Wuzzums

No they don't. Women don't want weak men so a man that's intimidated by her presence will never ever be considered as a feasible mate. Here are some things I noticed about the language you used: This indicates to me you're putting the onus on yourself solely. In your eyes there's an opportunity and if you fail to take advantage of it you are the only one to blame. Hell yeah you're nervous if the fate of the world rests on your hands and yours alone. It would be odd (and counterproductive) if you didn't get anxious in such a situation. Truth of the matter is the situation you see and the situation there is are not the same. This is a 2 person game. You can only be responsible for your own actions and if she doesn't reciprocate in the same manner it's not because you failed to use the perfect one-liner or failed to look confident enough or whatever. It's because she has a say also. You cannot control other people's reaction to you no matter what you do or say. I think that if you realize you have no more control over the situation than you already exerted then the anxiety will go away. If you showed interest and she didn't reciprocate then it's already over.

Can be viewed is not the same as will be viewed. The vast majority of the globe's population does not watch the Grammy's. This is a fact.

Nobody else knows who Joy Villa is and nobody else watches the Grammy's.

We live in strange times.

Thank you. This makes sense. The articles said an increase in "sales" specifically which makes no mathematical sense. Like I've said, this proves there's a market for non-PC culture meaning PC culture is sooo last year. Companies have been losing money left and right for some time now even though they've been pandering like mad to the dominant culture. It's only now that they're beginning to realize that the dominant culture (PC culture) is not a majority but a very, very loud minority. This is how gamergate was won. Journalists were pushing an agenda making it seem they knew what gamers wanted, companies started redirecting their course to what they believed was the trend, noticed severe backlash and profit loss after which they redirected themselves again. The free market always corrects itself.

Update: now it's 54,350,100% Tired yet? Also could somebody explain to me how they came to this number because it doesn't really add up. If conservatively she sold 1000 albums and she took let's say 1$ for every 4$ sale that would translate to her making a 540 million dollars plus. Overnight. However the US population is 350 million people so she couldn't have possibly sold more albums than there are people in the US.

So apparently this happened at the Grammy's: And then this happened online: Sales EXPLODE 18,106,633% And the sky is filled with the sound of the entertainment industry' execs frantically making calls to get on this patriotic bandwagon as soon as possible because it's going straight to Yugeprofitsville. I know it's not a nice thing to say but I'm looking forward to seeing all these socialist screen monkeys like Madonna and Meryl Streep lose their careers and have their lives spiral out of control.

I don't think it's a good sign in any relationship when you have to bring in a third party to resolve a conflict.

More often that not the science that goes on in marketing and R&D is on par or even more accurate than academia science. You do bad research and draw false conclusions in academia and you might not get published, emphasis on might. You do bad research and draw false conclusions regarding some product and hundreds if not thousands of people might lose their jobs, and you will get fired, and it will be an end to your career. You think Garnier fucks around? Not to mention pointless academia science wastes our money whereas pointless free market science wastes their money. Taleb has this great example of the free market vs. academia. For decades upon decades scientists have been going to scientific conferences around the world carrying heavy briefcases and luggage's and it still had to be a suitcase manufacturer that thought of adding wheels to the damn things. I see science as a tool and nothing more, like a gun. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Science doesn't better our lives, the free market uses science to figure out how to better our lives.

Half the population which is against gun ownership are picking a fight with the other half which is strongly for gun ownership. There's this thing with professional fighters that they almost always try to deescalate a confrontation first because it's far easier for them to kill someone than to stand there and take it. Leftists are moronic children having a tantrum and when a child has a tantrum they either learn how to control it themselves or someone else will do it for them. Violence can control almost everything in the short run but in the long run leftists will won't learn a thing and this will play out again over and over.

Cheers for the downvotes. I win btw.

see: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/49140-what-is-the-root-to-all-evil/#entry446944 He keeps insisting that the definitions I gave are incorrect therefore my argument is incorrect even though he offered no definitions prior to his assertion. He is just arguing against a dictionary at this point trying to save face.

Tom Sawyer

Yes. Like Anoujat said, communism existed long before the drug issue. In fact the drug war is just another commie program because there's not a single communist on Earth that can sleep at night knowing there's someone somewhere actively making personal choices without their input.

I gave a clear example to his question which was "when are ideologues right?". It's not my fault he's still confused about definitions even after I hyperlinked said definitions for him.

Yes. I like to call this technique "using an argument". Very effective.

OMG, dude, pay attention. Don't just start addressing each and every example I've made as if they were single statements. They were put there to make a point and not to be taken individually. I just posted the definitions of idealogue, ideology, and gave an example of an ideology then I gave an example of a tenant of said ideology that is correct/right/moral/ethical/whatever. If you can't get a basic syllogism I don't know how much more clearer I could possibly be.

The right of property is part of an ideology. Non agression principle is part of an ideology. Peaceful parenting is part of an ideology. Reason is part of an ideology. Free trade is part of an ideology. ... Slavery, murder, rape and theft are also part of an ideology. Some ideologies are right, some are wrong. Ideologies are right when they are right and wrong when they are wrong. I don't understand why you're having such a tough time with this.

ideologue - An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology. ideology - A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political,economic, or other system. libertarianism - an ideological belief in freedom of thought and speech So you think people that support freedom of thought and speech are wrong.

"Ideologues are always wrong" sound like a true statement to you?

Religion describes man as made in God's image. The difference between God and us is not the same as that of us and insects. I would say it's the same difference between a parent and a child. Parents care a lot about the love of their children. More so, we can move further. The difference between us and God can be as wide as the difference between us and the pets we keep. We love dogs and they love us back, this is why we are so attached to one another. Of course the love of a dog is incredibly primitive and unsophisticated but even so it's sufficient as to make us care deeply for them. In Watchmen don't forget that Dr. Manhattan's arrogance was what defeated him. Veidt saw through this, he saw the human underneath. Dr. Manhattan thought a human would pose no more of a threat to him, an all powerful being, as an insect would. This came right before Veidt used his next ultimate weapon which was aimed at Dr. Manhattan's human side. And Veidt won.

I disagree because it does not account for the instance when said ideologues are right. The root of evil is hypocrisy, making others follow a set of rules you are exempt from. Those who steal do not want property stolen from them, those who rape do not want to get raped, and those who murder do not want to get murdered. If ethics and morality are universal then any rules that are not universal stand in defiance of them.