Search Results: i am doing all the talking

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wildfire-smoke-climate-link-republicans_n_6481e765e4b027d92f8b22ad#
Under Apocalyptic Skies, Republicans Blow Smoke On Climate Change

On Thursday, as much of the northeastern U. S. was blanketed for a second day by thick, highly hazardous smoke from wildfires raging in Canada, HuffPost asked Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) whether he sees a link between the hazy air and the overwhelming body of science that shows global climate change is helping give rise to extreme fire.

“We’ve had fires for all of our life, come on,” Tuberville scoffed. “We’re all for environment, but this is just another situation where you’ve gotta do your work in forests. I mean, you just can’t let it grow up. It’s unfortunate that this is happening. It too shall pass.”

It is true that many U. S. forests are overgrown and susceptible to devastating blazes, in large part due to decades of fire suppression and Smokey Bear’s anti-fire messaging. But it’s absurd to suggest that solving the current wildfire problem is as simple as preventing trees from growing old. In fact, mature and old-growth forests are more resilient to fire, and they sequester massive amounts of planet-warming carbon.
Tuberville wasn’t the only Republican to use the historic smoke event — a rare phenomenon in cities like New York — to peddle pro-logging talking points while doing somersaults to ignore or downplay the climate change link.

At a Senate GOP press conference Thursday in Washington, D. C., Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) said East Coasters are getting a taste of the smoky summers that have become the norm out West.
“This is what happens when you have more lawyers in your forests crawling around versus loggers, and when your forests aren’t managed properly,” he said, referring to environmental groups that have sued to block timber projects. “Washington bureaucrats and the court system in this country continue to give us policies that can result in air quality like this.”

First of all, I'm 5'8 but I'm not insecure at all. So give it to me straight, I promise I can handle it.

So I have this theory that girls mainly like taller guys because they generally feel more protected around tall dudes. But this feeling doesn't always hold much weight in the real world.

I agree that with the average 6'3 dude vs the average 5'8 dude, the 6'3 dude has a weight and reach advantage if they were to fight. But I'm not talking about averages.

Let's say you had to pick the most attractive guy out of two guys to date.

Guy A: He is 5'8, but is bigger and stronger than most guys. He does strength training and MMA and has been doing so for a long time. He can beat 99% of guys since most guys have no training whatsoever. And just to clarify, he is not steroid-like bodybuilder type big. He is natural and athletic.

Guy B: He is 6'3, lives a mostly sedentary lifestyle. He might do a sport that's more cardio-based like cycling or whatever. He's pretty skinny, but not to the point you think he is sick. Just average skinny. He's not a pussy, he is willing to fight when push comes to shove. He just has no real experience so against Guy A he wouldn't stand a chance.

You are objectively safer with Guy A.

Let's assume for the sake of this question, that both guys have same facial features and everything. Just a different body-composition and height. They also have the same personality, just different skills.

Also please ignore other factors. For example: "Guy A probably lives in the gym and I wouldn't like that"

I can also understand if you are a girl who is taller than 5'8 it might be a turn-off. If that's the case please assume Guy A is your height or an inch taller and add the same amount of height to Guy B.

Looking forward to hearing your opinions!