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

<Snipped quote by Shorticus>

When you're deployed. I've talked to a guy from a Ranger Battalion who said that they had a guy who brought a tomahawk with him. They all made fun of the guy. Until he killed an insurgent with it. Then everyone bought a tomahawk.


Sounds effective. I think it's time we institute a few regiments of axe-throwers.
All of this talk of tuition could be solved if you join the Army like I did. Military service is a 5/10: could be better.


Military will be in bad shape if they are reduced to taking internet folk. My fat-ass lucky if I can get it out of a chair. And what will happen when all the weebs show up to basic training and find out they don't get a folded-1000 times katana?
Why are almost all scholarships based on financial need? Just because my parents make enough money that they could contribute a little bit to my edication does not mean that they will. So where does that leave people like me? Most scholarships require financial need to be eligible, and a lot of the ones that don't are exclusively for women or exclusively for minorities. The few I can apply for I don't win, because they're basically like playing the lottery in terms of odds. Seriously. It is absolutely aggravating and I cannot stand it.


I suppose it's a matter of triaging - there is only so much money going to scholarships, so they figure people who's parents couldn't contribute are in more need than you. This is a case I'd say blame the fact we have a pay-to-play economy.
oh yeh next week is when corned beef goes on sale
<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

I'm old, blind, AMD CAN'T READ ALL THESE CHINESE OPERAS.


The day we publish is the day each post is too long to put in a forum and we have to use publishers to keep the thing going.
In >story 10 yrs ago Forum: Spam Forum
<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

also a bunch of fuckin weebs over there

probably wiccans too


Wiccans are cool, but I can't do weebs. I'll just stay over here. The weebs you know are better than the weebs you don't.
In >story 10 yrs ago Forum: Spam Forum
When I was moving an RP to a new site, I had to choose between Iwaku and here. I'm glad I chose here.


Went through the same motion a couple years ago, but when checking Iwaku out I noticed they are closed to people who don't know anybody from their board.
<Snipped quote by Ellri>

See, that happens in Precipice of War and I've easily been involved with it for like four years... And there was a good two years of it before me.


pow is the exception. It goes 2 weeks without a post, we notice. If there is only one post in a week, we call it active. More than one post in a week and that's too busy to keep track of.
In Super Tuesday 10 yrs ago Forum: Spam Forum
<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Randomly deciding to ignore Super Delegates at the last moment because Sanders supporters thinks they're unfair isn't going to happen. If the Democrats cared about having democratically elected candidates, they would have changed the system long ago.

These aren't polls or something that may or may not be included in the final result. They are votes cast. Sanders has almost no possibility whatsoever of becoming the Democratic candidate. It's getting to the point where his only potential way of winning is if Clinton is disqualified.


What I am saying is that they aren't actually cast yet, not until they go to convention. If they decide to use the superdelegates in the way you are saying, they absolutely run the risk of alienating some voters. It most certainly won't make a difference with most voters. Hell, even the grand majority of Sanders voters will most likely vote for Clinton regardless. But elections are won on the margin, and I suspect this one is going to be a close election. There are absolutely places they can get away with using superdelegates to spite a candidate who wins the primaries, but I don't think this year is one of those places. Hillary doesn't have the power of personality to make up for it with the voters, and she's already dragging a fairly bad reputation as far as things go. Would a superdelegate based victory drive potential Dem voters into the arms of the Republicans? Probably not. But will it damage her ability to actually bring voters to the polls when it comes time for the general? That's where things stop being so certain for her.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Do you really think people will vote Trump over Hillary? I'm pretty sure the whole, we need to solely bring in our next president because of their ____ vote them or you're a horrible person, shtick by the media will more than likely work a third time...and then a fourth. Because I may be pessimistic, but the average person has to be very, very stupid. (or easily influenced at the very least.)


I think, like I said above, that Hillary will have a difficult time bringing in voters during the general. It's not only a matter of who a person decides to vote for, but whether or not a person decides to vote. Trump has an enthusiastic support base, whereas Clinton's support seems to mostly be among dedicated democrats. The biggest thing she'll have going for her is the fact Trump is so fun to hate for so much of the population. So for her, the question will be how many people are willing to go out and vote for her just to spite Trump.
© 2007-2026
BBCode Cheatsheet