NSFW Links: Aug 23, 2016

August 23, 2016 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Spanking Art: Aug 22, 2016 – Toon style drawings of cuties getting spanked.

More Spanking Art: Aug 23, 2016 – More toon-style drawings of cuties getting spanked.

Enjoy! Comments?

PS: I am writing up a few large meta- posts about the 2016 election season. Will start posting them, one by one, soon.. perhaps later today.

Categories: Uncategorized

NSFW Links: Aug 16, 2016

August 16, 2016 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Wet Beach Cuties: Aug 14, 2016 – Wet, mostly amateur cuties, on the beach.

Amateur Beach Cuties: Aug 16, 2016 – Amateur nekkid cuties walking on the beach.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Interesting YouTube Channel: Forgotten Weapons

August 15, 2016 Leave a comment

It is no secret that the quality of content made by amateurs and semi-professionals on YouTube now routinely exceeds the crap produced by the “professionals” on network TV and even many cable channels. As many of you know, I am interested in technology of all sorts- especially the history of innovation in those areas (both successful and failed ideas) that led to where we are now.

I first came across a YouTube channel on rare firearms, especially prototypes, 2-3 years ago. At that time it was were mostly 10-15 minute clips about the history and mechanisms of somewhat uncommon guns. It has become even better since them and a lot of content on that channel, uploaded over previous year, is very good.

YouTube Channel Link – Forgotten Weapons

Example 1:

Example 2:

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Technology, YouTube

NSFW Links: Aug 11, 2016

August 11, 2016 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Bath Booties: Aug 8, 2016 – Amateur cuties with perky booties in the bathroom.

3D Spanking Art: Aug 11, 2016 – 3D artistic renderings of cuties getting spankings.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Why Trump’s Comments about 2nd Amendment & HRC Won’t Hurt Him

August 9, 2016 5 comments

As many of you might have heard earlier today, Donald Trump made a speech in Wilmington, NC where he said (among many other statements) the following.

Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick… If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know. But — but I’ll tell you what. That will be a horrible day. If — if Hillary gets to put her judges — right now, we’re tied. You see what’s going on.

As you also might have heard by now, every mainstream media outlet and “liberal” blogger/ tweeter/ presstitute is busy spinning this statement as an incitement to assassinate HRC if she wins the presidential election in November 2016. But is that really the case? And perhaps more importantly- will this help or hurt Trump’s chances of winning the presidential election in November? Note that I said- “winning the presidential election” and not “winning the next round of supposedly objective 3rd party polls based on curated information given over the phone by people who chose to answer them after being randomly dialed”. As you will see, this distinction is far more important than it seems.

On the question of whether that statement is evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) of Trump trying to incite others to assassinate HRC- I have to say, based on available information, there is no evidence that he was trying to do what his detractors have accused him of doing. At best, he was hinting to the well-known fact that any legislative measure to severely curtail legal gun ownership in USA might face significant pushback from those who believed in the commonly accepted and legally supported frameworks surrounding gun ownership today. He was also quite correct in pointing out that stacking the Supreme Court with judges known to oppose the current legal framework on that issue would result in erosion of 2nd amendment rights at the federal level.

In other words- nothing he said in that speech actually rises to the logical level of encouraging assassination of one or more public figure. But what about the alleged public perception of those remarks?

Well.. let me begin this part by restating that HRC is the least popular and most negatively perceived career politician ever to run for the american presidency as a candidate of a major political party. Many of you might remember that almost half of those who cast ballots in the democratic party primary voted for her opponent- Bernie Sanders, a hitherto unknown independent senator from Vermont. It is also no secret, now, that she “won” the democratic primary through large-scale direct and indirect electoral fraud. In other words, a lot of people in her own party hate her guts even though she has been in the national spotlight for over two decades. Therefore the idea that she is deeply disliked only by gun right advocates and hardcore republicans is simply untrue.

And this brings up the next question. Would a careful and oblique suggestion by Trump that HRC is a tyrant worthy of assassination actually hurt his chances with either his supporters or those who might potentially vote for him in November?

As far Trump’s supporters are concerned, HRC always has been the globalist tyrant she-devil who wants to take away their guns while impoverishing and destroying them. For them, Trump’s remarks are just more proof that he is the guy who will battle the evil witch and her army of flying monkeys. While some of Trump’s non-hardcore supporters might initially balk (at least publicly) at this particular statement- the reality is that many of them hate HRC far more than they are willing to admit in public. His latest statements about her will therefore almost certainly end up bolstering their support for him- especially since he alone seems to have the backbone and balls to stand up to the establishment.

It is also no secret that previous milquetoast republican presidential candidates such as McCain and Romney had major problems creating enough voter enthusiasm largely because their potential voterbase perceived them to be working against their interests and in league with establishment democrats. As I have said in previous posts on this blog, Trump’s strategy for winning the general election relies on increasing voter polarization to levels that would bring out those who would have voted republican if they felt their vote made a difference. He is fully aware that he (nor any other republican candidate) can win the presidency without a significant increase in voter turnout among republican voters who have given up on voting.

Therefore, in my opinion, Trump’s remarks about the 2nd amendment and HRC are very unlikely to hurt his chances of winning the actual presidential election. They will, if anything, help him win by further polarizing the electorate and increasing republican voter turnout in November 2016.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: July 31, 2016

July 31, 2016 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Doggystyled Amateurs: July 31, 2016 – Amateur cuties getting it.. doggystyle.

Doggystyle Ready Cuties: July 31, 2016 – Amateur cuties ready to get doggystyled.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Interesting Links: July 25, 2016

July 25, 2016 12 comments

Here are links to a few interesting articles I came across recently. They contain a few articles about the general unraveling of society in USA (and other “developed” countries to a lesser extent) by Chris Arnade on Medium.

Link 1: Why Trump voters are not “complete idiots”

Trump voters may not vote the way I want them to, but after having spent the last five years working in (and having grown up in) parts of the US few visit, they are not dumb. They are doing whatever any other voter does: Trying to use their vote to better their particular situation (however they define that). Labeling them dumb is simply a way of not trying to understand their situation, or what they value. In choosing a candidate, a voter is buying into that candidate. It is, in an oversimplified way, like buying a stock. In that sense, it is helpful to use some basic analysis from finance, to look at how/why voters make the choices they do.

Link 2: Granted, however….

There is a growing move to blame Brexit, or Trump, on voters just not trusting experts. Or being too uneducated to understand experts. This is wrong for two big reasons beyond being contemptuous, beyond having the goal to demean those who you disagree. Reason 1: It creates an unnecessary laziness in political discourse. Rather than really working at explaining a position, you default to the much simpler, “Well the experts say.” So when I hear arguments like, “The voters didn’t understand the consequences of Brexit,” I am also hearing, “I didn’t explain my positions very well.” Reason 2: It ignores the huge mistakes experts have made. Like the Iraq war and the aftermath of the global financial crisis (TARP anyone!) At the risk of borrowing from David Brooks (!), let me get a bit pop-sociology/ psychology.

The “expert class” are very slow to admit they are wrong which is a direct result of our system that rewards the most educated, and the cleverest. Rising to the top now means being clever as fuck, knowing how to game rules, and most important, being able to always argue your case. It is almost like we now reward that kid on the playground who when tagged during recess, replies, “You didn’t ACTUALLY tag me. You only tagged my clothes. Which isn’t technically me…..” Or the person who when they lose a bet for 100 dollars, says, “I didn’t say dollars, I said, Doll Hairs.” or responds, “We never actually signed a contract.”

Link 3: Rationality, anxiety, and meaninglessness

In all of these places people are turning more and more to drugs to combat a growing sense of hopelessness, meaninglessness, and anxiety. Some are also turning to angry and disruptive politics. Why? Over the last fifty years we have pursued a political and cultural agenda shaped around rationality and efficiency. We worship free markets and have maximized the power of capital while rendering labor only a cost to be minimized. We now define success through simple numbers — rising GDP, rising income, and rising profits. Our economic policy, driven by this rationalism, has morphed into a national version of the Hunger Games, pitting every worker against each other. We sort by education and by wealth, giving the winners a larger share than they need or deserve. It has created anxiety, one especially acute in lower income neighborhoods.

Now the poor are seen as losers and failures, increasing their anxiety. They are told they have failed to pull themselves up, failed to educate themselves, failed at a system that rewards the advantaged and the aggressively clever. We have also completely changed our culture in other ways, devaluing what once gave people meaning: A sense of community. It is easy to ignore these changes because community is a hard to measure metric. What once defined many neighborhoods —a tight social structure focused on community — is giving way to the ordinariness of strip malls, franchises, and disposable jobs. It is a deadening banality of both style and purpose.

What do you think? Comments?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 122 other followers