Fat Girls Ruin it for Everyone

Why I hate fat girls: Tipping the Dating Market Scale

Being raised in The States and then spending years traveling the world, I have noticed a phenomenon. I have noticed that the attractive girls in the USA are especially stuck up, overconfident and entitled. You may think that this is just the culture, and it is, but only a part of it is the culture. I actually remember thinking to myself “What are hot girls so difficult?”

Up until recently, USA was the fattest country in the world. Growing up I remember countless instances of looking at a fat girl and thinking, wow she has a really cute face, if she were skinny she would have guys all over her. After traveling the world and seeing places with very few fat girls, I came to the realization that… I hate fat girls.

Why I hate fat girls?

While traveling in countries with low obesity rates I noticed that hot girls were much easier to obtain and were much less bitchy. They were actually… humble. It blew my mind. The main pattern I saw was very clear. In countries with more fat people, the hot girls were marginally more stuck up.

Fat girls are tipping the scale

The reason for the sexy girls being so stuck up is simple. When a girl is fat, she is no longer attractive to 99.9% of men. This means that the only guys chasing after her are the mythical “chubby chasers” or lower value guys (that don’t really want them, but are out of options.)

This means that 99.9% of men are desiring a now dwindling percentage of skinny girls. Now from those skinny girls there is a percentage that aren’t hot. So 99.9% of guys are now desiring an even smaller percentage of women.

This means that those women  that are hot are going to be fawned over, put on pedestals, sucked up too and hit on ALL THE TIME by 99.9% of men. Now there are some guys that don’t have the courage, confidence or game to go for the hot girls, but even they will usually say something awkwardly obvious to girls like these.

The result?

Hot girls in fat countries are stuck up

Because of an unnatural amount of guys sucking up to them and fawning over them, these women start to believe they are gods gift to planet earth; they think that their dating market value is much higher than it really is.

Then there is the fact that there should be more hot girls walking around, but those hot girls have turned themselves into Jabba the Hut. Many of these fat girls would actually be stunners if they took care of their body. If they did that, the small amount of hot girls wouldn’t get so much attention from so many men and the world would be a better place.

Fat people don’t think that obesity affects anybody but themselves

Most fat people really believe this. They think that they are not hurting anyone and that it is their body to do with as they please. But they do affect other people. They affect men and the dating market. Not only do they make it harder for men to score with the girls they are attracted to, they are forcing some men to choose something that is unattractive to them or be celibate.

As an American and with Obama Care starting up, obesity will be reaching into my wallet and taking money from me. Obesity causes countless medical problems and those are problems that the government is going to be paying for and since the people pay for the government… the people pay fat people to be fat.

On top of all that there is the fact that a large amount of fat people are on welfare or medicare. So, even more tax dollars are going to feed an unhealthy lifestyle that fucks up society.

Obesity literally affects other people because they have to look at it. Being fat is not natural. It happens because people eat more food than they need to. When you stare at excessive fat you are not seeing the natural form of a human being, you are seeing a sickness, a sickness that they can help, but don’t.

Furthermore, I hate fat girls because they don’t see how much it affects themselves. They are depressed because no guy they like actually likes them. They are depressed because they can’t go do the activities they want to or fit into a beautiful dress. They are sad because it is affecting their health.

If every one of these girls made it their number one priority to lose weight, not only would they be happier, but society would be happier.

Why obesity in men has a different effect

Like it or not, we as men have to face the facts… we are shallow, especially in comparison to women. Women care about looks, but they care about looks much less than men. To know exactly how important looks, personality and money are to women check out: Understanding Sexual Attraction: What Makes A Woman Want You.

Because women don’t care as much about looks, this means that a fat guy can get a hot girl. This means that the obesity epidemic doesn’t affect how women feel about men as much as it affects what men feel about women. Men are the ones getting screwed. All the fat guys can still chase after the hot girls and they do.

All this still leads to the fact that 99.9% desire a small percentage of women. That is a problem.

 Mexico Vs. Philippines

Mexico, starting about six months ago, took the fattest country in the world title away from the U.S. I have traveled through a lot of South America and I will tell you right now, the hotter girls in Mexico are the hardest to crack out of any place I have been south of the American border. Why? For the same reason as before, fat girls are becoming more common over there, so the girls that stay skinny are getting ALL the attention from all the different types of Mexican men.

I have also spent a lot of time in the Philippines, a country with a very low obesity rate. Good luck finding any truly stuck up girls in the Philippines, I spent over 3 months there dating A LOT of women and I can’t remember a single one. Why? Because beauty is only affected by their genetics, not by obesity. The dating market is equal over there (actually in favor of men thanks to the high percentage of gays and lady boys).

What you can do?

The world is pushing towards ignoring obesity, even to the point of calling it beautiful at times. You must call obesity what it is, a sickness.

If you are talking to a fat girl, don’t tell her how beautiful she looks, tell her how beautiful she would look if she were a healthy weight. If a fat girl is asking you if she thinks she should diet, tell her that she better if she wants to live a long life. If a fat girl complains that no guy likes her, don’t pussy foot around the subject, tell her why no guy likes her.

Every person can help make the world a better place, one fat girl at a time.

The Promised Land

Men in countries with high obesity rates are getting shafted. These men are faced with a dating market that is stacked against them (if they want a girl they are naturally attracted to.) This is unfair and it is a problem that our forefathers never had to deal with.

You will notice that game is more popular in fatter countries. Surprising? It shouldn’t be. These are the guys that won’t accept dating a girl they are not attracted to, they know that the dating market is stacked against them.

The only way out?

I hate fat girls because of how hard it makes getting laid, but you can escape fat girls. Open up a map and go to any place with low obesity rates. Watch how much different an attractive girl will react when you start hitting on her; it will blow your mind. Watch as a relationship with a beautiful woman will naturally happen, without the need of high level game and lots of experience with women.

These places are the promised lands; they are the places that we were promised as kids. They are the places that we imagined when we grew up, back when we thought women were supposed to be sexy, feminine, thin and sweet creatures. The promise land exists… in a land far away… a land with very few fat girls.

Jimmy Carter: America No Longer A Democracy

Jimmy Carter Is Correct. The U.S. Is No Longer a Democracy

Posted: 08/03/2015 11:48 am EDT Updated: 08/03/2015 1:59 pm EDT

On July 28th, Thom Hartmann interviewed former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and, at the very end of his show (as if this massive question were merely an after thought), asked him his opinion of the 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon decision, both decisions by the five Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. These two historic decisions enable unlimited secret money (including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and judicial campaigns. Carter answered: "It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it's just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we've just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. ... At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell."

He was then cut off by the program, though that statement by Carter should have been the start of the program, not its end. (And the program didn't end with an invitation for him to return to discuss this crucial matter in depth -- something for which he's qualified.)

So: was this former president's provocative allegation merely his opinion? Or was it actually lots more than that? It was lots more than that.

Only a single empirical study has actually been done in the social sciences regarding whether the historical record shows that the United States has been, during the survey's period, which in that case was between 1981 and 2002, a democracy (a nation whose leaders represent the public-at-large), or instead an aristocracy (or 'oligarchy') -- a nation in which only the desires of the richest citizens end up being reflected in governmental actions. This study was titled "Testing Theories of American Politics,"and it was published by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page in the journalPerspectives on Politics, issued by the American Political Science Association in September 2014. I had summarized it earlier, on 14 April 2014, while the article was still awaiting its publication.

Is the US an oligarchy?

What do you think?

Do you think the wealthy have too much political power?

7,050 votes

94%

Click chart for answers

2 save share 4

The headline of my summary-article was "U.S. Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy Says Scientific Study." I reported: "The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's 'news' media)." I then quoted the authors' own summary: "The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

The scientific study closed by saying: "In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule--at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes." A few other tolerably clear sentences managed to make their ways into this well-researched, but, sadly, atrociously written, paper, such as: "The preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of 'affluent' citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do." In other words, they found: The rich rule the U.S.

Their study investigated specifically "1,779 instances between 1981 and 2002 in which a national survey of the general public asked a favor/oppose question about a proposed policy change," and then the policy-follow-ups, of whether or not the polled public preferences had been turned into polices, or, alternatively, whether the relevant corporate-lobbied positions had instead become public policy on the given matter, irrespective of what the public had wanted concerning it.

The study period, 1981-2002, covered the wake of the landmark 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Valeo, which had started the aristocratic assault on American democracy, and which seminal (and bipartisan) pro-aristocratic court decision is described as follows by wikipedia: It "struck down on First Amendment grounds several provisions in the 1974 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The most prominent portions of the case struck down limits on spending in campaigns, but upheld the provision limiting the size of individual contributions to campaigns. The Court also narrowed, and then upheld, the Act's disclosure provisions, and struck down (on separation of powers grounds) the make-up of the Federal Election Commission, which as written allowed Congress to directly appoint members of the Commission, an executive agency."

Basically, the Buckley decision, and subsequent (increasingly partisan Republican) Supreme Court decisions, have allowed aristocrats to buy and control politicians.

Already, the major 'news' media were owned and controlled by the aristocracy, and 'freedom of the press' was really just freedom of aristocrats to control the 'news' -- to frame public issues in the ways the owners want. The media managers who are appointed by those owners select, in turn, the editors who, in their turn, hire only reporters who produce the propaganda that's within the acceptable range for the owners, to be 'the news' as the public comes to know it.

But, now, in the post-Buckley-v.-Valeo world, from Reagan on (and the resulting study-period of 1981-2002), aristocrats became almost totally free to buy also the political candidates they wanted. The 'right' candidates, plus the 'right' 'news'-reporting about them, has thus bought the 'right' people to 'represent' the public, in the new American 'democracy,' which Jimmy Carter now aptly calls "subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors."

Carter -- who had entered office in 1977, at the very start of that entire era of transition into an aristocratically controlled United States (and he left office in 1981, just as the study-period was starting) -- expressed his opinion that, in the wake now of the two most extreme pro-aristocratic U.S. Supreme Court decisions ever (which areCitizens United in 2010, and McCutcheon in 2014), American democracy is really only past tense, not present tense at all -- no longer a reality.

He is saying, in effect, that, no matter how much the U.S. was a dictatorship by the rich during 1981-2002 (the Gilens-Page study era), it's far worse now.

Apparently, Carter is correct: The New York Times front page on Sunday 2 August 2015 bannered, "Small Pool of Rich Donors Dominates Election Giving," and reported that: "A New York Times analysis of Federal Election Commission reports and Internal Revenue Service records shows that the fund-raising arms race has made most of the presidential hopefuls deeply dependent on a small pool of the richest Americans. The concentration of donors is greatest on the Republican side, according to the Times analysis, where consultants and lawyers have pushed more aggressively to exploit the looser fund-raising rules that have fueled the rise of super PACs. Just 130 or so families and their businesses provided more than half the money raised through June by Republican candidates and their super PACs."

The Times study shows that the Republican Party is overwhelmingly advantaged by the recent unleashing of big-corporate money power. All of the evidence suggests that though different aristocrats compete against each other for the biggest chunks of whatever the given nation has to offer, they all compete on the same side against the public, in order to lower the wages of their workers, and to lower the standards for consumers' safety and welfare so as to increase their own profits (transfer their costs and investment-losses onto others); and, so, now, the U.S. is soaring again toward Gilded Age economic inequality, perhaps to surpass the earlier era of unrestrained robber barons. And, the Times study shows: even in the Democratic Party, the mega-donations are going to only the most conservative (pro-corporate, anti-public) Democrats. Grass-roots politics could be vestigial, or even dead, in the new America.

The question has become whether the unrestrained power of the aristocracy is locked in this time even more permanently than it was in that earlier era. Or: will there be yet another FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) to restore a democracy that once was? Or: is a president like that any longer even possible in America?

As for today's political incumbents: they now have their careers for as long as they want and are willing to do the biddings of their masters. And, then, they retire to become, themselves, new members of the aristocracy, such as the Clintons have done, and such as the Obamas will do. (Of course, the Bushes have been aristocrats since early in the last century.)

Furthermore, the new age of aristocratic control is not merely national but international in scope; so, the global aristocracy have probably found the formula that will keep them in control until they destroy the entire world. What's especially interesting is that, with all of the many tax-exempt, 'non-profit' 'charities,' which aristocrats have established, none of them is warring to defeat the aristocracy itself -- to defeat the aristocrats' system of exploitation of the public. It's the one thing they won't create a 'charity' for; none of them will go to war against the expoitative interests of themselves and of their own exploitative peers. They're all in this together, even though they do compete amongst themselves for dominance, as to which ones of them will lead against the public. And the public seem to accept this modern form of debt-bondage, perhaps because of the 'news' they see, and because of the news they don't see (such as this).

----------

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

In the news




Jimmy Carter Is Correct That the U.S. Is No Longer a Democracy

Huffington Post‎ - 1 day ago
American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run ...
We Are No Longer A Democracy
Canada Free Press‎ - 10 hours ago
More news for america no longer a democracy

---

US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study ...

www.commondreams.org/.../us-oligarchy-...





Common Dreams NewsCenter

Apr 14, 2014 - In America, money talks... and democracy dies under its crushing weight. ... American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the .... that will no longer "enrich the haves at the expense of the have nots,” so ...

America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic ...

www.washingtontimes.com/.../americas-oligarchy...





The Washington Times

Apr 21, 2014 - America is no longer a democracy — never mind the democratic-republic envision by Founding Fathers. Rather, it's taken a turn down elitist ...

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - BBC News

www.bbc.com/.../blogs-echochambers-2...





British Broadcasting Corporation

Apr 17, 2014 - "American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" ...

U.S. more oligarchy than democracy, study suggests | MSNBC

www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-us-no-longer-democracy





Apr 19, 2014 - Americans may like to think they live in a Democracy, but a new ... It also found that the preferences of the middle class made essentially no difference to a bill's fate. ... titled “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, .... It seems MSNBC takes awhile longer than the rest of us to figure out ...

[PDF]Testing Theories of American Politics - Scholars at Princeton

scholar.princeton.edu/.../gilens_and_page_2014_-te...





Princeton University

by EE Domination - ‎2014 - ‎Cited by 157 - ‎Related articles

groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence. Our results ...American democracy and by identifying some of the directions for future ...

America No Longer a Democracy President Jimmy Carter ...



https://plus.google.com/.../posts/96KzqnktCE7





Fat Bastardo

Apr 16, 2015 - America No Longer a Democracy President Jimmy Carter said it and believes and the same is true for Ron Paul. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont believes that ...

Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy

www.mintpressnews.com/princeton...u...no-longer...democracy/198678/





Nov 10, 2014 - A new study shows that America may no longer be the democracy it's celebrated as.

Is America an Oligarchy? - The New Yorker

www.newyorker.com/news/john.../is-america-an-oligarc...





The New Yorker

Apr 18, 2014 - “Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have ... such as “STUDY: US IS AN OLIGARCHY, NOT A DEMOCRACY,” from, of all ... There can be no doubt that economic élites have a disproportionate ...

US No Longer A Democracy. 94% of Americans Believe ...



https://plus.google.com/.../posts/NBaUUBHMHo6





Fat Bastardo

Aug 9, 2014 - US No Longer A Democracy. 94% of Americans Believe That. This it not just me saying this and it is not just the tea party. It's most Americans of every political ...

Hottest Years On Record: The Facts On Global Warming

Whether you call it climate change or global warming 97% of climate scientists agree that it is happening and human activity is the cause. The 3% of scientist who disagree are corporate whores, liars and traitors and need to be facing a firing squad.

Republican corporate fuck wads will tell their low IQ Republican base that human activity is not the cause but the FACTS (Republicans HATE facts.) Humans have created the rise is CO2 but the climate deniers/liars like that brutal whore Sarah Palin will tell you that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Palin actually believes that humans lived with dinosaurs. I guess any mother who would raise a whore for a daughter believes that the Flintstones were real.

RELATED: 

American Lung Association lauds Clean Power Plan for protecting vulnerable citizens CLICK HERE

Scientists point to often overlooked health benefits of limiting carbon emissions