 |
|
I have to somewhat agree with Harold.
It is a fact that a naked (or sexy dressed girl) attracts (most) men.
It is a fact that most men will actually leave the girl alone!
It is a fact that some men don't.
It is not an excuse to violate a girl or guy because of reason X or Y, but if I would have a daughter she would NOT have my blessing to dress up in a way that might attract persons of lower morality. It happens and the chance of it happening is lowered by dressing up in a more accepted way.
(Which should not be taken as, let's dress up in Burka, that's the opposite side of extreme.)
Secondly, there's no real reason to dress up sexy other than attracting men. From what I gather (but I let females verify or not) high heels, short dress and sexy blouses are not all that comfortable. and reality is that some men apparently can't control the attraction.
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: One person wrote, "but then again, its kind like putting a meat suit on and telling a shark not to eat you".
Not to mention that although there are many fish in the sea and many sharks in the scenario above it only takes one to make it a very bad day.
Nagy Vilmos wrote: "We (men) are not f***ing sharks!
Obviously an optimist. Or someone that doesn't get out much.
Some obvious examples which would certainly suggest that some men are much, much worse would be Jeffrey Dalmer, Hitler and Uganda.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice tits!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
A man was sitting on the sofa watching TV when he heard his wife's voice from the kitchen....
"What would you like for dinner Love? Chicken, beef or lamb?"
He said, "Thank you, I'll have chicken."
“F**k off. You're having soup. I was talking to the cat."
If your neighbours don't listen to The Ramones, turn it up real loud so they can.
“We didn't have a positive song until we wrote 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue!'” ― Dee Dee Ramone
"The Democrats want my guns and the Republicans want my porno mags and I ain't giving up either" - Joey Ramone
|
|
|
|
|
The following question was asked in a recent poll
"Are there too many Immigrants in Australia?"
21% Said: Yes
79% Said: عهد الأمن العالمي
If your neighbours don't listen to The Ramones, turn it up real loud so they can.
“We didn't have a positive song until we wrote 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue!'” ― Dee Dee Ramone
"The Democrats want my guns and the Republicans want my porno mags and I ain't giving up either" - Joey Ramone
|
|
|
|
|
Mark H2 wrote: عهد الأمن العالمي
Era of Global Security... lol.
|
|
|
|
|
 
------------------------------
Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem
How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night.
War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
|
|
|
|
|
I hope Aboriginals get see this joke, the irony won't be lost on them.
|
|
|
|
|
Turns out they're all half Indian anyway.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
Shed Petition[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
The British didn't emigrate to Australia, they invaded and to the victor go the spoils.
|
|
|
|
|
_Josh_ wrote: The British didn't emigrate to Australia,
Quite right: we used it as a penal colony until parts of it actually became habitable.
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Barrow wrote: Quite right: we used it as a penal colony until parts of it actually became habitable.
How much longer until that happens? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would never buy one.
To transfer a gun (if Obama gets his way) would involve a FFL to perform the required background check, and then the weapon would have to be "re-printed" for the new owner. Some FFLs already charge $50 to transfer a weapon bought on the internet. They'll probably charge $50 more to re-print the gun. The feds would probably get their cut too ($10-20 as a tax to the government for re-printing).
The government could even mandate a limit on the number of times the gun can be fired (per day, or in total).
The added cost of the "technology" would place an unreasonable burden on potential buyers.
Finally, the electronics involved would have to be able to withstand repeated high-impact shocks from firing the gun, not to mention withstand the application of gun cleaning chemicals.
No, I don't think that will ever come to pass.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: The government could even mandate a limit on the number of times the gun can be fired (per day, or in total).
I think this is the only argument posed that I agree with. I hadn't thought of that. Then we'd need hackers to fix *our guns if we needed them.
* I don't own any guns myself
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
0 would be a good number of shots per day though.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's called a "Gun Root-kit". 
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
|
|
|
|
|
get Apple to make it, it will look wonderful but only shoot Apple approved targets (it will however be damn expensive)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: get Apple to make it, it will look wonderful but only shoot Apple approved targets (it will however be damn expensive)
To load a magazine, you would need to plug the gun into an ipad or iphone and use the LoadMyGun app to buy bullet instances.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
only if you can get itunes(ammo) to work, and it will only use Apple bullets (which will change every few years and be incompatable with your old igun)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: To load a magazine, you would need to plug the gun into an ipad or iphone and use the LoadMyGun app to buy bullet instances.
I thought you have to use the iShoot-Store 
------------------------------
Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem
How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night.
War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
|
|
|
|
|
James Bond uses a similar one in Skyfall.
|
|
|
|
|
I see it as useful for Law Enforcement weapons. Can't be used if disarmed, can track shots fired. These would be good to hold the LE simultaneously accountable and safe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
They join Wyoming in a definitive effort to invalidate unconstitutional laws:
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10700507[^]
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
modified 16-Jan-13 6:17am.
|
|
|
|
|
Everytime you tell that it's good for you to live in Texas you really make me happy. 
------------------------------
Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem
How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night.
War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
|
|
|
|
|
Anti-gun, pompous ass Cuomo with his backdoor deals just screwed us here in NY
|
|
|
|
|
reilly96 wrote: pompous ass
Does his accent quote Proust at you?
|
|
|
|
|
Except limiting types of firearms is not unconstitutional, at least according to the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on who you ask, and the SCOTUS is a political body (as opposed to its intended duty as a judicial body).
Limiting types of firearms IS unconstitutional.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Well, since it was in 2008 when the judgement was made and Scalia was the one who wrote the opinion about it, I would tend to follow the constitution and say that the highest judicial body in the land does get the final say on what is and is not constitutional.
Also, if you want to say that it is a political body, it would currently be a right leaning political body due to the views of who is sitting on it, and it certainly was leaning conservative when this decision was issued in 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
If its members are selected by politicians, it's only because said politicians want a court that will vote their way. IMHO, the only loyalty a supreme court judge should have is to the Constitution.
The 2nd Amendment does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the most part, shall not be infringed."
There are no riders, conditions, or exceptions. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee that the people will be on equal footing with any adversary that might present itself. On order to be on that equal footing, every sort of arms wielded by the military (or police) should also be available for the people to keep and bear. Given the cost of the more destructive stuff, not many people (if any at all) would be walking around with RPGs, or gatling guns bolted to the roof of their pickups, etc.
I'm satisfied with what I have (and wasn't part of the recent panic buying spree we witnessed over the last month). I was mildly concerned that I wouldn't be able to get replacement parts, but now that the panic has subsided, I'm sure it won't be a problem.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
I just want to point out that in most parts of the world (read: anywhere frequented by the USSR), RPGs are actually quite affordable, ranging from a couple hundred dollars to a couple thousand depending on the area (or less if you steal them from a stockpile instead of buying from someone who did). Yes, it is certainly expensive ammunition, but not prohibitively so, and I know lots of people who have spent more on sillier things (the missus and her Coach purse collection come to mind).
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: If its members are selected by politicians, it's only because said politicians
want a court that will vote their way.
Could be but that is the way it is done. And since, at least last time I checked, Supreme Court justices are human that means they will always have opinions.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: IMHO, the only loyalty a supreme court judge should have is to the Constitution.
I am rather certain, IMHO, that you would be hard pressed to find an Supreme Court Justice stating that their ruling was based on anything but that. And certainly not in the last 50 years.
Of course that doesn't mean that they must rule in a way that you find favorable.
But you might note as well that it is up to the citizens of the US to take an active role in their own governance and this includes them challenging those laws that they find/think are unfair. The Supreme Court does not and cannot go actively looking for unconstitutional areas to explore. Someone must bring it to them first.
The US political process is a participant sport not a spectator one.
(And as examples of that, that is exactly the problem with Chicago and Washington DC laws in which it took activitists years to find anyone willing to challenge the laws.)
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: The 2nd Amendment does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
for the most part, shall not be infringed."
Which would be meaningful if if that was the sole and only thing that the US was built upon. But it isn't.
And the founding fathers knew it. As such they and those since then recognize that rights are not absolute. Every right has limits.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: There are no riders, conditions, or exceptions.
You are wrong. The founding fathers recognized that a nation which consist of people (which is a plural) must seek compromises to allow for the nation to exist and continue to exist.
There are no absolutes. Not now and not ever.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Depends on who you ask
In the US the people to ask is the Supreme Court.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: and the SCOTUS is a political body (as opposed to its intended duty as a
judicial body).
Which is an opinion and has nothing to do with legality nor the nature of the US government.
Not to mention of course that the Supreme court has probably never issued a ruling that someone didn't like.
As an example of that if that wasn't the case then "Loving vs Virginia" would have never made it to the Supreme Court because West Virginia would have seen the error of their ways and not presued it. And the judges wouldn't have ruled against Loving in the first place.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Limiting types of firearms IS unconstitutional.
Nonsense.
The US does now, and always has since the very founding, recognized the need to place limits on rights. Rights are not now and never have been an absolute.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: They join Wyoming in a definitive effort to invalidate unconstitutional laws:
Arkansas thought they had the "right" to continue with segregated schools in 1957. They found out in short order that they were wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIoPjfLnEFY&feature=youtube_gdata_player[^]
Could it really have been planned in advance - by the government. I usually label this kinda thing as a crackpot conspiracy theory, but some interesting points are made - right up to the end of this 30-minute video, and especially at the end of it.
This is solidly in the category of "things that make you go 'Hmmmm'."
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Can you summarize the content?
The problem with conspiracies, especially one where so many people would be involved, is how to keep it a secret? For instance, the people that would have had to create the web sites a day or so before it happened, allegedly, would they not have wondered what on earth was going on? What about the children? If they weren't really shot, where are they?
It is a terrible shame that such a tragedy becomes the subject of such melodrama.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
You really gotta watch it. There are too many things in it, and I know I'll miss something or remember incorrectly. At the end of the video, they cite several Sandy Hook donation pages that were created several days BEFORE the incident. Of course, the pages have by now been removed, but they have video of in-browser displays of these pages.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
I'll try when I get home. I always take these things with a big pinch of salt; after all, what is the motivation that could possibly require killing children in cold blood?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
I think many of the conspiracy believers don't think there was a killing of children.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Could it really have been planned in advance - by the government
Evil Obama! I can hear his cynical laughter...
Also, 9/11 was staged by Dumbya. They have lots of videos to prove it.
|
|
|
|
|
Le Gauchiste wrote: Evil Obama!
I don't think Obama is evil... just a thinly veiled socialist.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
Thinly?
There is no veil.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
even so, it's not necessarily a bad thing.
The two parties have been rocking back and forth so long it was beginning to have less and less movement. Nothing like a little "out of the norm" to get things moving again.
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
I admit I haven't watched all of it, but anyway: "It kills your children" is one of those emotional triggers you can use to make people abandon all sense and logic. So yes, if you wanted to get rid of the 2nd amendment (or reduce it somehow), having a bunch of children shot could be a good solid part of your strategy. Without too much effort you would create an environment where your opposition would be seen by many as "the people who want my child to get murdered".
It's an excellent strategy, if you can keep the leaks under control. Make sure to paint those telling the truth (or anything sufficiently close to it) as crackpots. Discredit them in any way possible. Poison the well. Use black and grey propaganda.
Of course I'm not saying any of this happened - just that it would be a good strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, just like them changing "assault weapon" to "weapon of war" in the last couple of weeks. What they don't seem to understand is that "weapons of war" are EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment guarantees that we can own.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
people who perform acts like this will always be around. You can kill the same number of children with a billy club. Or you could choke them out and eat them. Guns are not necessary for violence and evil, they just happen to be there now.
I wonder how many cereal killers used guns to kill the victims? (I also wonder how many used cereal)
Animals kill other animals. We come stock with weapons, and there are many creative , as well as bland, ways to do violence other animals. This scenerio had a gun, but that is just this scenerio.
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
loctrice wrote: cereal killers
You need a gun to get your oatmeal?
I think you meant 'serial'.
Bob Dole The internet is a great way to get on the net.
 2.0.82.7292 SP6a
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know why your other message was removed? I didn't see anything in it that was spammish or even remotely offensive.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
Post your Blog
