something that most people will never achieve in their lifetime. A true sense of INTEGRITY. Your ethics are integrated such that they work together and your actions have showed that these ethics have been integrated into your everyday life. As I said earlier you will realize that you no longer have to be ashamed of the things that you do if they comply with your list, as you believe all those actions to be justified.

Congratulations, you have integrity and your self-esteem is increasing. So what? Well first off your satisfaction with yourself is one of the largest factors when it comes to happiness. Without being embarrased of yourself, you will notice a funny thing start to happen...
WOMEN WILL START TO GRAVITATE TOWARD YOU.

I should also add, as a sidenote, that studies have shown one of the traits that most positively correlates with happiness is FORGIVENESS. Remember this when you make your list because your ability to accept other people as they are, and yet still let them know when they are in the wrong, is one of the most humane things you can do and it will make both you and those you meet a lot happier. It will also garner respect for you.

Back on topic: So what to do with these girls who are attracted to you? Well, for starters you can get rid of any notion that sex is a "dirty" thing that one should be shameful of (in fact just throw this one in your list) and realize that the ability for two strangers to meet and eventually open up to each other in the most vulnerable state two humans can be in... and trust each other... that is one of the most beautiful things that can happen in one's lifetime.

Think about it. There are 6 billion+ people on the planet and no matter who you are you will not get intimate with all the women and you will not get the chance to befriend and trust everyone. If you live in an average city then you probably walk by hundreds or thousands of people every day. Think about how many you make eye contact with? Not really that many. How many do you ever meet? Even less. What portion of those people will you ever touch, whether it be a handshake, a hug, or or whatever? Hardly any. Now what portion of people that you come into contact with will you ever fully trust and be willing to open up without any shame and just enjoy yourself with them? (I'm talking unshameful sex in its pureest form). Practically none, and this, if for no other reason, is why sexual relations with another human being is an awesome, exceptional, and sacred thing.

You are a man. Once you hit puberty you are a sexual being as is everyone else and your ability to accept, and especially *embrace*, your sexuality (regardless of what it is) will make you a happier person. Our society is one where pop culture has been given too much significance and has been crippling both sexes for the last century or so. Every week another movie comes out about the awkward dorky guy who is so cute that he scores the really hot chick. Well guess what, while in a nation full of men with low self-esteem who think themselves to be dorky you will find that these sorts of movies will appeal to a very large audience's pathetic fantasy and make tons of money. They are made like this because they SELL, not because they are realistic. Your dream women are probably not going to come up to you out of the blue and talk to you, they are probably not going to keep talking to you when you are stumbling over your words and awkward, and they are hardly ever going to make the first sexual move on you. Even if they do, the fact that you didn't make the first move will decrease their respect for you.

You see women are a gender that is much more driven by emotions than men. You know we have these "what should I do? I don't get it" threads about females on her because females give more weight to emotion than men do. Men are more logical about things but this is not to say that women are dumber. In any social interaction a normal female will be able to read subtle signs here and there and learn a lot more about you than perhaps you even know. It is engraved into their DNA and is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, overall women may be more powerful than men in this world.

When dealing with women you should keep this in mind because when you start to toy with their emotions, that's the point where things become very serious for them. It's almost to a point where it is masochistic in the sense that a man who has a woman interested in him and who hurts her feelings will often find that woman even more attracted to him. While nobody consciously wants their feelings hurt, you will find that females enjoy the rollercoaster ride more than you and I do. The "ups" are a lot more enjoyable when they come with the "downs".

So who are you? Are you going to be an IMPOTENT kid or a VIRILE man of action? A man who makes his sex life happen is a lot more attractive than one who does not. How does a woman mark a man as a potential lover? One of the first things she does is physically size him up... how old does he look? Is he in-shape and healthy? Do other women hang on to him all the time? Well an adult man who is healthy and has women hanging all over him is WITHOUT A DOUBT a man who is POTENT and thus a potential candidate as a lover. A woman has no reason to be attracted to a man who is not sexual because it is unlikely that she will get ay results from that attraction. So the bottom line is DO NOT BE ASHAMED OF YOUR SEXUALITY. The awkward shy kid who isn't willing to put his shyness away and follow his drive for that the girl is ultimately saying that he doesn't want to get physical.

When it comes to the man-woman dynamic you will notice that people usually say the man should take the lead. This is more than convention, it is reality and SHOULD BE what both the man and woman want. A woman does not want to have a man who is fickle and can't make decisions, that is why we call these men "impotent". She doesn't WANT to have to make the decision, she wants the man to prove that he knows what should be happening and is willing to express it in the form of action. A man who doesn't quite know what he wants is a man who doesn't want it badly enough.
So as a guideline don't expect the woman to come over and talk to you first, don't expect her to call you if you give her your phone number (sack up and ask for hers and make the call), and she's probably not going to go in for the first kiss unless you've really waited way too long to initiate it.

When a man realizes that he knows what is wrong and right, and that the way nature made him is acceptable, he realizes that the only person who can crush his mentality is himself. A man with nothing to hide and who values himself doesn't feel awful when a girl rejects him but instead feels pity that she's missing out. When someone intentionally tries to make him feel bad he has nothing but pity for the person with those destructive traits because he realizes that their actions are not even respectable enough to get a rise out of him. He has nothing to prove and will forgive others for their shortcomings.

Guys, if you know the difference between right and wrong and act accordingly then you will find that you have nothing to prove. You will no longer seek validation from anyone but yourself, and realize that good looks, big muscles, or great fighting abilities do not make you a valuable person alone. It is the hard work that goes into pumping the weight all year or the hard work put into training as a fighter that makes you more valuable. It's okay to want second opinions on yourself and receive them with unbiased understanding BUT our society has gone too far and now everyone just wants someone else to tell them that what they are doing is good and right. This has become a problem because people now feel that if they are not validated by others then they have no value.

Thanks for reading all the way through and sorry if I often got sidetracked or too sentimentalist for you. Just remember that happiness in life originates with acceptance of one's self and subsequently those around you. If you live your life in a way that harbors no shame then you will have nothing but happiness to feel and those around you will also become happier people. You are only given one life that we know of so you only have those 80 years to make things happen that you want to happen. If you feel you have a shortcoming then it is up to you to fix it without delay, the responsibility rests on no one's shoulders than yours. Next time you are hanging out with that girl, shifty-eyed (damn it us males need to work on the eye contact a lot more) and nervous, remember that this girl can not harm you and that she wants nothing more than to have a man accept her trust and not violate it."