You guys are neither funny nor sarcastic in any way. I'm always taken seriously for some reason.

Instead of saying WTF..it's "you are not speaking to me" BS. It's the fking internet for crying out loud!

Many women needs to come out of the woodwork really.

Stop with the " I want a long term COMMITMENT" and "I am looking for my soulmate" or "I need someone who will only pay attention to me 24/7".

These are scary things for many men.

Sure...20-30 years ago, it was all about getting married and sailing to the Bahamas and having 2-3 kids in a big family house with a dog and making sandwiches to guys who were watching baseball on TV.

This isn't the same age.

We are in a f-kd up society, where things don't work the same way, your "hubby" is checking out your best friend's boob shots on facebook when you aren't looking, or having a giant porn collection downloaded on his computer, where he gets his ideas what to try out on you at night.

Not to mention the economy and unemployment and how women are afraid to get a guy, because he may acts like a parasite or vice versa, so let's drop this sugar coated BS about "meaningful" relationships and your "exclusive one-way ticket" guy you are looking for.

I can almost guarantee, that girls who would say "hey I'm a single girl and I'm looking for guy who is gonna stay with me for a while and makes me sweat at night, but also makes me feel good, but otherwise leave me to be" - would get 1000 times more views than some politically correct " I am looking for a bright shinning knight who will save me from the dragons" -kinda garbage, which only scares men more than women claiming to be mystically empowered ghost hunter fairies.

I know for fact, that some of those people are also registered on this site. Contact me about your wealth and whatever you got, house, cars, dogs etc... since you won't need them anymore and "let me -unbeliever pagan demon- perish" with them since you believe the world is over etc...

What kind of a gas station is this?

You serve drinks to suicidal girls on a gas station at 3 am?

Bingo. Guess who are not even existing to the system?

Mostly illegals , but there also legals and all the way to red blooded Americans as well.

Illegals are easy to explain. They haven't left the country, neither have a drivers' license or any sort of legal document and they do not own a phone or a house or a car loan etc. Of course, they also don't have any sort of benefits, no credit score, no social security number, no real phone number to contact, nothing.

They are completely invisible to the system.

Then, you got those people who are actuall USED TO BE part of the system, but they managed to pull themselves out, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

They may had a job once, also a house and bills, but perhaps they went bankrupt and sold everything and shut down their bank accounts. They work at jobs that pay under the table or seasonal jobs and only take cash as a payment.
They do not file tax anymore and do not open credit cards, neither have any sort of credit score.

I can not only speculate about this, but confirm all this.

What you have left is people who work for the system (government jobs) or people who work for companies who are working for the system versus people who are "deattached from the Matrix".

These people who are not part of the system anymore, they are also angry and sick and tired of the people , who are still part of the system, because when the time comes, most people are selfish and they would not bite the hand that feeds them (the government) because they would be afraid of loosing their jobs or wealth, so they will always vote in a particular way, that benefits them, even if their choice ruins everything else.

For example: A government employee never dares to question the government and will always loyally follow the "orders", regardless what the order is and if it's right or wrong. They won't rebel , because if they are afraid, that the government can access his or her files, or her identity would be revealed, the person would loose the job and would have to join the unemployment line and that looks very scary nowadays.

The government created a perfect defense system by spreading even more wider into everything and hiring up all the people who are desperate. For them, all they ask is their loyalty, and later they use it against the person if he or she dares to protest or disagree.

The society is ripping apart, and 2 sides are forming. It's not a party line or anything compared to democrats or republicans and other silly stuff, but it comes down to government loyals vs independent people. The government loyals are aided by the government and the mainstream media and the rich elite (whom they work for), while the independent rebels are aided with by everyone else who shares their pain.

Do like me. eating chocolate /vanilla ice cream at 2am.

this is what really happened:

http://youtu.be/k_B_n-Rbros

At least this thread has inspired you.

perved back!

It's called, living in a dream world. I have done it myself. It's either the fear of not daring to discuss serious matters or the fear of becoming lonely (again) so many people prefer to have the relationship to go on, even though it's hurting both of them.

The Queen lead guitar player, don't know his name.

Ummmm....how about talking to each other so the unknown becomes known?

And if the person would keep derailing the topic, it's right to be suspicious of hiding something and it's time to consider to back off and give up on him or her after a certain amount of tries of getting the info out.

Forget about them. Get a virginmobile , they are more dependable. My mom has it and she pays like once in 3 months or something.

here, if you don't want a smartphone just click on the "paylo" that offers cheap phones with cheap plans:

http://www.virginmobileusa.com/shop.html

Can you give us your system specifications?

how much RAM do you have
your processor,
size of hard drive
size of free space on your hard drive.

You can check that by right clicking on "my computer" and to check your free space, just left click on "my computer" it and hover your mouse over your hard drive to have it shown.

Also, do you have winxp updated with the updates, services packages?

wow, i had to google that one, I learn at least a new word every day.



haha, it's hard to knock me out of balance. The worst you gonna get is heavy sarcasm and me playing a circus clown on the forums.

Well, that's exactly what I meant. I'm talking about women, who even restricted me to say the f word. Not even in bed. Under no circumstances i was to say "I'm gonna f u" or what if we just "f"? and similar. I was not allowed, neither to wonder anywhere with my tongue beside her mouth.

“The United States may have run up a huge debt, but it is not a poor country…,” the Washington Post announced on Monday as Our Rulers hit their credit-limit. “The federal government owns roughly 650 million acres of land, close to a third of the nation’s total land mass. Plus a million buildings. Plus electrical utilities like the Tennessee Valley Authority. And an interstate highway system.”
Ergo, “economists of a conservative or libertarian bent” advocate liquidating some of those assets. “Why … should the federal government be in the electricity business?” the Post asks even as it chuckles that of course, “no one advocates selling Yellowstone”; goodness, even libertarians aren’t that crazy!

Actually, plenty of libertarians and anarchists are indeed that principled. Selling Yellowstone and everything else government “owns” (does a thief truly own what he buys with his victims’ plunder?) makes sense on all levels, practically, constitutionally, morally.
Statism relies on many preposterous presumptions. Chief among these is citizens’ imbecility. We are too stupid and wicked to breathe: but for government’s benevolently restraining hand, we’d kill one another or ourselves. And thanks to our blind greed for profits, we amplify our evil foolishness when we band together to produce goods or services.

Here and there, enlightened folks save themselves by ascending to governmental office. Whether elected or appointed doesn’t matter; when Mr. Former Citizen seeks salvation from the State, he automatically becomes Einstein to our Forrest Gump. Governing imbues him with such superiority that he can ruin — sorry, run our lives for us.

It follows that only politicians and bureaucrats boast the smarts to manage such treasures as Mammoth Cave or the Everglades. Indeed, statists often incredulously demand, “If we didn’t have government, who would run the national parks? You can’t turn those over to private parties — they’d build a mall in the Grand Canyon or condos overlooking Niagara Falls!”

Right. And millionaires never grab a hammer when they notice a nail working itself loose on the yacht: they just pound it back in place with their diamond ring.

Silly, isn’t it? And yet statists believe this is how the world operates, that only politicians and bureaucrats recognize the best use for a resource. We mere mortals squander it on a lesser utility.

Of course, that means we forgo some of the profits -— just as our millionaire may drive a nail home with his jewel, though with a heck of a lot more time and frustration than if he’d relied on a hammer. Statists steeped in Marxism or Keynes’ nonsense ignore this inherent contradiction: the entrepreneurs they accuse of overwhelming avarice will preserve rather than develop the Grand Canyon precisely because the former makes more money.

Five million people visit the Canyon every year; “most” pay $25 per vehicle or “$12.00 per person” if “entering by foot, bicycle, motorcycle, or non-commercial group.” Obviously, these prices are nothing more than a bureaucrat’s whim; they don’t reflect reality in part because taxes subsidize the national parks -— $3.3 billion in FY2012, according to the National Park Service’s (NPS) “budget request.”

The NPS doesn’t define “most”; let’s say half of the Grand Canyon’s sightseers came by car at $25 and the other half forked over $12. Even this conservative estimate amounts to a whopping $92.5 million annually.

Would a mall in the Canyon earn even half that? Given the rugged, remote terrain, probably not. A few shoppers might deem the location worth the drive; more would probably balk at the high prices. The challenges of building in such an unusual area, supplying electricity and water, and shipping inventory would send the costs of goods soaring. The mall might survive on its novelty for a few years; venture capitalists likely wouldn’t bet on it for longer.

We can also contrast the Canyon’s existing revenues with those for a corporation that counts shopping malls among its assets. You’ve probably patronized some of the Simon Property Group’s tenants: the company “owns or has an interest in 392 properties comprising 263 million square feet of gross leasable area in North America, Europe and Asia, … employ[ing] more than 5,000 people worldwide.” Yet all those properties yielded a mere $3.783 billion in 2008 — just 40 times as much as our lowball appraisal on the Grand Canyon though it comprises 392 times as many investments.

Yes, the comparison is flawed. The government’s “prices” at the Grand Canyon — and everywhere else — aren’t true ones. An entrepreneur operating the Canyon would almost certainly charge more or less; he would probably introduce off-season discounts, coupons, refunds for poor weather. Even so, there’s enough of a margin here to assert that the Grand Canyon’s highest value, the use that will return the most profit, lies in its unique landscape.

Nor need we fret that billboards and fast-food joints will litter the Canyon since they will destroy the vistas luring patrons. And those who would damn an entrepreneur for constructing hotels should blast Leviathan, too: the beast not only “authorize[s]” Xanterra Parks & Resorts, Inc. to administer “six distinctive lodges … within walking distance of the South Rim,” it also allows the company to “provide many [other] visitor services within the park,” such as “the legendary ‘Phantom Ranch’ on the floor of the canyon” and, horror of horrors, “retail shops in ... historic buildings.” [Emphases added.]

It seems, then, that if we want pristine natural beauty, government is the very last manager to which we should entrust such prizes. Perhaps that’s why the Constitution never empowers the Feds to establish a chain of nationalized parks.

Nor does morality. Though the Fifth Amendment requires the central government to pay owners “just compensation” when it swipes private property “for public use” (with Art. I, Sec. 8 implying such “use” extends only to “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”), the Feds are notorious for offering mere pennies on the dollar – when the property is for sale. Often it isn’t: owners may refuse to sell an heirloom handed down in their family, in which case Our thieving Rulers hold eminent domain’s gun to their heads.

Then, too, some nationalized parks are battlefields – New York State’s Saratoga, Gettysburg in Pennsylvania. Before they hosted armies, these areas were farms and homes.

Alas, the NPS doesn’t restrict its thievery to commemorating eighteenth- and nineteenth-century wars. It is currently robbing seven Americans of their property for a “Flight 93 National Memorial”; among the prey is “a Lutheran pastor who owns two parcels, including one that has a cottage where he and his wife planned to retire…”

None of us can predict what may happen near our homes or businesses. Allowing government to steal other people’s property jeopardizes ours, too.

“Experience your America,” the NPS urges. Thanks, but it’s not mine in any way.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/becky-akers/7523-selling-yellowstone

Rape is an act of control and supremacism over another, correct. But there is a reason and there are outside influences that make a person become such controlling. He wants to control something that he couldn't even think of controlling before, so it comes out of him after a while.
If you ask me, you gotta watch the first 15-20 years of a kid and see what kind of an environment he or she grows up in, because it's usually the main suspect of developing violent supremacist behavior.

Are you fantasizing about gutting a fish or are we still talking about me sitting on the horse half naked with my belly hanging out?

According to McDaniel,[1] popular culture and dating advice "suggest that women claim they want a 'nice guy' because they believe that is what is expected of them when, in reality, they want the so-called 'challenge' that comes with dating a not-so-nice guy."

Urbaniak & Kilmann write that:

"Although women often portray themselves as wanting to date kind, sensitive, and emotionally expressive men, the nice guy stereotype contends that, when actually presented with a choice between such a 'nice guy' and an unkind, insensitive, emotionally-closed, 'macho man' or 'jerk,' they invariably reject the nice guy in favor of his 'so-called' macho competitor."[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_guy