Post: #1

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexrees/27-peop...aev-is-hot

This has to be record timing for these girls to come out of the woodwork.

Post: #2

(04-20-2013 01:28 AM)ryanf Wrote:  http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexrees/27-peop...aev-is-hot

This has to be record timing for these girls to come out of the woodwork.

What you're famous for only selects for which class of women like you, but any kind of fame gets you adoration.

They are deeply sheeplike, even in their denial of being sheeplike.

Post: #3

Why are women allowed to vote again?

Post: #4

(04-20-2013 02:06 AM)A War You Cannot Win Wrote:  Why are women allowed to vote again?

Don't know if you're being facetious, I wouldn't want to go back to human rights status of the 1910 world, taking away the vote is
for all practical purposes a non-starter in the 1st world in my opinion. It's just never going to happen, so why waste time thinking about it.

And hey, the women were just worshipping the monsters, the people who actually do the killing are.... guys. But also, the guys are most of the people who chase the killers down.

The women just follow whoever is winning.

Post: #5

(04-20-2013 02:06 AM)A War You Cannot Win Wrote:  Why are women allowed to vote again?

Anthropomorphizing by betas

Post: #6

27 women think he's attractive? What exactly am I supposed to glean from this given that there are 310 million people in the country? You can find 27 adults that believe if you send a letter to Santa he'll get it.

Post: #7

(04-20-2013 02:34 AM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 02:06 AM)A War You Cannot Win Wrote:  Why are women allowed to vote again?

Anthropomorphizing by betas

Does that mean Betas erroneously think women are human?

Post: #8

(04-20-2013 02:06 AM)A War You Cannot Win Wrote:  Why are women allowed to vote again?

Because of Beta males, which itself raises another question, why are Betas allowed to vote?
There's only one woman that has the right to vote, Rand.

Post: #9

(04-20-2013 02:35 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 02:34 AM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 02:06 AM)A War You Cannot Win Wrote:  Why are women allowed to vote again?

Anthropomorphizing by betas

Does that mean Betas erroneously think women are human?

=attributing male capacity for self-government to women

Post: #10

But, to be fair to women, there have also been too many nutcases that think the Femitheist is hot.

Post: #11

(04-20-2013 02:35 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  27 women think he's attractive? What exactly am I supposed to glean from this given that there are 310 million people in the country? You can find 27 adults that believe if you send a letter to Santa he'll get it.

Don't be fair. This is an echo chamber to slam on women.

Post: #12

(04-20-2013 02:34 AM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 02:06 AM)A War You Cannot Win Wrote:  Why are women allowed to vote again?

Anthropomorphizing by betas

lol

Post: #13

This is why women cannot be trusted in positions of power.

Post: #14

The history of Suffrage is an interesting one. In the UK - up until 1918 - men only had the vote if they owned property.

I think that is a sensible proposal. Those with strong ties to the economic system should have more of a say than those with no ties. Otherwise the system will be abused by those who don't have to worry about the costs to the taxpayers.

The early history of the US had similar requirements as well. Voting should be a priviledge and not a right.

Post: #15

I dunno. He's a young, athletic dude. Chicks should like him. Don't hate the player; hate the game.

He's gonna make a very good wife in prison.

Post: #16

(04-20-2013 06:00 AM)cardguy Wrote:  The history of Suffrage is an interesting one. In the UK - up until 1918 - men only had the vote if they owned property.

I think that is a sensible proposal. Those with strong ties to the economic system should have more of a say than those with no ties. Otherwise the system will be abused by those who don't have to worry about the costs to the taxpayers.

The early history of the US had similar requirements as well. Voting should be a priviledge and not a right.

I think there might be a strong force for a serf class if this was in place. Why not have forced labor, debtor's prison, any and all kinds of restrictions on the non-owning class to create cheap labor?

In any event, there seems to be no possibility of this regression ever happening in USA anyway, so it seems debate of it is a waste of time.

Post: #17

(04-20-2013 06:07 AM)Dulceácido Wrote:  I dunno. He's a young, athletic dude. Chicks should like him. Don't hate the player; hate the game.

He's gonna make a very good wife in prison.

It seems you're denying that he had a decision in whether to wreck a ton of lives here. "Chicks should like " a murderer"?

This sounds idiotic.

Post: #18

Awww.... I beg your pardon.

This guy, in particular, is a colossal asshole.

Chicks should like young, athletic dudes, in general.

Not this guy.

Post: #19

(04-20-2013 06:00 AM)cardguy Wrote:  The history of Suffrage is an interesting one. In the UK - up until 1918 - men only had the vote if they owned property.

I think that is a sensible proposal. Those with strong ties to the economic system should have more of a say than those with no ties. Otherwise the system will be abused by those who don't have to worry about the costs to the taxpayers.

The early history of the US had similar requirements as well. Voting should be a priviledge and not a right.

Right, cause rich people never abuse the system.

Post: #20

(04-20-2013 06:48 AM)j r Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 06:00 AM)cardguy Wrote:  The history of Suffrage is an interesting one. In the UK - up until 1918 - men only had the vote if they owned property.

I think that is a sensible proposal. Those with strong ties to the economic system should have more of a say than those with no ties. Otherwise the system will be abused by those who don't have to worry about the costs to the taxpayers.

The early history of the US had similar requirements as well. Voting should be a priviledge and not a right.

Right, cause rich people never abuse the system.

No no no librul leftards abuse system. soshulists.

Post: #21

(04-20-2013 06:00 AM)cardguy Wrote:  The history of Suffrage is an interesting one. In the UK - up until 1918 - men only had the vote if they owned property.

I think that is a sensible proposal. Those with strong ties to the economic system should have more of a say than those with no ties. Otherwise the system will be abused by those who don't have to worry about the costs to the taxpayers.

The early history of the US had similar requirements as well. Voting should be a priviledge and not a right.

I could be wrong here, but I don't think class oligarchies are such a great idea.
Shit like that is exactly what permits slavery.
If you don't have any say in how the state should be run, you're likely to be subjugated by those that do.

Post: #22

Nothing Wrong Here.

a pretty girl kills someone. wouldn't you sympathize with her? you might judge her like
'hm she had to kill that person to protect her'

we are all the same.

Post: #23

(04-20-2013 02:35 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  27 women think he's attractive? What exactly am I supposed to glean from this given that there are 310 million people in the country? You can find 27 adults that believe if you send a letter to Santa he'll get it.

I'm willing to bet this is just a very small sampling, and that's just of girls who are willing to admit it. This is far and wide from being uncommon.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Post: #24

(04-20-2013 06:00 AM)cardguy Wrote:  The history of Suffrage is an interesting one. In the UK - up until 1918 - men only had the vote if they owned property.

I think that is a sensible proposal. Those with strong ties to the economic system should have more of a say than those with no ties. Otherwise the system will be abused by those who don't have to worry about the costs to the taxpayers.

The early history of the US had similar requirements as well. Voting should be a priviledge and not a right.

Exactly. And those supporting women's "right" to vote in the interest of preserving individual rights seem to be too blinded by blue pill orthodoxy to see the problem of women systematically supporting increased state interference with such rights. It isn't clear that letting women vote is in the long term compatible with a meaningfully restricted state. I think the risks are less of putting power in the hands of property owners, who actually have a stake in the system, than putting power in the hands of those whose main interest is being protected by the states and receiving resources from others.

Yeah, the women aren't going to lose the right to vote until society has completely broken down but, as none of us has any political influence, every other political thread on the forum is equally theoretical. I wasn't aware we were only discussing practical issues here like the outcomes of these online debates actually matter for more than entertainment.

Post: #25

No pay, no say.

If you aren't contributing to the pie - you don't get a say in how it gets sliced up.