That sentence contains at least five follow-up questions she WANTS you to ask. Where in Florida? What brought you here? How long have you been in the area? What do you miss? How does it compare to here?
She handed them to you on a silver platter. And you said, "Oh cool. I come here every week. I love this band. Ummm... pretty crowded tonight."
She smiled politely. Nodded. And never texted you back.
I was that guy for years. Talking too much. Listening too little. Panicking about my next sentence while she was literally feeding me the answers.
Then I found 22 rules that fixed the whole thing. Rule number one: shut up and listen. She'll tell you exactly what to say.
You asked her if she wanted to grab coffee. Then you asked if the time worked. Then you asked if the place was okay. Then you asked if she'd prefer tea.
Four questions. Four chances for her to say no. Four signals that you're terrified of making a decision.
Plan it. Pick the place. Pick the time. Tell her where to meet you. She'll either show up or she won't.
Either way, you look like a man instead of a scared little boy.
That's why they keep suggesting things instead of making them a law. The Democrat states are traitors for banning guns, but we still have other states that don't have a "Invade us" sign. But the Democrats continue to try.
This is 100% BS. There is not a single state in the USA where guns are banned.
She asks it casually, mid-sip. And you feel the floor open up, because the honest answer is work, gym, and a couple shows you're half-watching.
Women rarely say this out loud, but a man with a life is attractive before he says a word. The guy who spent Saturday deep-sea fishing and came back with photos and a story — he walks in already interesting.
The "22 Rules" pushed me to build a life worth talking about. Turns out the fastest way to be interesting to women is to be interested in your own life first.
Restricting gun access is a ban.
I'm pretty sure the people who reap the benefits of society [welfare] have less reason to reap than I.
No, it is not. Only lunatics that can’t pass a background check have issues.
There should be zero background checks.
That is insane.
Exhibit A: a second amendment traitor.
When a woman says it, guys hear a confession. A heads-up. A scheduling conflict.
Here's the translation: I don't feel anything. Right now. With you.
Watch what happens when a man triggers actual attraction. The busy career, the recent breakup, the "not in a place to date" — all of it evaporates instantly. The same woman who was guarding her freedom is suddenly free every night.
The "22 Rules" explain why. When the right switches flip, her timeline rearranges itself around you.
Agreed comrade. Imo they key to this all is never questioning how or why societal freedoms change.
To leave us alone and stop stealing my money through taxes. And no, the government is not using this to stop the spread of the virus. There's hundreds of viruses in existence. Most uncured. This is not about health or safety.
Just like communist ideals, libertarianism only works in theory. Society needs government and taxation to survive. Good luck surviving without a military or police force, you would end up like war torn African nation.
You asked her if she wanted to grab coffee. Then you asked if the time worked. Then you asked if the place was okay. Then you asked if she'd prefer tea.
Four questions. Four chances for her to say no. Four signals that you're terrified of making a decision.
Plan it. Pick the place. Pick the time. Tell her where to meet you. She'll either show up or she won't.
Either way, you look like a man instead of a scared little boy.
Gun restrictions always follow the same roadmap. Increased background checks, licensing requirements, banning "high capacity magazines" and "military style assault weapons" (i.e. semi-auto rifles), banning or severely restricting handgun ownership, limiting the number of guns a person can own, making guns only available for target shooting and hunting (and not for self-defence). This roadmap was followed over the past 60-70 years in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and various European counties (basically, every western country outside the U.S.) If you think that the same thing will not happen in the U.S. if the Democrats have their way, you are completely delusional.
Libertarianism works very well provided that it's not taken to an extreme. The U.S. was founded as a libertarian nation and by all accounts it did very well for the first 200 years of its existence. Incidentally, things are now getting worse as the U.S is becoming less libertarian. Libertarianism does not mean anarchy and no government. It means limited and responsible government. It also means that individual freedoms cannot be too easily discarded in favour of the common good.
Meanwhile in China, someone is probably saying "it's a simple concentration camp for christ sake, you guys act like we are being stuffed in gas chambers." The bottom line is that the loss of freedom is always a slippery slope.
This is the slippery slope fallacy. Guns aren’t banned in any “Democrat” state. You named four countries that are safer and more politically stable to live than the USA. Funny.
In other words, you are in favour of banning /severely restricting guns like these "safer and more politically stable" countries have done (and the Democrats want to do). I rest my case.
This one is called psychological projection.
Libertarianism is anarchy. Anarchy never works.
Western neo-fascists are the modern day Holocaust deniers.
Next Monday you'll feel more confident. After the gym you'll feel more confident. After one more drink you'll feel more confident. After you get a better haircut, a better jacket, a better job.
You've been "getting ready" for two years.
She's standing ten feet away right now. She'll be gone in four minutes. No amount of preparation will manufacture the courage that only comes from moving your feet.
Walk over. Stumble through the first sentence. Let it be clumsy. Let it be imperfect. You will feel more alive in those ten seconds than you have all month.
