TLS c/o 2020 - In #Squad We Trust Forum
-
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:36 am
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
.
Last edited by Monday on Thu May 11, 2017 1:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
- govlife
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:41 am
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
You'll bump into each other in various airports in the future and he'll fall for your spirit and you'll bring out his. Of course plenty of long gazes across the terminal.NotAGolfer wrote:Sounds like the start of a rom com to meRigo wrote:Oh I did this in Seattle airport recently and we had absolutely nothing in common.Monday wrote:Report back.Rigo wrote:Go on dating apps and have awkward dates in the terminal.
He was an investment banker type and did not understand that I was a free spirited vagrant.
It was nice not having to pretend we would ever see each other again or keep in touch.
And I'll be the next Nora Ephron.

-
- Posts: 2322
- Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:35 am
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
I saw a hallmark movie about two people who met in the airport when their flight was delayedMonday wrote:It's the Hilary Duff avatar.NotAGolfer wrote:Sounds like the start of a rom com to meRigo wrote:Oh I did this in Seattle airport recently and we had absolutely nothing in common.Monday wrote:Report back.Rigo wrote:Go on dating apps and have awkward dates in the terminal.
He was an investment banker type and did not understand that I was a free spirited vagrant.
It was nice not having to pretend we would ever see each other again or keep in touch.
-
- Posts: 16639
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
Rigo's Mile High Romance
Buckle you seatbelt, but unbuckle your heart!
Buckle you seatbelt, but unbuckle your heart!
- brinicolec
- Posts: 4479
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:09 pm
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
Missed the gun discussion. I personally think we need a SERIOUS improvement in background checks, and also think semi-automatics should be banned from civilian ownership.
Edit: Really don't even think military personnel should own semi-automatics unless it's necessary for their job.
Edit: Really don't even think military personnel should own semi-automatics unless it's necessary for their job.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- ashrice13
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2016 10:30 am
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
10/10Rigo wrote:Rigo's Mile High Romance
Buckle you seatbelt, but unbuckle your heart!
- jjcorvino
- Posts: 1459
- Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:49 am
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
Def watching Gilmore Girls right now. No shame.
- ashrice13
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2016 10:30 am
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
So good.jjcorvino wrote:Def watching Gilmore Girls right now. No shame.
Edit: I will just say that my boyfriend likes to pretend he hates Gilmore girls but when I'm watching it he totally watches it with me and laughs at all the jokes.
- thatlawlkid
- Posts: 2359
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 3:06 pm
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
Please tell me you're trolling because it is statements like this that show why people that have no idea what they're talking about shouldn't try to express an opinion about these kinds of things.brinicolec wrote:Missed the gun discussion. I personally think we need a SERIOUS improvement in background checks, and also think semi-automatics should be banned from civilian ownership.
Edit: Really don't even think military personnel should own semi-automatics unless it's necessary for their job.
(Really not trying to be mean as our interactions before this have been nothing but cordial and i would like to keep it that way)
-
- Posts: 1296
- Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 1:27 pm
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
I wouldn't jump to assuming someone who holds that view does so out of ignorance of the situation. It's quite possible someone believes that weapons with an automatic eject, re-chamber, and re-cock mechanism are too dangerous.thatlawlkid wrote:Please tell me you're trolling because it is statements like this that show why people that have no idea what they're talking about shouldn't try to express an opinion about these kinds of things.brinicolec wrote:Missed the gun discussion. I personally think we need a SERIOUS improvement in background checks, and also think semi-automatics should be banned from civilian ownership.
Edit: Really don't even think military personnel should own semi-automatics unless it's necessary for their job.
(Really not trying to be mean as our interactions before this have been nothing but cordial and i would like to keep it that way)
It's certainly a rather staunch view, but it doesn't have to be because they don't know the definition.
- thatlawlkid
- Posts: 2359
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 3:06 pm
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
I think the military edit took it to a point that it didn't have to be an assumption. Although i guess muzzleloader season would get a little bit longer if this was the case so there might be some upside.Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash wrote:I wouldn't jump to assuming someone who holds that view does so out of ignorance of the situation. It's quite possible someone believes that weapons with an automatic eject, re-chamber, and re-cock mechanism are too dangerous.thatlawlkid wrote:Please tell me you're trolling because it is statements like this that show why people that have no idea what they're talking about shouldn't try to express an opinion about these kinds of things.brinicolec wrote:Missed the gun discussion. I personally think we need a SERIOUS improvement in background checks, and also think semi-automatics should be banned from civilian ownership.
Edit: Really don't even think military personnel should own semi-automatics unless it's necessary for their job.
(Really not trying to be mean as our interactions before this have been nothing but cordial and i would like to keep it that way)
It's certainly a rather staunch view, but it doesn't have to be because they don't know the definition.
-
- Posts: 1296
- Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 1:27 pm
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
Ehh I read that edit as allowing military personnel to own semi-auto weapons themselves. I didn't take it that have any bearing on what was issued to them in combat, but idk that's really just going off of the word ownthatlawlkid wrote:I think the military edit took it to a point that it didn't have to be an assumption. Although i guess muzzleloader season would get a little bit longer if this was the case so there might be some upside.Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash wrote:I wouldn't jump to assuming someone who holds that view does so out of ignorance of the situation. It's quite possible someone believes that weapons with an automatic eject, re-chamber, and re-cock mechanism are too dangerous.thatlawlkid wrote:Please tell me you're trolling because it is statements like this that show why people that have no idea what they're talking about shouldn't try to express an opinion about these kinds of things.brinicolec wrote:Missed the gun discussion. I personally think we need a SERIOUS improvement in background checks, and also think semi-automatics should be banned from civilian ownership.
Edit: Really don't even think military personnel should own semi-automatics unless it's necessary for their job.
(Really not trying to be mean as our interactions before this have been nothing but cordial and i would like to keep it that way)
It's certainly a rather staunch view, but it doesn't have to be because they don't know the definition.
- thatlawlkid
- Posts: 2359
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 3:06 pm
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
"necessary for their job" tells me that it goes past personal use.Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash wrote:Ehh I read that edit as allowing military personnel to own semi-auto weapons themselves. I didn't take it that have any bearing on what was issued to them in combat, but idk that's really just going off of the word ownthatlawlkid wrote:I think the military edit took it to a point that it didn't have to be an assumption. Although i guess muzzleloader season would get a little bit longer if this was the case so there might be some upside.Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash wrote:I wouldn't jump to assuming someone who holds that view does so out of ignorance of the situation. It's quite possible someone believes that weapons with an automatic eject, re-chamber, and re-cock mechanism are too dangerous.thatlawlkid wrote:Please tell me you're trolling because it is statements like this that show why people that have no idea what they're talking about shouldn't try to express an opinion about these kinds of things.brinicolec wrote:Missed the gun discussion. I personally think we need a SERIOUS improvement in background checks, and also think semi-automatics should be banned from civilian ownership.
Edit: Really don't even think military personnel should own semi-automatics unless it's necessary for their job.
(Really not trying to be mean as our interactions before this have been nothing but cordial and i would like to keep it that way)
It's certainly a rather staunch view, but it doesn't have to be because they don't know the definition.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Dodocogon
- Posts: 631
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:45 pm
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
All of my friends (including me lol) are getting engaged - It isn't surprising that your last year of undergrad would be the time if you've been together a long time/it make sense for a couple to, I guess.
-
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:46 am
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
Thoughts on getting engaged before going to law school with the knowledge that you won't be getting married until after you pass the bar and get a job?
- Dodocogon
- Posts: 631
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:45 pm
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
I feel like it's a long time to be engaged but if you'd rather have that label vs. 'Dating for however long' I'd say go for it. There's no formula for this type of thing so if it makes you guys happy/more comfortable I think it's cool.KME89 wrote:Thoughts on getting engaged before going to law school with the knowledge that you won't be getting married until after you pass the bar and get a job?
Anecdotal but my soon-to-be sister in law dated her husband for 9 years and was then engaged for 2 and a half or so while she was in med school and it worked fine for them. They were waiting until they could actually be in same city long-term.
-
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:37 am
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
Personally I hate long engagements (>18 months), I would postpone until after law school. You could propose at graduation!KME89 wrote:Thoughts on getting engaged before going to law school with the knowledge that you won't be getting married until after you pass the bar and get a job?
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- poptart123
- Posts: 1157
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 5:31 pm
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
Find what is comfortable with you and don't worry about these societal constructs. If you are going to be together then you will be one way or another and without whatever label society puts on it.Dodocogon wrote:I feel like it's a long time to be engaged but if you'd rather have that label vs. 'Dating for however long' I'd say go for it. There's no formula for this type of thing so if it makes you guys happy/more comfortable I think it's cool.KME89 wrote:Thoughts on getting engaged before going to law school with the knowledge that you won't be getting married until after you pass the bar and get a job?
Anecdotal but my soon-to-be sister in law dated her husband for 9 years and was then engaged for 2 and a half or so while she was in med school and it worked fine for them. They were waiting until they could actually be in same city long-term.
- chandhi
- Posts: 1896
- Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 4:29 pm
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
+ 400 millionpoptart123 wrote:Find what is comfortable with you and don't worry about these societal constructs. If you are going to be together then you will be one way or another and without whatever label society puts on it.Dodocogon wrote:I feel like it's a long time to be engaged but if you'd rather have that label vs. 'Dating for however long' I'd say go for it. There's no formula for this type of thing so if it makes you guys happy/more comfortable I think it's cool.KME89 wrote:Thoughts on getting engaged before going to law school with the knowledge that you won't be getting married until after you pass the bar and get a job?
Anecdotal but my soon-to-be sister in law dated her husband for 9 years and was then engaged for 2 and a half or so while she was in med school and it worked fine for them. They were waiting until they could actually be in same city long-term.
- airwrecka
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:54 pm
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
Like others have already said, you do what's best for you & your situation! There aren't rules to thisKME89 wrote:Thoughts on getting engaged before going to law school with the knowledge that you won't be getting married until after you pass the bar and get a job?

However, the benefits I could see to being engaged for a long time (ie all of law school) are that you have pleeeeenty of time to plan the wedding and don't need to feel rushed (which will be good, considering you'll be a busy law student). I was engaged for almost exactly one year, and while I thought that was plenty of time to plan a wedding, it was actually really stressful (and I'm very glad I wasn't in law school at the time).
Just my two cents!

Re: Veep. My husband & I tried to watch the first episode and did NOT get into it. Should we try again, or if we didn't like the first episode is it a lost cause?
fwiw, Parks & Rec is one of our all-time favorite shows.
-
- Posts: 16639
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
I think Veep took a few episodes for me to get into, and I never got super INTO it but it was enjoyable enough.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:36 am
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
.
Last edited by Monday on Thu May 11, 2017 1:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 16639
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
Catastrophe on Amazon Prime, people.
-
- Posts: 2322
- Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:35 am
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
Before I got context I thought you meant something catastrophic happened with their shippingRigo wrote:Catastrophe on Amazon Prime, people.

-
- Posts: 16639
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm
Re: TLS c/o 2020 Applicants (politics pole)
Oh no!Keilz wrote:Before I got context I thought you meant something catastrophic happened with their shippingRigo wrote:Catastrophe on Amazon Prime, people.
It's just my favorite comedy and relationship goals even though it's a ~shocker!~ catastrophe.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login