Valsuelm
-
Posts
405 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Valsuelm
-
-
For cereal though, since we seem to be getting all Captain Crunchy.
There is no such thing as the ideal woman, unless you want a robot. But I'd argue that's not really a woman.
Live long enough, be surprised (both pleasantly and horrifically) a few times by women, and you'll realize and embrace the fact that the ideal woman is not an ideal woman. -
I don't know if I'd call the thread serious. I just thought it was pretty telling that Kirottu began it with humor and wit and a bunch of people went straight to the physical.
You missed this:
And we've not even gotten into how crazy your ideal partner will probably will be.
-
-
Some of you wear shallowness like a badge of honor.
Looks are important, but they change with time. If you want to find an actual ideal partner you need to go a bit deeper than that. Which is exactly what Kirottu was doing when he started the thread. To each their own, I suppose, but odds are you will be on your own a lot.
It think it's one helluva a stretch to say he was digging deep.
First chick is gonna be fat. Second chick wears way too much makeup, especially for a woman her age.
Yeah.
I is not he. You quote me as if I was.
Again, I think it's one helluva a stretch to say he was digging deep.
-
"I Want A New Woman"
Yeah-eah!
I want a new woman
One that won't make me sick
One that won't crash my car
And likes to suck
I want a new woman
One that won't hurt my head
One that won't make my mouth too dry
Or make my eyes too red
One that won't make me nervous
Wondering what to do
One that won't plot to kill me
And be cool with me drinking beers with you
I want a new woman
One that won't shrill
One that don't cost too much
And doesn't mind the pill
I want a new woman
One that won't go away
One that won't keep me up all night
One that won't make me sleep all day
One that won't make me nervous
Wondering what to do
One that won't plot to kill me
And be cool with me drinking beers with you
Drinking beers, with you...
I want a new woman
One that does what she should
One that won't make me feel too bad
One that likes to make me feel good
I want a new woman
One with no doubt
One that won't talk too much
And will never freak out.
One that won't make me nervous
Wondering what to do
One that won't plot to kill me
And be cool with me drinking beers with you
Eh... I'm just gonna drink beers with you!- Vals 4/25/16 (Inspired by a musical mood while reading this post, and this great song).
-
Some of you wear shallowness like a badge of honor.
Looks are important, but they change with time. If you want to find an actual ideal partner you need to go a bit deeper than that. Which is exactly what Kirottu was doing when he started the thread. To each their own, I suppose, but odds are you will be on your own a lot.
It think it's one helluva a stretch to say he was digging deep.
-
A great tribute that brought a tear, and a great cover that brought some smiles:
-
First chick is gonna be fat. Second chick wears way too much makeup, especially for a woman her age.
This is what your combo is going to look like, only blonde:
And we've not even gotten into how crazy your ideal partner will probably will be.
Enjoy! -
There aren't any prominent republicans around to tell the children to stop messing around while the adults are talking? I mean actively having 'sabotage' as a strategy? I am now actively starting to believe that these two are in facts plants working for Trump, not against him, as there's no way people would like to vote, well sincerely that is, for someone that claims that their winning achievement is to make others fail.
Um.. it's quite arguable that for decades now far more people go to the polls to vote against a candidate than for a candidate. The 'lesser of two evils' has been the name of the game for awhile now for lots of people, especially in national elections. While it's not that common for one of the major parties to eat their own frontrunner by painting them as a 'great evil' of sorts, it certainly has happened in the past to a number of candidates (e.g. Ned Lamont, David Duke). Basically whenever a non-establishment candidate wins in the polls. Trump is just the highest profiled one in recent memory to be targeted this way.
All that said, Cruz, Kasich, and both the Republican and Democrat party establishment are total slime.
-
But the Sand Snakes are f-----g hot though so that does make up for some of it.
The only good reason to watch this show at this point methinks is for the eye candy.
-
-
Stories about Dems going Trump, which reflect not only my personal experience talking to many Dems this year, but also what a buddy in the NY Dem party said his experience was when he canvased registered Democrats for Hillary on Long Island.
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/politics/4016904-more-60000-disgruntled-pennsylvania-democrats-switch-partieshttp://nypost.com/2016/03/19/why-its-time-for-a-trump-revolution/
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-01-08/new-poll-shows-donald-trump-is-a-real-threat-to-hillary-clinton
One can find a lot more of these stories.
Stories denying the above phenomenon:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/25/no-trump-wont-win-votes-from-disaffected-democrats-in-the-fall/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/trump_democrats_are_a_myth.html
One can find some more of these stories.
Stories denying the phenomenon and denying that 'Reagan democrats' even exist:http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-myth-of-the-reagan-democrat/475608/ (the author of this one is especially out to lunch)
Good luck finding stories about Republicans going Clinton!
-
My point: --> x -->
Your head: O
Oh, I understood what you were getting at, it's you who apparently fails to understand what I'm getting at.
Or, you're just trolling, in which case, F off.
-
-
She looks the same to me. She also looks to be wearing lots of makeup.
-
It is the height of hubris and arrogance to assert as so many politicians do (and many of the people on this board do) that “you don’t need firearms” or “guns don’t make you safer”.
Please explain how guns make you safer by naming one significant situation in American history in the last 100 or so years where someone (a private person rather than an officer) owning a gun was to everyone's benefit and helped defuse a dangerous situation. The only situations I can think of involve a home owner shooting an intruder who did or did not have a weapon, and I believe I recall one news story about a mass shooter being shot first. This is dwarfed by all the accidental shootings, the cases similar the Trayvond Martin, mass shootings themselves, or even cases where a citizen ACKNOWLEDGED owning a firearm but a scared as **** cop shot them dead anyways with the attitude of "ask questions later."
Uh.... I personally have witnessed at least two such events in my life off the top of my head, and have been told of a few by friends who have experienced such events. Such things really are not all that rare.
The plural of anecdote isn't data.
If you need 'data' to tell you that it is not uncommon for people to fart, engage in buttsex, be delusional, cut their toenails, eat their toenails, spout profanity, pray to Jobu, poop colors other than brown, etc., as well as about exactly how often they do it, even if you do none of these things and oodles of others for which accurate data can never be obtained, you live a truly sheltered life.
He asked for one example, I can give him at least five based on the experience of myself and those close to me. The point of that is, is that I'm one person, out of many many millions. Lightning didn't strike me or my area a number of times. The stories I could relate aren't all that unusual. Such was my point.
Here's the quickest story I can tell, and the only one I'm going to relate (again, as I've told this story and at least one other before on this forum in other 'gun debate' threads). I have a friend who is alive because her husband had a gun handy when a mountain lion cornered and attacked her in her backyard, pinning her to the ground (this happened in semi-rural Minnesota). She was injured fairly badly, but fortunately had heavy clothing on which protected her to a degree, before the firing of a gun stopped the cat attacking. Yelling, some yard tools, and throwing things it at didn't work.
I'm done with the gun issue in this thread. (Feel free to create a new thread or dig up one of the many that already exist on this issue. I may participate, but not here.) To a large degree it's a red herring issue, and it's not even the main point of this thread. Very rarely can I say I speak for millions on anything, but my previous posts, as well as what much of Guard Dog has been saying sums up what tens of millions if not hundreds of millions think on this. I don't think there's anyone evil in this thread, but there are some grossly uninformed folks who like to chew red herrings.
-
-
General John Sedgwick was shot and killed by a Virginia farmer using a flintlock Long Rifle from over 400 yards at the Battle of Spotsylvania.
What, an 18th century rifle? Story must be apocryphal, they couldn't hit an elephant from that distance.
Upon further reading of the life of John Sedgwick these past few minutes, I came across some words that either make yours coincidence, or a good jest.
If the latter, well done sir.
-
General John Sedgwick was shot and killed by a Virginia farmer using a flintlock Long Rifle from over 400 yards at the Battle of Spotsylvania.
What, an 18th century rifle? Story must be apocryphal, they couldn't hit an elephant from that distance.
I assume '18th' is a typo.
Either way, the rifles used during the U.S. Civil War most certainly could hit an elephant from 400 yards. Between the eyes even, if in the right hands.
Gun technology had come a long way already by the time of the U.S. Civil War. This wasn't a musket loading era. ~200,000 dead, ~400,000 wounded, and a lot more witnesses can attest to that.
One example of one of the common rifles used during the era of U.S. Civil War, had an effective firing range of 500 yards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_repeating_rifle
Other guns had effective ranges of up to 1,000 yards. Obviously the capabilities of the marksman mattered and it's widely considered that most shooters couldn't reliably hit anything beyond 200 yards (this is still true today with modern weapons to a large degree), as did the quality of their scope (which weren't that common), and luck always matters.
-
@Valsuelm
Also, most of the time such things occur, the police are not notified. And on top of that, the vast majority of the time the police are notified about such things (and a great many others), a news article is not written.
How ****ing convenient for you and your stance on the matter!
I tend to think that acknowledging reality, ugly as it might be, is more convenient and far more ideal than not.
Insofar as much of the rest of your longer post and your other follow ups. While I appreciate the time and effort you put into making it, I honestly don't think much of what you said is relevant to the 2nd amendment or the arguments others put forth in regards to it.
Insofar as the police specifically. Yes, they have too much power, and a lot of the wrong people become them (seemingly increasingly so even). However more training isn't going to fix that problem. The very nature of what police in the USA are for the most part, the strong arm of an increasingly corrupt state, keeps most intelligent good people from wanting to become one. If I could change one thing about police, it wouldn't be their training, it would be to make them accountable for their actions. By and large they are not, from writing a plethora of erroneous tickets which bog down the court system (yet provide oodles of revenue overall, so the government looks the other way) to quite literally more often getting away with murder than not when they commit it, the general immunity police have is problem #1 I'd say. However, that's not easily fixed in a society where oodles of people think they can do no wrong (a chunk of the time police get away with murder a jury fails to even indict). This isn't just a problem with police either, but with politicians, and bureaucrats.
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." - Sowell
-
1
-
-
He's coming here first for beer and cheese, you have to wait your turn, NY.
#BruceStrong
San Diego has the better weather for certain. I'd possibly go there first too.
-
Valsuelm for Chief Moral Police Commissioner of the Obsidian forums.
It's a position I'd hold for only a few moments. Just long enough to fire most of the moderators, not replace them, and then dissolve my position.
*A bunch of nonsense requiring a complete misinterpretation of what is written above*
You should smoke less weed.
This is not the first post where you've entirely misunderstood me, and responded in a manner where you imagine I wrote things I didn't and ignore what I did. I've seen you do it with others quite often as well. Possibly more often than not.
That said. You're 41?
For your sake I had hoped you were in your early 20s for awhile now, as you act less mature and more petty than many teenagers and even a few pre-teens I've known. At 41 you're more than likely a hopeless case. 41 year old SJWs are quite rare in the U.S., perhaps they are common in SA, I do not know.
Alas.
Either way, weed or not, your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Do something to fix them please.
Vals you constantly do this. You make a statement, like the Mods aren't doing there jobs, and you are incapable of supporting your own view
Then you resort to personal attacks because you feel insecure ...first I was insane, then cognitive dissonance and now its my age and me being a 41 SJW , next it will be sexual orientation
...you remind me of LK and his antics, he also cant have a debate with me without insulting me, its this bizarre compulsion
But you cant ask me to stop smoking weed because how else would I be able to debate with you....I dont think I could handle the level of inconsistency and ignorance if I wasn't stoned
Bruce, you are insane. That's no joke, nor an insult. It's an observation made after too much time engaging you in discussion and reading your thoughts. And if that offends you, be thankful I don't spend the time Longknife did, and give you more of my observations regarding you. Note, nothing I've ever said to you was ever meant to offend. I do however prefer to call spades spades.
I'm quite consistent. Any inconsistency you think is there, is either you not comprehending what I'm writing, or me not fully explaining my position to you. Far more often than not it's the former in my experience.
In regards to my comments on the mods in this thread, I really don't feel like wasting my time expanding on something I largely (though not totally) meant as a joke to begin with what was a response to someone else's joke, especially with someone who is so consistently daft to not only see that it was in part jest, but who also has proven again and again to not understand what I do write when I do attempt to further explain things to you. Whether you're stoned or not half the time you come here, might have something to do with it, but it's besides the point other than I will say that if I wanted to discuss things with stoned people, I'd go smoke some refer myself and sit outside under the stars with some folks, not hop on the internet. End of story.
I've been on the fence for awhile with this, however considering I spent a good hour of the last two days arguing with someone I have come to the conclusion is hopelessly insane, and who knows how many hours of my life in the last couple of years, the joke is on me if I don't do it. I'm putting you on ignore Mr. VC. I truly wish you the best, but you waste far too much of my time. You're thought process is thoroughly discombobulated and you're dishonest as a result, with yourself most of all. We don't have debates Bruce, you're incapable of debating with myself or just about anyone else as you don't know what you're talking about most of the time. Some folks, myself included, just make the mistake of having some respect for you and assuming you are sane, or we just find the whole thing amusing. Any illusion of your sanity I thought you might have had has been shattered this last month or so via a number of posts you have made, and while I do find most of this amusing to a degree, the cons far outweigh the pros of engaging with you.
If you feel compelled to discuss something with me, PM me. I will not be responding to you on this forum again. I suppose some might even think you lucky for that.
Again, I sincerely wish you the best, and my offer for some beers still stands if you ever come to NY.
-
This was entertaining:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uoeGKbEQPE
Probably the best speech I've seen him give (I've only seen a few). -
Valsuelm for King's Justice of the ummm...Obsidian boards?
I dunno. Who's the King? I'm not generally partial to monarchs. In fact I'm quite averse to them on principle, and would probably off their head before anyone else's, but I suppose exceptions could be made. I wouldn't wear a mask though, I find them quite suffocating.
I figure the job will be about as important as the TV weather man's job in Vegas, and I'd probably treat it similarly.
US Election 2016
in Way Off-Topic
Posted · Edited by Valsuelm
And on the other side of the coin...
Democrat Turnout Collapses Down More Than 4.5 Million, Nearly 20 Percent In 2016 Versus 2008