Forum posts made by byronlord

Topic Have you followed the story of Belle Knox?
Posted 30 Mar 2014 19:39

What do I think? I think I am going to buy her video when it comes out.

Topic Happy Birthday TxPrincess
Posted 10 Mar 2014 07:47

Happy birthday Jenny

http://aiminglow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Keep-Calm-Happy-Birthday-819x1024.jpg

Topic Men's Watches
Posted 03 Feb 2014 04:42

If I am doing a consulting gig, I wear the Rolex in gold and steel. It is pretty much consulting uniform, to tell the client that you expect at least a certain size fee. But the all gold or watches or the ones with diamonds are generally considered naff.

I did buy a cheap watch at CostCo when I was going to Brazil. Paid $75 for it, now it sells for $500 on EBay because its considered collectable. So for everyday use I bought a Seiko Solar. It doesn't need battery replacement and it has a sapphire crystal face so it doesn't scratch.

Topic Nutella - YES or NO?
Posted 01 Feb 2014 08:43

It all depends on where the girl has spread it.

Topic job lying
Posted 23 Jan 2014 07:41

Ever lied about your job to some one your trying to impress for a night of sex, if so did you get found out what happened

Most people don't believe what I do so I don't usually tell them. And the reason they don't believe is that its the sort of thing people make up.

Topic Why would my wife hate giving blow jobs?
Posted 17 Jan 2014 06:20

why don't you ask HER? how the heck would we know? :)

Hows the afterlife thing treating you? Do they have WiFi?

Topic Is Chris Christie Done For?
Posted 16 Jan 2014 16:47

I was employing sarcasm. The world obviously needs to designate a font for it.

Trying to pivot to Benghazzziii is the GOP talking point on Christie. Its kind of stupid because it is rather obvious that a billion dollar real estate fraud is going to bring down pols on both sides of the aisle. There are plenty of democratic governors who have been bent, Blagoiovich in Illinois just went to pokey for corruption. That Detroit Mayor and so on.

What a lot of the corruptest pols have in common is having 'bipartisan' supporters. If a Dem is supporting a Republican or vice versa it is often because they are in on some joint scam that needs both parties to cooperate to steal the cash.

Topic Is Chris Christie Done For?
Posted 16 Jan 2014 15:24

His demise on the national level is for the best. Clearly he's ill-equipped for the White House if he can't even execute a few dirty lane closures without getting busted. That's small-potatoes. What happens when he decides to let a few diplomats die in Benghazi? This is where Obama's managerial chops really shine by comparison.

Four CIA agents working under diplomatic cover in the aftermath of a regime change that eliminated a major state sponsor of terror. Thats not quite the same as 6,000 US troops and 500,000 civilians dead as a result of an incompetent attempt at invading Iraq.

The House members currently grandstanding on Benghazzi are the same ones who earlier rejected proposals to increase spending on embassy security. So there is a strong whiff of hypocrisy. And Daryl 'car thief' Issa can hardly investigate someone for allegedly bending the truth when his modus operandi is to take depositions and selectively leak from them to give misleading info.

Topic Is Chris Christie Done For?
Posted 16 Jan 2014 12:10

News recently broke that NJ Governor Chris Christie and his staff deliberately caused traffic problems for a NJ city and its innocent residents because said city's mayor does not endorse Christie. See Story . Obviously this is incredibly petty and many people are saying that his career and any chance of a presidency or even nomination are done for. Do you agree? Or do you think he can still come back from this and at least get the GOP nomination?

He had no real chance at the nomination before so it has not really hurt his chances. Every year there is a candidate that we are told is 'a moderate' who has to get the nomination. That worked when Ailes at Fox News installed George W. Bush as president but hasn't since.

Every year the social conservatives back the Republicans in the hope of getting their racist bigoted agenda passed and every time they get nothing out of it because even if they get elected, most GOP pols realize there is nothing to be gained from it. Christie won't even kiss the ring of the social conservatives and he can't because the only reason he is considered 'bipartisan' is that he is moderate on social issues.

Other than that he is just another New Jersey pol and the state is one of the most conspicuously corrupt in the country. This scandal is going to take down plenty of New Jersey dems along with Christie. And the national dems don't care.

So far there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Kelly, Christie's deputy chief of staff ordered the bridge closed to cause traffic problems 'time for traffic in fort lee'. The deputy chief of staff typically controls the governors agenda and who meets with him (along with the CoS). So we have a person with a direct connection to Christie proven guilty beyond doubt. Meanwhile Wildstein, the guy who pled the fifth is promising to sing if only he gets immunity. The only people he can implicate who are more important than Kelly are Christie and his CoS, O'Dowd.

Meanwhile the motive for the delay turns out to not be petty payback for not endorsing the Governor. There is a massive development costing a billion dollars on the land right next to the bridge. Its a development the mafia tried to make happen several times in the past and they have succeeded in scuttling several previous efforts. The toll booth closures came when the city was trying to close funding for the project.

Although the issue has not been proved beyond doubt yet, by far the most plausible explanation is that the mob offered to support Christie with campaign ads if Christie would sink the development project on 'their' land. Christie ordered his goons to close the bridge verbally so as to not leave any trail.

Whether proven or not, the only way Christie could win is if Ailes decided he had the best chance of winning the White House against Clinton. And he is obviously very damaged and could well be impeached and possibly indicted before the election. So there is really no reason to back Christie now.

The other problem is the Katrina effect. Katrina didn't sink Bush's popularity just because the storm response was incompetent. The bigger issue was that once he was seen to be incompetent on that subject, people questioned his competence elsewhere. Christie is now having to fight accusations he closed the bridge to bully Fort Lee. Even if that is never proved, the guy is a horrible boorish slob who frequently bullies people on camera. That may look good once or twice. It is different seeing a politician speaking their mind. But after the third blow up in a day on the campaign trail... he would tank horribly.

Topic Time to Ban and Burn confederate flags
Posted 15 Jan 2014 21:08


I have to disagree about the Boston Tea Party. The people who held the party were concerned about British tea, which was priced lower than the tea that they smuggled in and sold themselves, even including the tax stamps. Legally imported tea, with a proper tax stamp actually cost less than the tea that colonists smuggled in and sold, and the smugglers didn't like the competition. It's always about money.

...

Oh, and fuck the Queen and her family. Simon Hastings is rightful king of England, Scotland and Ireland, as well as Prince of Wales. When he comes back across the water we'll see the Windsors all hanged.


It was actually rather more principled or at least logical than you suggest. If it was about taxes then changing governments made no sense, taxes were sure to go up. What they wanted was to be able to have a say in the decisions of the colony of which taxation policy was the one they could all agree on.

What was unexpected was the ridiculous over-reaction to what was not an uncommon sort of protest at the time. That was what brought Franklin and the anti-slavers on board.


As for Brenda (queeny-poos to you), I think Americans give her far too much respect. Therefore she should be restored to her proper place so that you can all disrespect her properly and with feeling like the Auzzies and other colonial types rather than fawn over her. Last time she came to the US the secret service had to remove six American owned tongues from her bumhole and that was just the press corps and congress.

Topic Time to Ban and Burn confederate flags
Posted 14 Jan 2014 16:59

Anyone that wants to band the confederate flag knows nothing about American history and should do some reading!!! The civil war was not all anout slavery higher taxes and less say in goverment was another asspect but nobody ever wants to admit that there was other things besides slavery. I would say thats why it is being toted out in todays world. Remeber what the south has always said "One day the south will rise again!!"

I want to burn all US flags and restore the country to its proper place under the Union Jack and the British Crown.

And your civil war like the revolutionary war was all about slavery. The real reason Boston held the Tea Party was that it was at the center of the slave trade which was threatened by the Mansfield declaration. The civil war was started when a group of slave owners organized the confederacy to protect their property interests.

Of course there have been other pretexts advanced since but slavery was the main reason for both wars and trying to pretend it wasn't there is just trolling.

Topic AUTHORS - 6 New Categories - Please move any stories you have which would be better suited to the ne
Posted 14 Jan 2014 11:21



It would also appear, from the search box functionality in the top right, that they do not approve of same sex relationships.

Think

That is pretty untrek like.

Did folk notice that Dr Who had a same sex relationship at the center of a plot story a while back?

Topic AUTHORS - 6 New Categories - Please move any stories you have which would be better suited to the ne
Posted 14 Jan 2014 10:49

Sci-Fi - Aww, yeah! http://www.lushstories.com/images/emoticons/smile_teeth.gif

http://upload.lushstories.com/434602255-mTu1ngsJwAPN6wtu5yiBIdA.jpg

There is already a site for that. You could be the only girl on it:

http://www.dateatrekkie.com/

The reason I say only girl is that if you go to the site you will see that the front page only has listings from women. But the site doesn't know whether the visitor is male or female. Therefore the all female lineup is to encourage men to sign up. Therefore the site designers are not anticipating the need to encourage women to sign up. Therefore no women are visiting the site to sign up. Therefore all the people on the site are men chasing bots pretending to be women.

Which gives me the premise for my next SF themed sex story.

Topic Time to Ban and Burn confederate flags
Posted 13 Jan 2014 21:30

just a thought. how many arguing for pro-flag have ever had racism or bigotry directed specifically at them? how many know, first hand, what it feels like, to be discriminated or stereotyped or worse because of your color, etc? like i said, just a thought. as i've said, it's not just a flag - it's a symbol of something for more potent.

Lots of bigots are victims of bigotry. The situation in South Africa got that way because the Boers felt they were being put down by the British. So when they got the chance they lorded it over the Blacks. Israel is currently run by a gang of vicious bigoted bullies whose world view is a reaction to anti-semitism in their youth.

Southern racism and the segregation thing is not just a continuation of slavery. One of the reasons so many Southerners are still bought into it is that they feel the South lost its pride in the civil war and was subjugated to the North. Lording it over and harassing black people is how that type of person copes with their feelings of inferiority.

Now that the flag is unacceptable the racists have taken to waving guns in people's faces. That is what the open carry laws are all about. Unless you are military or police there is no reason to go to the grocery store carrying an automatic rifle. The reason people do that sort of thing is because they want to show folk that they have the power.

The racists aren't the only people who do that of course but that is the new confederate flag as far as the racist types are kkkoncerned. Wait till they start putting an AK47 on their state flags.

Topic Girls.......does size matter ?
Posted 10 Jan 2014 18:05

Yeah, I don't think most girls are too thrilled with a dick so long that it pokes them in the cervix.

Also pricks longer than 10" tend to wear out.

Topic Have you ever masturbated at work?
Posted 10 Jan 2014 18:02

Yeah most days but I work at home so its not a big issue.

Topic A religion wants to change beach attire laws
Posted 08 Jan 2014 13:35

Thank you titaniumcufflinks. I probably didn't make myself clear, but my point was "heard on the radio this morning" etc., is not proof to me that "a certain religion wants to make women cover up on the beach". Until I have better bonifides than that, it sounds a lot like just an imflamatory remark. As I see from the responses here, it does generate a lot of varied opinions. I also quite agree with ByronLord and Sandrita48. Just saying.

The lack of self-examination seems to be the norm here.

Yesterday I was at a meeting of the New World Order and we had the usual blather from a US general complaining about Brazil which has just called a big conference on governance of the Internet as a direct response to the Snowden/NSA leaks.

General: "What has Brazil done to further human rights recently?"

Me: "Well in 1985 they removed the military dictatorship that murdered tens of thousands of fellow citizens and served as the model for similar regimes across Latin America that were also installed with the active involvement of the CIA and NSA."

General: "Do you think they hate America for it?"

Me: "No General, I think they hate senior military officers who consider themselves beyond accountability."

Perhaps there is a reason I don't get invited very often.

Topic The fake Benghazzzzi scandal
Posted 01 Jan 2014 19:10

Do you think if your a parent to one of the four Americans killed in the attack you deserve an answer to some of the obvious questions? Than to have Hillary at a congressional meeting make the comment "what difference does it make" when she was in a position to deliver the answers to these questions. Who ever wins the next election is going to find themselves in a very difficult position with this country being more than likely over 20 trillion in debt behind a president that promised to cut it in half and totally belittled the president before him for what he did to the debt. Hope and change is more than likely the main theme for who ever runs. Republicans will always be criticized for holding back congress but when you look at our debt level the reason is pretty obvious people will wonder why they didn't do more.

Since I have worked in intelligence, no. Everyone who goes on active duty in a war zone understands that there are risks.

Claiming that Hilary was referring to the deaths when she asked what 'difference does it make' is a contemptible lie. She was referring to the Republican claim that there was a coverup because the administration did not accept the Republican party version of events.

George W Bush caused the deaths of 7000 american military, a larger number of US contractors and 500,000 Iraqi civilians and nobody in the Republican party has ever cared a damn or asked a question.

And as for the debt, it was the tax cuts for the rich, the unfunded GOP war and the financial crisis caused by GOP regulators not doing their job that ran up the debt.

Topic The fake Benghazzzzi scandal
Posted 31 Dec 2013 15:53

For over a year now, the Republican party has been trying to tell us that the Administration lied in the initial reports of what happened in Benghazi and that there has been a cover up.

Bow it turns out that the administration did not immediately tell the whole truth, the building that was attacked was actually a CIA facility, not a diplomatic post. But over the weekend the NYT printed a story that completely backs up the administration account in every respect. There is no evidence of Al Qaeda involvement and protests against a bigoted You Tube video played a role in the attack.

Now obviously we don't know what happened for certain and will probably never know exactly what happened. And just like the terrorist movements of the 1970s, there are certainly links between the various groups with similar or shared goals. So we could argue as to whether one of the groups involved was an Al Qaeda affiliate or was more distantly connected.

But I really can't see how the Republican party manage to move from the claim that their version of events has not been proved to be conclusively wrong that they made in response to the NYT story and their original claim that the administration lied and covered up.

Why are we meant to be outraged that the CIA talking points were modified to remove references to Al Qaeda when over a year later there is still no conclusive evidence that Al Qaeda was involved?

It seems to me that if a politician is trying to argue that someone has lied then they need to provide conclusive evidence that their version of events is correct and the stated version of events was known to be false. Claiming that the alternative version of events could be true does not seem very convincing.

Does anyone really expect this to stop Clinton getting the 2016 nomination or winning the WH? It can see that it would cause Fox News watching rubes to open their pockets and send some fake campaign organization fifty bucks. But how is it meant to change the electoral outcome?

Topic A religion wants to change beach attire laws
Posted 30 Dec 2013 19:32


So you think it's ok for people to go to the USA and be subversive just because they think that the government is obnoxious?

Yep, sure do. And the US has been doing that to the rest of the planet for years.

What is different is that I don't believe that we have the right to force that change with bombs, bullets and threats of murder. Which makes me different from both Al Qaeda and the US military.

Topic A religion wants to change beach attire laws
Posted 30 Dec 2013 16:55


Whilst I agree with most of what you say, I feel that people of other religious beliefs should not come to a country and try to change it! If I were to move to another country I'd show more respect for their laws and traditions. I would not move to a country where it is illegal to be gay and then expect them to change the law. I would support those that lived there and wanted to bring about change!

I disagree. When I visit a country with an obnoxious government it is generally with the objective of undermining and eliminating it. So I can hardly complain

On the other hand, there aren't many obnoxious governments left and of those none that I can safely visit so its not much of an issue.

Topic A religion wants to change beach attire laws
Posted 30 Dec 2013 16:55


Well in the UK the biggest Department Store chain was allowing Muslims to refuse to sell alcohol and pork to customers in the foodhall! That's not an exaggeration, my point would be don't work there, don't apply for the job! I couldn't see it happening in USA but then again who'd of thought prohibition would ever happen there?

It was only one branch and it is just as haram to work for a business that sells pork as to handle the sake directly.

I just joined the church of the papal mainframe where nudity is required for all services (google it if you don't believe me).

Making idiot demands of everyone else to observe religious taboos is an old game for spreading religious bigotry. It isn't tolerance to give in when doing so forces everyone else into observance, rather it is the opposite. Especially when the taboos they are trying to spread are sexist.

And no, Islam does not respect women specially or any such twaddle any more than Christianity did before the sexist bigotry started to be dumped a hundred years ago.

Topic What is the GOP going to tell all those people they denied Obamacare?
Posted 09 Dec 2013 17:25

Now that Healthcare.gov is working and people are starting to sign up, a sizable number of people are discovering that they won't be covered because their governor opted out of the Medicare expansion that covers the working poor that make too much to qualify under the old rules but too little to buy insurance even with subsidies.

There will be about 5 million people in this group and they all live in the swing states or Republican states. The ACA requires states to extend Medicare to this group but the partisan Supreme court decided that democracy was too good for poor people to benefit from. That was trumpeted as a victory at the time but it could hurt the GOP badly in 2014.

I can see the attack ads now. A picture of a Republican who opposed the expansion, a picture of someone who was unable to buy healthcare, their grave and weeping kids. Times about 100,000 which is about the number of people the GOP will manage to kill with this policy. The message will be very loud and very clear: The GOP healthcare plan is that if you a poor and get sick, you die.

Another group of about 10 million in those same states is the people who will only have health insurance because of Obamacare. Some of those might well have preferred to continue to free ride but the overwhelming number of people who are getting access seem to approve.

All of this might well result in a rather different outcome for the mid terms than the GOP was banking on.

Topic I Am An Atheist. (Does that offend you?)
Posted 02 Dec 2013 21:07



http://i.imgur.com/87Ybt.jpg

While Homer's response is apposite, Pascal's original contention was that he would lose nothing through a belief in God.

I find the claim false because belief is not a voluntary process, it is not a choice. To claim the existence of a deity that can create a Universe as large as ours and then spend time tormenting souls over some egotistical issue like that seems completely illogical.

But the bigger problem is that the consequence of such a belief is to spend one's life bowing and scraping to priests and/or other self appointed intermediaries of said deity which seems equally ridiculous. Why would God set up a git like L Ron Hubbard as his sole representative on earth? Does the length of time for which claims of that kind have been made make them any more credible? Not to me.

Topic I Am An Atheist. (Does that offend you?)
Posted 02 Dec 2013 21:00

He shows time and time again to be surprised what his words bring about. I find it more reasonable to think that he was unpleasantly surprised by the response he got and the direction the debate was heading that he decided to refrain from any more comments. I can even imagine that some people close to him advised him no to respond anymore.
But even if he knew what the outcome would be then still he would be only responsible for his own actions, right? Not for the rape and death threats made by others.

Really? If I knew someone in that situation my strong recommendation would be to clear up any misunderstanding and retract immediately and condemn the people threatening violence. It is not as if his 'Dear Muslima' post was particularly insightful and the anti-muslim sentiments he expresses are borderline racist in any case.

He is certainly guilty of an act of omission here if not outright commission. I find his behavior inexcusable. More to the point, so does much of the atheist community at this point.

Topic I Am An Atheist. (Does that offend you?)
Posted 02 Dec 2013 10:58



I don't know where you got your information from, but Evolutionary Psychology is nothing more than the study of behaviors and mental faculties from an evolutionary perspective. Just like evolutionary theories in general study why and how species adapt, evolutionary psychology studies why and how such faculties develop through evolution.

It doesn't support eugenics more than evolutionary theories in general do.

Also the term 'Freudians' is quite dated. Few psychologists today rely only on the ideas of Freud ; most in fact reject them.


That was the point, people reject Freud and eugenics because it is pseudo science.

When skeptics are talking about Evo Psych they are referring to one particular school which tries to 'explain' results of modern day psychology experiments in exclusively evolutionary terms. So they ignore all the social and cultural factors that might have led to the result and instead make up a 'just so' story on the African Savannah.

The studies are junk because there is no way to separate out biological and cultural effects rigorously and there is no way to test the purported evolutionary cause. Moreover the claim that adaptation effectively ended 100,000 years ago has been repeatedly debunked.

There are some very broad evolutionary adaptations that are generally accepted as valid but none that are unique to Homo Sapiens. So parental investment theory that supposes a female mammal has a greater interest in mate selection than a male seems sound but that theory applies to rats, mice, cats, dogs, etc. not just humans.

Every powerful theory attracts cranks and charlatans. They are just easier to dismiss in physics than biology.

Topic I Am An Atheist. (Does that offend you?)
Posted 01 Dec 2013 19:31

He made a stupid remark indeed (or two I believe), but to suggest that he did it to encourage his supporters to post extremely nasty attacks on his behalf seems rather far fetched. The explosion of misogynist crap was already unfolding when he posted his comments. Can you backup your claim that his intentions went beyond the comments themselves?

Actually the death and rape threats only started after he intervened but it was already nasty. He knows what his words incited and he hasn't said a thing since. So he is responsible regardless of what his original intentions might have been.

Topic I Am An Atheist. (Does that offend you?)
Posted 01 Dec 2013 07:13

When we think about what it is that offends us about people's belief systems, or what bothers us about how others define our own, it's never the beliefs themselves, it's always the baggage that comes with it. The essence of a belief in a God, or an adherence to atheism- those are personal and benign. The judgmental brushes we tend to paint with are based more on an abusive, coercive Catholic education, fundamentalist authoritarian parents, haughty know-it-alls peddling Hitchens and Dawkins talking points, theocratic regimes that crack down on citizens or sponsor terror, etc.


Dawkins is boycotted by the younger part of the Atheist movement at this point. The crux of the matter is that Dawkins is a prima donna who can't bear to share a stage with anyone who might one day outrank him. So he refuses to speak at conferences if certain other people are on the agenda.

There is also a pretty ugly form of eugenics style ideology that he supports called Evolutionary Psychology he peddles. It is not real science, it is a pseudo science but they have their own journals and pass it off as science. Their behavior is very similar to the Freudians who also insisted on being called scientists. What they do is take a small scale psychology study and then interpret the results as being caused by entirely speculative guesses about evolutionary processes.

Unlike the Freduians, the Evo Psych people do have falsifiable theories, but the fact is that they have been falsified. But the reason that people like Evo Psych is that they can come to any racist of sexist conclusion that they like and call it 'science'. The atheist scene attracts some rather unpleasant Libertarian types who fancy themselves as Nietzschean supermen but frankly don't have the intellectual chops to make the argument.

Dawkins got into a rather unpleasant fight with Rebecca Watson a couple of years ago after Watson politely suggested that it was not a good idea to proposition women in an elevator at 4am in the morning. His response was pretty despicable and seems to have been calculated to encourage his supporters to post extremely nasty attacks on his behalf.

So while Dawkins is the public face of Atheism, he is persona non grata in much of the atheist movement.

Topic I Am An Atheist. (Does that offend you?)
Posted 30 Nov 2013 19:20

Stalin was an atheist too.

This is a classic example of ad hominem reasoning however, a logical fallacy. Only back in the day it was lack of faith in the pagan Gods that was evidence of whatever.

Marxism was pretty much a religion. It certainly had all the worst elements of religion. Even Karl Marx himself couldn't stand them. "All I know is I am not a Marxist"

Topic I Am An Atheist. (Does that offend you?)
Posted 30 Nov 2013 19:07



I don't think anyone has a problem with their taxes helping the poor... I think it is the fact that there are no good checks and balances to stop the abuse of the program... The scary thing right now is that 46% of the US pays taxes... 47% collects some kind of Government assistance? Does that math work?

Of that 47%, the vast majority are either children or seniors who have retired. The way the Republicans complain about that situation makes me wonder if they want to send children down the mines to work or let old people starve by stealing their social security pensions or both.

Of the rest, a staggering 860,000 members of the working poor all work for Walmart earning less than $25K/year. Walmart is the biggest welfare scrounger in the country which has found a way to get the taxpayer to subsidize its employees by paying them starvation wages and telling them how to sign up for food stamps.

Here is an idea, how about the government tax companies that have more than 5000 employees on food stamps to recoup the cost of the government benefits. 860K workers and a surcharge of $5K a head would be over $4 billion/yr in extra federal taxes from Walmart alone.

Or how about raising the minimum wage so that corporate scroungers like Walmart have to pay a living wage in the first place? $15 sounds like a good level to me.