Avatar of Vilageidiotx
  • Last Seen: 3 yrs ago
  • Joined: 12 yrs ago
  • Posts: 4839 (1.07 / day)
  • VMs: 2
  • Username history
    1. Vilageidiotx 12 yrs ago
  • Latest 10 profile visitors:

Status

Recent Statuses

8 yrs ago
Current I RP for the ladies
4 likes
8 yrs ago
#Diapergate #Hugs2018
2 likes
9 yrs ago
I fucking love catfishing
2 likes
9 yrs ago
Every time I insult a certain coworker, i'll take money from their jar. Saving for beer would never be easier!
4 likes
9 yrs ago
The Jungle Book is good.
3 likes

Bio







Most Recent Posts

SJWs White Knights and Tumblrites are really coming out the woodwork in this thread, just saying.


Used to be that meant people who thought they were turtles, or claimed twelve separate sexual identities. Now I suppose it means people who think it is obscene to create a score-based rape roleplay.
Also, as others have said, there's a high chance it was just a dedicated troll.


Username "SillyGoy"


Yeh, there is a pretty high chance.
Pick-up artists are kind of like martial artists, in a sense. Except with way more bullshit and placebo built around it.

In martial arts, you learn skills, you have to get into a certain state of mind, and you have to practice, but they're trying to prepare you for something with a billion variables that nothing short of experience will ever be able to properly prepare you for. All those highly specific fight-ending maneuvers you learn you will probably never get the opportunity to perform, and when you do, it probably won't end the way you predict, because f*#ping nothing will. They do give you one thing that always helps your chances, though, and that's physical conditioning.

That's what pick-up artists are, basically, but, as I said, with all the potentially useful teachings stripped away for plain bull, among other, more destructive lessons. They give the less skeptical student the courage and willingness to ask the girl out, which is the most important aspect. They don't have chances if they never tried to begin with. Of course, it'll probably never work for someone *aherm* aesthetically disabled, but a guy with no eyes and only one of each limb just isn't boxer material, is he?

Invariably, there will be at least one woman in a million that would accept his proposal, (And the unfortunate boxer may be able to beat the crap out of one in a million guys, but I'm done with this entertaining analogy) but he has neither the time nor resources to meet literally a million women. That's what dating sites are for, the ability to ask one million women out at once.


Basically, it's like the twist-ending of a Saturday morning cartoon where the hero was given a supposedly magical item that is actually just junk. "The power was inside of you all along."

I like it. This is going to be my mental image of the dating advice industry from now on.
In Super Tuesday 10 yrs ago Forum: Spam Forum
<Snipped quote by The>

The problem is, voting democrat will also permanently damage our nation. You just can't win.

We really need to destroy the office of POTUS and kick as much power as possible back to state/local elected bodies. I have no fucking idea what a state comptroller's value is to my daily life -- let's give that some value, and then I'll care about that election enough to cast a vote, and it won't impact all you west coast hippies, AND I won't have to put up with all your weird policies either. Everybody wins. But it'll never happen because it breaks up the consolidated power of the establishments.


Personally, I don't think that solves the problem. It isn't the concept of federal government that is corrupt; it isn't even the idea of government itself that is corrupt, but the idea that one group of people are more powerful than another, And you can never get rid of that later thing. You'll still have corrupt officials in a confederated system, and those local governments will still act as the vessel of powerful people to take from powerless people (see the history of political bosses in the United States). But now, having weakened the federal government, we have the bonus of being an indefensible country of city states purposely undercutting each other for individual gain. The American Confederacy was broken out of the gate; the majority of founding fathers noticed that and banded together to create the federal government because they knew how broken the confederation was. Virtually every other government in history that has pretended to be a union of equal or near-equal parts, whether it was the early United States, the early Roman Republic, the Holy Roman Empire, the Greek Leagues, yatta yatta, either fell apart entirely after a short time, got embroiled into civil wars, or was absorbed into a central government. The only one I can think of off the top of my head that didn't fall apart was the Iroquois, but I know they did occasionally fight with each other in wars involving Europeans, so I don't think they can be counted as a functional confederacy either.

So really, harmonious local governments as the seats of national power is just as pie-in-the-sky dreamy as a communist utopia of workers collectives as that seat of power, or anarcho-capitalist idea of the market as being that seat of power. There always has to be even a small shadow of monarchy in a government for it to work.
I took a life-long struggle with insomnia and turned it into a habit of working third shift.
In Super Tuesday 10 yrs ago Forum: Spam Forum
<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Is it, though? I'd bet that a majority of American voters wouldn't recognize the name Ross Perot, and he had an order of magnitude more support than the Greens and Libertarians combined. Free trade is also still supported by all mainstream candidates in both parties.


Perot was a sort of singular event to be fair; his movement really orbited his personality. If every election consistently produced a Perot-like figure, I'd bet the major parties would take notice.
In Super Tuesday 10 yrs ago Forum: Spam Forum
#GreenParty2016

"We still have a chance guys, right?"


They can't win, but a third party stealing significant chunks of the vote is the sort of thing party analysts pay attention to.
<Snipped quote by Clirkus>

"Intel" as in... google search?


Naw, his processor told him.
In Super Tuesday 10 yrs ago Forum: Spam Forum
^ Yes, that would be the view of a Clinton Democrat, you're correct. With all of the Sanders supporters storming the internet, folks like yourself are really starting to stick out.

"Haha, these jokes you're all making sure are funny, haha, but you're actually gonna vote for Hillary right!?!"

I predict really high voter turnout in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Probably over 50%, maybe even up near 60%.


Let's make political involvement hip again.

...of course, we said that'd happen in 2008, but then people forgot by 2012. I suppose the difference this time is that, while 2008 was a guaranteed Dem win, 2016 is an interesting year where both mainstream parties seem to be losing control of the conversation and the election can legitimately go either way.
© 2007-2026
BBCode Cheatsheet