SuicideGirl: Namaste
suicidegirl

Namaste walks into a bar....

I’m private
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 21

Next

Blog
MAY 16, 2012 @ 04:55 PM | 7 COMMENTS


I wanna start collecting people's user names like if your name is

ninja35.. i want to also have ninja34, ninja36. @ somethingsomething.com

can we make this happen?
can i PLEASE alphabetize my friends list ?!!?
what makes people want their name to be someone something and then a number?
whats it mean to you?
your age?
default?

lemme kno
MAY 7, 2012 @ 12:18 PM | 2 COMMENTS


zoom image

have you guys seen how adorable my mitten is?! i love cuddling with her. she's so fat and squishy!

zoom image
yay! arm session! almost done! haha, i was still really tired when i was cleaning this/picture taking.
the pink is poppin! now to heal it.. ugh, worst part imo. what's the worst part for you?

zoom image
here's a few friends and i playing on this drunk lady's laptop. it was very nice and trusting for her to let us, also, moderately drunk people use it.



zoom image
love him.
APRIL 18, 2012 @ 11:56 AM | 2 COMMENTS


lalala. so i think im going to post a set once a year until i'm 132 by then i should be old enough to quit.


zoom image


zoom image
How I feel about Spiderman

zoom image

friend and i got bro tattoos for our deceased friend.



MARCH 4, 2012 @ 11:06 AM | 5 COMMENTS





zoom image

FEBRUARY 24, 2012 @ 08:12 AM | 7 COMMENTS


It's been so dreary outside. i need sunshine.

Ive been working everyday it seems. Except today. I've had enough.
Having a massage later.



JANUARY 25, 2012 @ 09:39 AM | 6 COMMENTS


While it's known that the US has used indefinite detention of suspects in its "war on terror", Congress has voted to make the same treatment legal for US citizens apprehended within the US.

The House of Representatives passed the 2012 National Defence Authorisation Act (or NDAA) on Wednesday and Senate approved it (86 to 13) on Thursday. But the Senate had already passed one version of the bill on December 1, with 93 votes in favour of and seven against - a remarkable margin.

The NDAA, which includes the 2012 $662bn military budget and more. But civil liberties advocates are concerned over a section in the legislation that deals with the detention of civilians by the military.


Tea Party Sen. Rand Paul - one of seven who voted against the bill - questions the bill's constitutionality [C-Span]


Provisions in the bill codify an approach that allows for endless detention of US citizens and non-citizens picked up anywhere in the world. They also gives the US military the option to detain US citizens suspected of participating or aiding in terrorist activities without a trial, indefinitely.

A person can be detained "under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities", the bill states. The hostility in question here is the "war on terror", and at the moment, it seems to have no end.

Attempts were made by several senators to strip the bill of that provision, but those attempts failed. Indeed, most of those who fought to have the provision removed from the bill - such as California's Senator Diane Feinstein and Colorado's Senator Mark Udall (both Democrats) ultimately ended up voting in favour of the bill.

Al Jazeera tried to contact nearly 30 senators from both sides of the vote (including co-sponsors senators John McCain and Carl Levin) but none seemed to be willing to talk or to answer questions about why they either voted against the provisions or, alternately, why they feel they are necessary and why the US justice system is inadequate to deal with terrorist suspects.
serious business
Senator Rand Paul Detained by TSA

I actually had a better link on this but it "disappeared"

For those of you interested in SOPA and PIPA laws...
More Laws That will Limit or control information on Internet.


You tube video for people interested in voting for Mitt Romney..

WEED AND DETAINMENT
smoke weed, do you? Well maybe you should think again..
could you be detained for smoking? Accused of being a Terrorist for smoking weed? Maybe.
Read Above.

zoom image
Reposting this because i love it. but topics above deemed more important than single image of baby polar bear.

also:
occupy



zoom image
JANUARY 23, 2012 @ 11:49 AM | 5 COMMENTS


zoom image

JANUARY 21, 2012 @ 07:55 PM | 4 COMMENTS


zoom image
cutie!!!

zoom image
Moose kisses!!!
zoom image
yummy!!
JANUARY 14, 2012 @ 12:26 PM | 7 COMMENTS




yay!! puppy rescue!!! woot woot!


I want a penguin bodyguard




zoom image
pew pew. those are laser sounds. mlk was a jedi.

zoom image

and I know I usually only post funny things... but I feel that some things should not be kept quiet. like this for example:

While it's known that the US has used indefinite detention of suspects in its "war on terror", Congress has voted to make the same treatment legal for US citizens apprehended within the US.

The House of Representatives passed the 2012 National Defence Authorisation Act (or NDAA) on Wednesday and Senate approved it (86 to 13) on Thursday. But the Senate had already passed one version of the bill on December 1, with 93 votes in favour of and seven against - a remarkable margin.

The NDAA, which includes the 2012 $662bn military budget and more. But civil liberties advocates are concerned over a section in the legislation that deals with the detention of civilians by the military.


Tea Party Sen. Rand Paul - one of seven who voted against the bill - questions the bill's constitutionality [C-Span]


Provisions in the bill codify an approach that allows for endless detention of US citizens and non-citizens picked up anywhere in the world. They also gives the US military the option to detain US citizens suspected of participating or aiding in terrorist activities without a trial, indefinitely.

A person can be detained "under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities", the bill states. The hostility in question here is the "war on terror", and at the moment, it seems to have no end.

Attempts were made by several senators to strip the bill of that provision, but those attempts failed. Indeed, most of those who fought to have the provision removed from the bill - such as California's Senator Diane Feinstein and Colorado's Senator Mark Udall (both Democrats) ultimately ended up voting in favour of the bill.

Al Jazeera tried to contact nearly 30 senators from both sides of the vote (including co-sponsors senators John McCain and Carl Levin) but none seemed to be willing to talk or to answer questions about why they either voted against the provisions or, alternately, why they feel they are necessary and why the US justice system is inadequate to deal with terrorist suspects.

serious shit

You have no rights, america.
DECEMBER 6, 2011 @ 02:12 PM | 5 COMMENTS


damn its been a long fucking time

ok so i read this today.. i know its alot of words.. >.< but..it is fucking hilarious.. because its from some creepy guy who went on a date with this girl once.. anyway, the guy totally reminds me of my ex .. and the letter reads:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Hi Lauren,

I’m disappointed in you. I’m disappointed that I haven’t gotten a response to my voicemail and text messages.

FYI, I suggest that you keep in mind that emails sound more impersonal, harsher, and are easier to misinterpret than in-person or phone communication. After all, people can't see someone's body language or tone of voice in an email. I'm not trying to be harsh, patronizing, or insulting in this email. I'm honest and direct by nature, and I'm going to be that way in this email. By the way, I did a google search, so that’s how I came across your email.

I assume that you no longer want to go out with me. (If you do want to go out with me, then you should let me know.) I suggest that you make a sincere apology to me for giving me mixed signals. I feel led on by you.

Things that happened during our date include, but are not limited to, the following:

-You played with your hair a lot. A woman playing with her hair is a common sign of flirtation. You can even do a google search on it. When a woman plays with her hair, she is preening. I've never had a date where a woman played with her hair as much as you did. In addition, it didn't look like you were playing with your hair out of nervousness.

-We had lots of eye contact during our date. On a per-minute basis, I've never had as much eye contact during a date as I did with you.

-You said, "It was nice to meet you." at the end of our date. A woman could say this statement as a way to show that she isn't interested in seeing a man again or she could mean what she said--that it was nice to meet you. The statement, by itself, is inconclusive.

-We had a nice conversation over dinner. I don't think I'm being delusional in saying this statement.

In my opinion, leading someone on (i.e., giving mixed signals) is impolite and immature. It’s bad to do that.

Normally, I would not be asking for information if a woman and I don't go out again after a first date. However, in our case, I'm curious because I think our date went well and that there is a lot of potential for a serious relationship. Of course, it's difficult to predict what would happen, but I think there is a lot of potential for a serious relationship developing between us one day (or least there was before your non-response to my voicemail and text messages).

I think we should go out on a second date. In my opinion, our first date was good enough to lead to a second date.

Why am I writing you? Well, hopefully, we will go out again. Even if we don't, I gain utility from expressing my thoughts to you. In addition, even if you don't want to go out again, I would like to get feedback as to why you wouldn't want to go again. Normally, I wouldn't ask a woman for this type of feedback after a first date, but this is an exception given I think we have a lot of potential.

If you don't want to go again, then apparently you didn't think our first date was good enough to lead to a second date. Dating or a relationship is not a Hollywood movie. It’s good to keep that in mind. In general, I thought the date went well and was expecting that we would go out on a second date.

If you're not interested in going out again, then I would have preferred if you hadn't given those mixed signals. I feel led on. We have a number of things in common. I’ll name a few things: First, we’ve both very intelligent. Second, we both like classical music so much that we go to classical music performances by ourselves. In fact, the number one interest that I would want to have in common with a woman with whom I’m in a relationship is a liking of classical music. I wouldn’t be seriously involved with a woman if she didn’t like classical music. You said that you're planning to go the NY Philharmonic more often in the future. As I said, I go to the NY Philharmonic often. You're very busy. It would be very convenient for you to date me because we have the same interests. We already go to classical music performances by ourselves. If we go to classical music performances together, it wouldn't take any significant additional time on your part. According to the internet, you’re 33 or 32, so, at least from my point of view, we’re a good match in terms of age. I could name more things that we have in common, but I’ll stop here. I don’t understand why you apparently don’t want to go out with me again. We have numerous things in common. I assume that you find me physically attractive. If you didn’t find me physically attractive, then it would have been irrational for you to go out with me in the first place. After all, our first date was not a blind date. You already knew what I looked like before our date. Perhaps, you’re unimpressed that I manage my family’s investments and my own investments. Perhaps, you don’t think I have a “real” job. Well, I’ve done very well as an investment manager. I’ve made my parents several millions of dollars. That’s real money. That’s not monopoly money. In my opinion, if I make real money, it’s a real job. Donald Trump’s children work for his company. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so. George Soros’s sons help manage their family investments. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so. In addition, I’m both a right-brain and left-brain man, given that I’m both an investment manager and a philosopher/writer. That’s a unique characteristic; most people aren’t like that. I’ve never been as disappointed and sad about having difficulty about getting a second date as I am with you. I've gone out with a lot of women in my life. (FYI, I'm not a serial dater. Sometimes, I've only gone out with a woman for one date.) People don’t grow on trees. I hope you appreciate the potential we have.

Am I sensitive person? Sure, I am. I think it's better to be sensitive than to be insensitive. There are too many impolite, insensitive people in the world.

I suggest that we continue to go out and see what happens. Needless to say, I find you less appealing now (given that you haven’t returned my messages) than I did at our first date. However, I would be willing to go out with you again. I’m open minded and flexible and am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I wish you would give me the benefit of the doubt too. If you don't want to go out again, in my opinion, you would be making a big mistake, perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in your life. If you don’t want to go out again, then you should have called to tell me so. Even sending a text message would have been better than nothing. In my opinion, not responding to my messages is impolite, immature, passive aggressive, and cowardly. I spent time, effort, and money meeting you for dinner. Getting back to me in response to my messages would have been a reasonable thing for you to do. In addition, you arrived about 30 minutes late for our date. I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if a man showed up thirty minutes late for a first date with you.

If you're concerned that you will hurt my feelings by providing specific information about why you don't want to go with me again, well, my feeling are already hurt. I'm sad and disappointed about this situation. If you give information, at least I can understand the situation better. I might even learn something that is beneficial.

If you don't want to go out again, that I request that you call me and make a sincere apology for leading me on (i.e., giving me mixed signals). In my opinion, you shouldn't act that way toward a man and then not go out with him again. It’s bad to play with your hair so much and make so much eye contact if you’re not interested in going out with me again. I have tried to write this email well, but it's not perfect. Again, I'm not trying to be harsh, insulting, patronizing, etc. I'm disappointed, sad, etc. I would like to talk to you on the phone. I hope you will call me back at xxx-xxx-xxxx> (if it’s inconvenient for you to talk on the phone when you read this email, you can let me know via email that you are willing to talk on the phone and I’ll call you). If you get my voicemail, you can a leave a message and I can call you back. Even if you don't want to go out again, I would appreciate it if you give me the courtesy of calling me and talking to me. Yes, you might say things that hurt me, but my feelings are already hurt. Sending me an email response (instead of talking on the phone) would better than no response at all, but I think it would be better to talk on the phone. Email communication has too much potential for misinterpretation, etc.

Best, Mike



currently reading christopher hitchens.. god is not great.
its enjoyable.

if you're looking for a good horror movie this year:
zoom image

and finally, i wish you all a very
zoom image

PreviousNext
Past
JUNE 2012

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

MAY 2012

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

APRIL 2012

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

MARCH 2012

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31