11/21/2011 12:11 pm
Laura Jew said: I want black men. They want me. We look at one another and exchange a visible frisson of sexual energy in the lingering glances. And our attraction is based first on race. We are not those couples who "happen to fall in love" with someone of a different race or more purposefully come together but out of some greater sense of interracial understanding and respect. Not as politically-correct men and women do we seek one another out. The Internet has made it a lot easier for us to find each other now. Men advertise: ebony seeks ivory. Women write: seeking tall, dark, and handsome.
11/18/2011 3:22 am
Khrystos said: No matter how often you've seen them, when they play again on tv you'll sit there and watch.
The Social Network
song of bernadette
abbot and costello meet (all of them)
the man from earth
11/17/2011 11:16 pm
. said: . said: This.
A child is not a sexual object, they do not have adult sexual characteristics, and it is not normal to sexualize them. If you are into kids, you are wired wrong, and should not be in public, because eventually, you WILL try to touch a kid.
It's a mental disease to be attracted to children and they should be under the care of a psychiatrist to figure out what is wrong with them and fix it if possible. Whatever weird sex ideas about other adults, well not kidnapping and slashing them 300 times, is between adults. It may be just as mentally ill, but it's not illegal.
The power differential is the issue with adult/child also. Children really have no ability to say No to someone who would force themselves on them. In other cases with older children, it is about adult manupulation of an immature person, and it's a crime, too.
there is only one fix
that is all
11/17/2011 11:13 pm
. said: http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-news/2011/04/first_jackson_county_woman_arr.html
Note: She did not produce the porn. She downloaded and saved it. She now faces charges with worse consequences than attempted murder, manslaughter and shooting President Ronald Reagan.
She was merely studying to be a school teacher
11/17/2011 10:44 pm
. said: Correct - but you can apply when your contract is up.
Actually, I don't know if the "current member of the Navy" is still in place, as civilians can apply, I think they have a special program for that now.
Joining Navy Seals
Although there is no easy way to become a SEAL, there are several ways to become a SEAL candidate. As a civilian you can request to join the SEALs prior to enlisting through the SEAL Challenge Contract (Seaman to SEAL program). The SEAL Challenge Contract guarantees you the opportunity to become a SEAL candidate and entitles you to certain bonuses and benefits when you enlist.
If you don't get a SEAL Challenge Contract prior to enlisting, you can still volunteer to take the Physical Screening Test (PST) during the first week boot camp. If you successfully pass the PST a Naval Special Operation Motivator will interview you. The motivator will then submit a request for you to enter the Naval Special Warfare (BUD/S) training pipeline.
TIP: Be sure to tell the Navy recruiter that you want to take the SEAL Challenge before you enlist. SEAL volunteers that don't have the SEAL Challenge Contract prior to joining don't qualify for the same benefits as applicants that have the contract.
11/17/2011 10:30 pm
. said: I see these guys on these TV shows. 3 weeks of calisthenics and reading some instruction manuals. I
I bet I could do that. A few years as a SEAL and I bet I could rake in the cash from sweet consulting gigs.
Go for it, post from training. You have oodles of free time.
11/15/2011 3:13 am
RobertJHarsh said: . said: RobertJHarsh said: My point is if the books never got burned, we'd very likely be in some orbiting platform around Pluto by now. Instead we have these :repuke: fucks funding the second coming of Christ and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. This problem should not even exist and it wouldn't have if Christianity never came about.
Islam burned whatever Christianity left behind in the Library of Alexandria, so its tough to figure out whether the Christians or Islamics would have been more destructive. The Christians got there first, but, when Islam nose dived, (when Baghdad was sacked) it literally went back centuries within decades.
Maybe if you did research into how much science was paid for by the cuhurch you woould not post this insane horse shit. Maybe, but you always post shit here to show your head is fucking empty
I agree...but there was a lot of work done in Europe before the Blue Laws came about and the poop declared war on knowledge. I still say we would be farther than we are now if Christianity never came about.
11/15/2011 3:12 am
RobertJHarsh said: My point is if the books never got burned, we'd very likely be in some orbiting platform around Pluto by now. Instead we have these :repuke: fucks funding the second coming of Christ and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. This problem should not even exist and it wouldn't have if Christianity never came about.
Ya know what
Your side has poured the money for the mars missions and lunar colony into and and their herds of niglets. So shove the repuke up your ass faggot.
11/15/2011 3:08 am
. said: Albertus Magnus would have been among the first to realize that it only began with Islamic knowledge, and the bravery of a few people to stand up against the Catholic Church.
The Protestants were the driving force behind the scientific religion, not the Catholics.
After just a little research you would know that the vast majority of islamic scholars were actually jews and christians forced to convert . Without them the muslims would never have gotten past the camel fucking warrior asshole stage.
11/15/2011 3:07 am
zagoren said: . said: Stupidity abhors a vacuum. Remove Christianity, and all that will happen is you'll have more Muslims and Scientologists.
Muslims and Scientologists? Who cares. If you remove Christianity you might have less vociferous Muslimes who are anti-Christian.
The stupid level went to warp factor 9,000,000,000 with that shit.
11/10/2011 3:56 pm
Archivist said: What would be the viable alternative - State-run? Probably would be better for CA if we had the funding.
Before it became a department our education system was the envy of the world, since it started, we have not only circled the bowl but ended up in the sewer with the turd.
11/10/2011 3:55 pm
greedy fuck didn't ask to buy them, just wants them given without payment. Someone shold shoot that fucker in the head.
11/10/2011 1:54 am
. said: Everybody is full of shit - preachers, politicians, judges, your boss, your friends, your family
Get whatever you want, and don't give a fuck what anyone thinks.
I pick this as the wisest choice.
11/7/2011 10:57 pm
. said: Clue: rich people don't have income
Buffett, Gates, Ellison, Zukerberg.. none of them have income. They own stock that goes up.
That generates NO INCOME.
Buffett has a net worth of over 40 billion. How much has he paid taxes on? Basically none of it.
He pays himself 7 million a year or so. What percentage is that of 40 billion? 0.01%
That is what he pays taxes on.
That is why "the rich" billionaires are happy to have an increased income tax. They don't have income.
Now compare that to a doctor or something trying to get rich. They have an income. So, any income tax increase hits them.
If you increase income taxes, it does NOTHING to the super wealthy. It only affects the somewhat wealthy.
Bravo x 50000000000000
11/7/2011 10:51 pm
. said: That was the beginning of the end of the U.S. economy. Less than 10 years after that, most electronic manufacturing had moved to Japan.
See, here's the problem. The less the rich pay in taxes, the more profitable it becomes to screw the American worker.
See, before JFK's tax cuts, the rich were taxed up to 90%. So sending U.S. jobs to Japan just wasn't worth the trouble. The rich could only keep 10%.
This really picked up with Reagan. He cut the capital gains rate to 17%. This meant that stealing worker's pensions became fantastically profitable.
Only one problem with what you say. When the tax rate back then was 90%, with all the deducations and looppholes, no one paid that much. NO ONE. Why do morons keep bringing the 90% bullshit up.
11/5/2011 11:04 am
sh said: tituspullo said: So just do not watch it, no one twisted your arm faggot.
Don't worry, I turned it off when I was sure it wasn't going to get good.
Gee, awful lot of people here take this comic dog shit really personally.
Or just tired of whiny fuckheads who
11/5/2011 10:34 am
sh said: . said: I agree, americans should learn what real humor is.
Here's a hint: It's not the tripe that gets sent out to american TV like Mr Bean and The Benny Hill Show.
So just do not watch it, no one twisted your arm faggot.
11/5/2011 1:39 am
I would kill for that library
11/4/2011 5:04 pm
. said: the founding father also cannot forsee semi auto pistols and rifles. So, if you can have 1911 and ar15, you must allow nukes, and remote detinate bomnbs.
Liberal retard argument.
11/4/2011 5:03 pm
. said: tituspullo said: When ever morons bring up nukes and shit in the 2nd amendment argument tells me they are to stupid to have an opinion.
In other words, you have no response because your argument is shit.
I am not the saying nukes and shit. The only people I ever hear bring that garbage up are libtards getting their ass kicked in a debate over guns. You brought it up, put your winner mask on and fuck off.
11/4/2011 4:45 pm
. said: . said: Didn't know local militias named themselves after military units.
You're right, my real cock AND internet cock are bigger than yours.
Did someone mention cock
11/4/2011 4:41 pm
. said: . said: . said: Don't most U.S. states restrict possession of AR-15?
Um, no, you freedom hating simpleton. It's idiots like you who should never vote. Always thinking you need fucking permission from the government for everything you do in life.
Fuck you, stupid sheep.
Also, nothing in the Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment restricts private ownership of nuclear, chemical and/or biological arms. The notion that the Federal Government somehow has a "right" to strip me of all my nukes is utter horseshit.
When ever morons bring up nukes and shit in the 2nd amendment argument tells me they are to stupid to have an opinion.
11/4/2011 4:38 pm
. said: As a pacifist, I have mixed feelings about Phil Tagami wielding a shotgun but on the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for those individuals who are usurping a desperately needed political movement to create chaos, destroy public and private property and provoke a violent response from the police.
I hasten to add that, if he had actually fired the weapon critically injuring or killing someone, my reaction would have been totally different as a life always trumps protection of property.
Really, please give me your home address, oh and a list of all your shit.
11/4/2011 3:41 pm
. said: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016659192_prisonlabor01m.html
This is slave labor.... using prisoners to work at a for-profit company. I know that there are many ex-inmates and even parolees who would be willing to work for $22.00 per hour, even living in tents for the duration of the harvest.
This $22.00 goes to the guards' paycheck and various administrative costs of state workers and serves to provide an incentive to increase arrests, convictions and lengthy sentences. Having an incarcerated family member, I am familiar with the deductions of moneys earned by inmates, at this time they earn 42 cents per hour when working inside a correctional institution.
If the inmate earns money, or has money sent to them by families, there is a deduction matrix from the WA DOC website here: http://www.doc.wa.gov/policies/default.aspx?show=500 in series 200.000 click on "Deduction Matirx (Attachment 2)
All inmates don''t have all of the following deductions, but the minimum deduction is always 35% of every dollar received.
Here's how it breaks down. if the inmate earns $1 :
20 cents - goes to the courts for Legal Fines and Obligations
20 cents -goes to state for cost of incarceration
20 cents goes to Prison Litigation Reform Act fund - inmates are allowed to file appeals, the fee is waived, but when money is earned, it must be paid back.
20 cents - institutional debt (if an indigent prisoner is issued shampoo, for instance, when money is earned, it must be paid back to the institution)
20 cents - DCS or child support
20 cents for each federal court owed, which in the instance my family member is both the Eastern Superior Court and Western Superior court. - that's 20cents to EACH
5 cents for crime victims compensation
10 cents required savings at no interest for the inmate upon release, lifers and death row inmates are exempt from the savings plan. :-(
You may read the policy and matirx to see what is deducted first, until all the money is gone. My family member had some of these deductions totaling 95% with only 5 cents going to the victims fund, five cents to him and the rest going to courts, the state and other institutional expenses.
Using convict labor to work at for-provit companies is very, very incideous. I will fight it with everything I have in me. Washington State should ashamed
Don't commit a crime, you stay out of jail.
11/3/2011 10:24 pm
engagement rings by law are not "gifts" fuck that greedy witch. I hope they get sued and have to give back the ring and pay the husbands legal fees.