Maladjusted and culturally decimated leftoid experiment finds her tingles.

[user43770]

So the government gives you a handout and you are required to be an indentured servant to them for the rest of your life? You have to accept everything that they say with a smile on your face? That's Fascism. If you find that OK, then I too am pleased to never have met you.

I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives, or more specifically people who denounce entitlements, who have taken food stamps, student loans or some other kind of handout. She hasn't murdered anyone, she has merely expressed her hate for them. I bet we can find some government handout recipients expressing their hatred for the people who "fed them" on this forum board without looking too far. These people are as equally detestable as she is by your words.

You are proving my argument for me. Look at the sense of entitlement that permeates Western countries. People are raised on handouts and then act like it was something they were owed at birth.

How can a person not feel a sense of loyalty to those that fed and clothed them their entire life? That's not fascism, buddy, that's sensible.

 

[( . )( . )]

Unlike you, I actually bed women that find me attractive.

Um no, plenty of older gals are dating younger guys.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AbL5xC93km8/TR-Fz8TZKkI/AAAAAAAACWk/YqZJchG8nlE/s1600/agirl.jpg

Be honest,have these "gals" you "bed" ever caught you wearing their clothes gaylan?

 

[Special EDy]

You are proving my argument for me. Look at the sense of entitlement that permeates Western countries. People are raised on handouts and then act like it was something they were owed at birth.

How can a person not feel a sense of loyalty to those that fed and clothed them their entire life? That's not fascism, buddy, that's sensible.

So they effectively bought her vote? She's wrong for disagreeing?

Ive never applied for anything like food-stamps or unemployment, even though I do or have qualified for government assistance. Does that mean I have to vote republican. If I did accept help, would that make me morally obligated to vote democrat?
How about parents, how many people do you think sever ties with their parents after being cared for by them for so many years?

No, I am saying they EXACTLY switch ideologies, to the most dominant partner.

This is why we see far more women in the west switching to dominant masculine men of other cultures than we see women switching into the western culture looking for effeminate men (except for money).


You would call them weak and insecure, and they would just murder you, in a masculine dominant way. Whereas if you call a leftoid weak and insecure, they come back at you in that nasaly whiny voice.

It doesn't matter what YOU consider weak and insecure, it only matters what the vagina tingles considers weak and insecure. And here it is in all it's glory.


Gather enough anecdotes, and they no longer become anecdotes. Again, we see women fleeing leftoid limp-wristed culture for dominant, masculine men. This is why we see more women going with blacks than we do with Asian men. Display of dominance. Hell, this isn't too far from the war-brides dynamic.



At least you aren't one of the idiots who thinks the world is shifting to the right ideology, and you recognize the growing dominance of the leftoid thinking.

However, the weak survive by banding together, especially to harvest the resources of the strong and able. So you are building a strawman here. Banding together in greater numbers to shame, guilty and censor is not masculine, it's the feminine manner of doing business.

There is a catastrophic hole in your argument Danger. You say women are attracted to dominant(you infer conservative) men, and that liberalism is on the rise. Your statement is contradictory.
If women were attracted to conservative men, and adopted their beliefs as you've stated Sally Jones did, then conservative beliefs would be sweeping the world. All the women would polarize towards "dominant men", and these women would then themselves become conservative. Then they would produce conservatively biased children as well. Meanwhile, liberal men would be unable to attract female partners and would fail to reproduce.

Either liberalism is on the rise, or women are attracted to dominant(inferred as conservative) men. Both cannot be true. And since we know that liberalism is indeed on the rise, we can deduce that your statement about who or what women are attracted to is entirely incorrect.

 

[rascal99v]

Yes, let's be real.

• Liberal ideologies weaken men and turn them effeminate.
• Women are attracted to strong, dominant men.
• When a society or culture is infected with weak men (liberalism), women with migrate to where the dominant reside.

:crackup:

Are you saying George Clooney is effeminate? He's been a Liberal his whole life and he fvcks hot women. Women are attracted to him. Would you say the same about Karl Rove?


Let's not be biased here Danger.

There are plenty of Liberal men who are feminine and you can always tell they fall to the left side of the spectrum. But there are plenty of awkward and feminine conservatives who are gay. So, don't try to paint one side as weak when both sides both have their fair share of effeminate men.

You have the Log Cabin Republicans who belong to the GOP Party who are gay. There's even a large group of them at college who make their presence known.

The Young Republicans at college are very effeminate and look like they never got laid in their entire life. They don't get dates and women tend to ignore them because they are AFC's.

That loon from Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachman, has a feminine husband named Marcus, who is rumored to be bisexual. They have prayer groups to "pray away the gay" trying to stop people from being gay.

Karl Rove Is very effeminate looking.

Don Innis and Carl Demaio are openly gay Republican Candidates running for Congress, and are as feminine and gay as they come.

Jim Kolbe was a strictly Conservative Arizona House member who came out of the closet.

Aaron Schock is a very feminine Republican House member who is gay and who voted anti gay. A hypocrite.

Steve Wiles, a former Conservative NC Senate candidate and anti gay activist, used to be a former fvcking drag queen of all things. :crackup:

Pastor Ted Haggard was a hidden gay man who was giving meth to boys for sex.

Glenn Murphy Jr., a popular Young Republican from Indiana is a gay sex offender.

David Drier a Conservative House Member from California, is a feminine man and has been rumored to have sex with his male staff members.

Mark Foley a former GOP Florida Congressman, was having explicit sexual email conversations and was rumored to be playing with young boys in his staff.

Larry Craig from Idaho, a former GOP Senator was arrested in a Minneapolis airport for soliciting gay sex in the airport restroom.

Christian Conservative evangelical pastors look feminine, and a lot are outed as gay men.

All these dudes are as feminine and gay as they come, but they bash their own kind and try to hide who they are. Hypocrites :yes:

Each party has their gays, feminine men, and nuts. That's just the way it is. Don't be biased here Danger, let's call out both sides for the hypocrites that they are because both parties are responsible for the mess we are in today. :yes:

Here are some articles you should read to open your eyes about effeminate and gay conservatives.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7fd26a-ddd5-11e3-b745-87d39690c5c0_story.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/04/openly-gay-gop-candidate-advances-in-calif-house-race/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/03/aaron-schock-gay-rumors_n_1851827.html

http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-anti-gay-activists-caught-being-gay/joanne

Danger, all of these Conservative dudes look pretty damn feminine and gay as they come. Look at Steve Wiles the first pic on ranker.
A strong dominant man? :crackup:

What do you have to say about that?

 

[( . )( . )]

We can bullsh!t each other all day but at the end of the day male libtards don't get hotter chicks than their more right thinking brothers and never have. As a matter of fact you guys are not even as physically appealing to chicks on average. You're also more miserable on average.

Political junkies might be interested to learn that conservative women are particularly blissful: about 40 percent say they are very happy. That makes them slightly happier than conservative men and significantly happier than liberal women. The unhappiest of all are liberal men; only about a fifth consider themselves very happy.

Sorry fellas but you can't be sexy to women by mimicking them, just doesn't work like that. And leftism (modern liberalism) in a nutshell is nothing more than the codification of the female mind upon society. Hating on successful men and wanting more of their money, wanting bigger gov and more regulations to keep you "safe" and sucking the c@ck of political correctness and eqwaaaality is not a big puzzy lubricant. Envy is not sexy.

This is all under the presumption that you guys are legitimate males of course.

 

[user43770]

So they effectively bought her vote? She's wrong for disagreeing?

Ive never applied for anything like food-stamps or unemployment, even though I do or have qualified for government assistance. Does that mean I have to vote republican. If I did accept help, would that make me morally obligated to vote democrat?
How about parents, how many people do you think sever ties with their parents after being cared for by them for so many years?

Who said anything about votes? I'm talking about loyalty to country; loyalty to those that supported her for her entire life.

Defend her all you want, this woman is still a traitor.

 

[Special EDy]

We can bullsh!t each other all day but at the end of the day male libtards don't get hotter chicks than their more right thinking brothers and never have. As a matter of fact you guys are not even as physically appealing to chicks on average. You're also more miserable on average.



Sorry fellas but you can't be sexy to women by mimicking them, just doesn't work like that. And leftism (modern liberalism) in a nutshell is nothing more than the codification of the female mind upon society. Hating on successful men and wanting more of their money, wanting bigger gov and more regulations to keep you "safe" and sucking the c@ck of political correctness and eqwaaaality is not a big puzzy lubricant. Envy is not sexy.

This is all under the presumption that you guys are legitimate males of course.

Ignorance is bliss as they say.



Most white women are actually Republicans, not Democrats. We can now consider half the previous arguments null and void.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at-the-parties-in-2012/



Only people earning above $150,000 a year are more likely to be Rep than Dem, so it isnt about stealing all the wealth either.

Post graduates are the most likely educational group by far to be Dem. Voters are more likely to be Rep the lower their education is.

Married men are the only marital status group to be Rep, all other groups are left leaning.

Of all genders and age groups, only men 30-49 and men 65+ are more likely to be Rep, all other groups are more likely to be Dem.

Liberalism is on the rise in MEN. Women are naturally liberal. There can be dominant liberals, but for the most part they are naturally submissive, accepting, effeminate, etc,...

ONLY if all men were dominant. Remember, studies show that weaker men tend to be liberals and there is logic in this. They can't compete as readily as the dominant men, so they push to get the resources and spread their genes in other manners.


Incorrect for the reasons I state above.


Your logic is entirely wrong as I pointed out above. The flaw in your premise is that you assume ALL men are dominant, which as we know is far far from being true.

Liberalism is on the decline in men, you're wrong. Don't pull generalizations out of your ass without doing your homework.


Show me evidence of your claim that liberal men are weaker, your previous contradiction which I outlined still stands. You stupidly state that I'm assuming all men are dominant, such an assertion was never made. YOU said that conservative men were dominant, and liberals were weak. Thus you keep magnifying your contradiction.


If, as you stated twice now-

• conservative men are more dominant
• dominant men are more attractive to women
• omen emulate the beliefs and views of their male partners

Then the majority of the population would be conservative, and women would be conservative as they quickly gravitated towards "dominant conservative" men to be indoctrinated as such.


Quit agreeing with my argument and thinking your disproving it.

 

[( . )( . )]

Show me evidence of your claim that liberal men are weaker

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...strong-likely-right-wing-political-views.html

Scientists from Aarhus University in Denmark collected data on bicep size, socio-economic status and support for economic redistribution from hundreds in America, Argentina and Denmark.

Besides having a pair of eyes it doesn't really take a genius to figure out that men who support a welfare state, an ideology based on perpetual victimhood and wealth redistribution are generally weaker in both mind and body.

 

[Stagger Lee]

That women tend to adopt beliefs, views and tendencies of men they have dated is true. What men enable and don't enable is fundamental to female behavior and expectations.

Just one example, I know a guy who is married to a woman who loves to watch sports. He hates watching sports. She had no interests in watching sports until her previous ex got her into it.

Most feminist supporting men think it will get them more pvssy or at least get other men less pvssy. Their true motivation is pvssy begging and ruining women for other men out of jealousy. Bill Clinton was a great example of that.

 

[Special EDy]

I am looking at the trend in the US over the last 100 years, particularly with the rise of feminism, hence the increasing liberalism that pervades politics.


My position is not magnified. You are merely assuming that ALL conservative men are dominant enough to convert their wives to their ideology.

In short, because you detest the position, you must now hold to an ALL or NOTHING position in an attempt to disprove it. Such is the method of liberalism ideology.




I highlighted in red the key points you are missing. Think more deeply on things instead of trying to apply an all or nothing stance, you will find the world makes much more sense that way.

Well, from a philosophical standpoint the only time conservatism was largely on the rise was when we entered the Dark Ages. By definition, a conservative is someone who is against change, who either wants things to stay the same or go back to the way they were. We would still be living in caves if conservatism was the prevailing political stance of mankind.


AS for your all or nothing accusation, I find it amusing you take an all or nothing stance on liberals.
Liberals are feminists.
Liberals are less desirable than conservatives
Liberals support wealth redistribution.

I am none of these things, yet I rank slightly more left than right. I think you'd find my views more moderate then the vast majority of the members of this board. Economic and social issues are not directly related, you could be a conservative and still be a feminist, socialist or whatever. You are drawing enormous conclusions without any statistical proof.

Married people are more likely to be conservative than unmarried people, so you are comparing apples to oranges here. Divorced people are HIGHLY likely to be liberal, as much as singles. If we could find a study, I'd bet we would find that religion is the driving force behind this trend. Unfortunately I can find no such research or research delving into how political affiliation is altered by marriage.



All you're doing is throwing out red herrings to avoid the original dispute, which still stands unchallenged by all except ( . )( . ), that Sally Jones is in fact a conservative. All your liberal bashing is irrelevant, she is a traitor, yes, detestable, yes, but a conservative none-the-less. Your just smearing your own kind by persisting to label all of the ill qualities of her under the premise that she is a liberal.

That women tend to adopt beliefs, views and tendencies of men they have dated is true. What men enable and don't enable is fundamental to female behavior and expectations.

Just one example, I know a guy who is married to a woman who loves to watch sports. He hates watching sports. She had no interests in watching sports until her previous ex got her into it.

Most feminist supporting men think it will get them more pvssy or at least get other men less pvssy. Their true motivation is pvssy begging and ruining women for other men out of jealousy. Bill Clinton was a great example of that.

The tooth fairy is real and the grass is blue. Your just stating your personal opinions, nothing more.

 

[Jaylan]

Lol Edy, why even argue with these dudes? If they need to constantly bash anyone with any sort of non-right wing beliefs, let them. If they need to label all bad things as left wing, let them.

When I read some of the posts in this thread, I sip my coffee and laugh. Because at the end of the day, Im doing my thing, and having fun with the pretty young gals. Im lifting heavy, looking good, getting work done during the week and living life right on the weekends.

If haters need to tell themselves that those of differing beliefs are weaker and less manly than them...let them sing it till the cows come home. Whatever helps them sleep at night. Many of these dudes need that belief that they are so much more powerful, successful and attractive than the "liberawls".

It must burn them up inside though that those "libuhrolls" are running this country. And it must make them extra butthurt when dudes like me are picking up fine young women in the bar.

Entertaining thread though.

PS - Now that I think about it, Im pretty sure my last serious ex voted GOP in the presidential election. Her parents certainly are republican, and I think she was fiscally right-leaning but definitely socially left-leaning.

 

[rugby11]

No one should ever be shamed for being who they are as people. Weird how we do that to each other.

 

[( . )( . )]

No one should ever be shamed for being who they are as people. Weird how we do that to each other.

Shaming was a way to insure the safety of a tribe. Threats to a tribe were once either killed or exiled. This "nothing is wrong , everything is right" pablum touted by oblivious leftoids stems from 6 decades of Marxist indoctrination.

If you're a known pyromaniac carrying a box of matches or a pedo hanging around my kid I'm going to say something sorry man no matter how much it upsets you or your "equalist" keepers. To be honest sh!tlibs are quite lucky that "objectifying talk" is the stage we are up to at present. I very much doubt all this is going to end well for either side before it gets better.

 

[Special EDy]

Shaming was a way to insure the safety of a tribe. Threats to a tribe were once either killed or exiled. This "nothing is wrong , everything is right" pablum touted by oblivious leftoids stems from 6 decades of Marxist indoctrination.

If you're a known pyromaniac carrying a box of matches or a pedo hanging around my kid I'm going to say something sorry man no matter how much it upsets you or your "equalist" keepers. To be honest sh!tlibs are quite lucky that "objectifying talk" is the stage we are up to at present. I very much doubt all this is going to end well for either side before it gets better.

Marxists tend to be totalitarians. The first paragraph is a dichotomy.

In posts on other threads you claim that liberals are intolerant of others, yet here you seem to refute that statement?

 

[user43770]

Marxists tend to be totalitarians. The first paragraph is a dichotomy.

In posts on other threads you claim that liberals are intolerant of others, yet here you seem to refute that statement?

You failed to respond to my post. Why did you stop defending the traitor?

 

[( . )( . )]

In posts on other threads you claim that liberals are intolerant of others, yet here you seem to refute that statement?

Expelling dangers to a tribes overall welfare was not "intolerant". I very much doubt they even knew about a word coined by perpetually aggrieved women studies majors. That word is your reality and yours alone...and maybe a few million pozzed out social justice warriors hooked on the endorphin rush from their facebook "likes".

 

[Special EDy]

Expelling dangers to a tribes overall welfare was not "intolerant". I very much doubt they even knew about a word coined by perpetually aggrieved women studies majors. That word is your reality and yours alone...and maybe a few million pozzed out social justice warriors hooked on the endorphin rush from their facebook "likes".

Well its a good thing we aren't talking about tribes being intolerant then isn't it.

"This "nothing is wrong , everything is right" pablum touted by oblivious leftoids", "you or your "equalist" keepers.", "sh!tlibs are quite lucky that "objectifying talk" is the stage we are up to at present".
Very few IQ points are required here to connect the majority of your post with my comment, and only slightly more are required to see your daft attempt to circumvent it.


You're going to have to do better than that.

You say liberals are too tolerant today, yesterday you were saying they were too intolerant. You say Marxism is to blame for over-tolerance, anybody who has read a book in their lives knows the two are polar opposite in practice.

You failed to respond to my post. Why did you stop defending the traitor?

Oh I'm sorry that was 12 posts ago. And in your first comment you said you were speaking in ( . )( . )'s stead. He is back now, so we no longer require you to derail the topic onto a tangent that had nothing to do with the conversation at any point. kthxbai

It does make me smile that this is the best you can do in reply to the study which shows liberals are physically weaker. It isn't surprising then that those men act as women.

Don't forget the link saying conservatives were dumber!
Pretty sure we can draw a bunch of conclusions about how conservatives make up for brains with muscles.

"Aww, who needs diplomacy. Lets just bomb 'em till they agree"

 

[( . )( . )]

You say liberals are too tolerant today, yesterday you were saying they were too intolerant. You say Marxism is to blame for over-tolerance, anybody who has read a book in their lives knows the two are polar opposite in practice.

Nice bait and switch. I said your "equalist" libtard religion stems from six decades worth of cultural Marxist indoctrination. This should not be that hard to follow.

Pretty sure we can draw a bunch of conclusions about how conservatives make up for brains with muscles.

How do you figure men who follow an ideology based on victimhood, on wealth redistribution from more successful men and who vote for bigger government are smarter? Modern liberalism is nothing more than the codification of the female mind upon society, I'm not buying the men who lets face it are embracing the mindset of women are somehow smarter.

Healthy mind, healthy body.

kthxbai

Why the phuck do you and that other anti-white fairy always talk the same? What's next in your lineup of SJW-speak? "douche canoe" or perhaps "what the actual phuck" or maybe "are you serious right now"?

I'm wondering if like gaylan and zarky you would come out overwhelmingly positive as being a female in a gender genie test. Hmmm

 

[Bokanovsky]

Mother-of-two Sally Jones - who has spent a lifetime on state benefits - before she left Britain to marry a British hacker turned jihadi who she met online

The question is, how do we rid ourselves of the leftoid disease before they drag us all down.

Easy. Cut the benefits and let the fvckers starve to death. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should spend a lifetime on state benefits.

 

[speed dawg]

You know, Bokanovsky, I've been reading the Bible lately, and specifically about legalism and 'grace'. The Lord values every life, no matter what. So many liberals will justify themselves based on this, and spout that we should take care of them, give them things, etc.

But see, the liberals stop there. They don't keep reading. 1 John 4:1 says:

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world."

Bible never commands people to help others just to do it. And in most instances, it isn't until a people are the brink of utter devastation and despair, that the Lord allows them help. Typical food stamp recipients don't qualify. So what you post holds true, Christian or not.