LMFAO...you really think people see you as a respectful person? Now I'm ROTFLMAO now. Like Lady X said time to move on...I'm done with you.




Well.... Bye.

I'm so glad we're all listening to LadyX's words.

I have the utmost respect for X. That doesn't mean that I have to follow her advice all the time.

I may have to modify my statement if a "Mediator" is different or has different powers than a "Moderator". If a mediator's jobs and powers are less than those of a moderator, and you can't close/delete threads or censure/remove posts, or warn or ban users, you have my sincere apology for any incorrect assumptions I've made. I'll gladly eat that crow.

If a "Mediator" is only supposed to mediate a thread, e.g. remind people to keep people in the rules and/or maintain civil dialog, you're still a bad one. "Responding in kind" is the antithesis of mediation, and you, NP, should not have those privileges or that title either.

Having a slight position of authority here does not mean that I can no longer have an opinion on the threads posted here. I ALWAYS treat people with the utmost respect in all of my interactions with them, here and in real life. Only after someone treats me with disrespect does my attitude change. As a person, I give back as I get. Would it be your preference that I just start deleting things and giving people time-outs? But then, I'd have everyone complaining about all the deleted posts.

Hmm. What's a fellow to do?

My point exactly, Monocle and Brooke. I don't know where Nicola came in with the quote that Brooke used cuz I can't find it in this thread but it's funny how Nicola admonished me to refrain from name calling (I did use an expletive) and to act like adults but when it comes to one of her mod's it's "This forum should be more or less self regulated."
Wow.
From the beginning of my involvement in these opinionated threads Nudie has been condescending not only to me but everyone he doesn't agree with. A lot of people walk away from such rude bullying. Thats how bullies thrive. They intimidate people out of their way.
I have a reflective personality...You're civil with me I'm civil right back. Act like a condescending, moist, smelly pile of liquid crap and you get BITCH right backatcha.
The only posters you treat "fairly and without rancor" is anyone who agrees with you, Sprite and I'm sure Nicola gets your respect.
You're a waste of anymore of my time, Mr Moderator...HA! Thats a joke.

And one more thing...I've got this moist, smelly pile of liquid crap on block and this isn't his thread so how does that work that he continues to see anything I do? I thought blocking scum like him made my posts invisible to him? Oh well, doesn't matter. He asks for and deserves all the disrespect he gets from people in here.



Anyone who cares to look back will see that my first posts to you showed nothing but respect and civility. In return, I got "Jellohead" and "Cellophanehead", and now I'm getting " smelly pile of liquid crap" and "scum".

And you wonder why I regard you as I do.

Grow the fuck up.

Take a breath of fresh air and treat people here as you would in person. Unless you are actually an ignorant dumbass I'm quite sure you wouldn't call someone "Sugar-Tits" for disagreeing with you in person!

In all honesty, Brooke, I think I've been more than patient with the aforementioned poster. I treated her fairly, and without rancor, even AFTER she called me those names. Now, I'm simply tired of her attitude, and I'm done with letting her address me any way she sees fit without responding in kind.

All she has to do is address me with the same respect she wants me to give her. Is that so hard for her to do?

Okay " Sugartits "? " Jackassish " and " assholishness "

Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you don't have it in you to have an adult debate. As I said in my earlier post, you do not demonstrate the skills to debate in a forum and once again you have proven me right. I may be very wrong about how much of that weapon was plastic but i sure didn't reduce myself to calling you names. In fact, I thought Lush didn't allow this kind of name calling on their site. And you are MrNudie are one of Lushes forum moderators? Christ, what is this forum becoming. First you delete posts and now this name calling. It surely isn't constructive debate.

And true to form...you provided not one single bit of substantiating proof to contribute to your argument. Which means that once again, MrNudiePants you did what you do best...sit in your God-like realm and bloviates...now in technicolor with name-calling. You talk to and treat people this way and you say, if calling you out on your jackassish nature is 'bullying', then so be it. I guess I'm just a big, fat, nasty ol' bully. At least you're beginning to see your colors.

Just more nastiness coming from a forum monitor.

Would you prefer "Jellohead" to SugarTits? "Cellophane head"? Maybe you just want to remember how "they shoot horses, don't they?"

Act like a big girl, and you'll get treated like one. Act like a spoiled bitch, and guess how you'll get treated...

Okay, gang. Be ready to invest in tin foil futures. This is definitely not normal - not for our times, not for anybody's times.


From the Long Island Press:


The manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects offered the nation a window into the stunning military-style capabilities of our local law enforcement agencies. For the past 30 years, police departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the government’s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training, incentives offered in the ongoing “War on Drugs.” For the average citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully outfitted police SWAT teams and the military.

The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:

Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.

Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”


One of the more disturbing aspects of the new procedures that govern military command on the ground in the event of a civil disturbance relates to authority. Not only does it fail to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders.” According to the defense official, a commander is defined as follows: “Somebody who’s in the position of command, has the title commander. And most of the time they are centrally selected by a board, they’ve gone through additional schooling to exercise command authority.”

As it is written, this “commander” has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn’t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.) In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”

“These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” says Afran. “It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution . It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”

What does this mean to you? To me, it means just another infringement. It means just another power taken by the federal government that will never be rescinded. This power may never be used, or some general somewhere may decide the time is right to stage a coup, using these powers as his means of effecting change.

After all, twenty-nine percent of registered voters think that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years in order to protect liberties, according to a Public Mind poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University. (link)

Opinions?

So, "not only is automatic impossible, semi-automatic is impossible also. I posted two videos that challenged this in hopes that posters, like you MrNudie, would take the time to watch. It is obvious that you didn't take the time to view either of these in the same way that you didn't read or respond to any of the supporting arguments from my earlier posts. I'll make it real easy for you MrNudie...Scroll the second video to the 21:20 mark of the video and start counting. Wait. Counting might be too difficult for you and take too much time. So, just watch the video from the 21:20 mark. You will hear the two guys tell you how many bullets they shot. If their count is wrong, I believe we can at least agree that more than two shots were fired, right? Can we agree that more than ten shots were fired? How about more than ten? Can we agree on more than ten? This with a plastic, 3D weapon.

My point here is NOT that these guys made a 3D AR-15 weapon out of plastic. It isn't that they fired more than 10 rounds. that is obvious. The video doesn't lie.

My point is MrNudie, you don't watch or read anybody's posts of supporting evidence which means your are NOT debating. You are bullying. My evidence supporting this statement? Easy. If you had you watched the video you would argue the facts. You didn't argue facts, MrNudie. You sat in your cloud, your God-like realm, and shot down my statement when, in fact, there is a video that clearly shows what I stated...two guys who made a weapon out of plastic and shot numerous rounds out of the weapon. God, how simple can a position be?

Bullying is not a debate. It is condescending. It is belittling. Bullying makes a debate frustrating and boring. But I have faith in you MrNudie. While you exhibit poor debating skills you do show an intelligence capable of debating FACTS. Now, I'm sure you will, true to form, shoot down this attempt to get you to engage in legitimate debate based on facts and backed up with facts. In this case there is the video...for your eyes and mine to see and you said (read your quote provided above) it can't be done.

Please MrNudie debate the FACTS or, respectfully, stfu. People here want a debate on the facts. We don't want a debate based on your bullying...better than thou opinion. Give us backed up facts and debate our facts or don't debate at all.

But, as the PM's have been telling me, thats just how you roll. It is beyond me why that is tolerated here on Lush since Bullying is as bad, in my opinion worse, than using a common expletive to emphasize ones point.

What's scary is that there are people who are convinced the same as you are, and those people write our laws (and vote on them). Backatcha Bloviator! For those who don't know...bloviator is NOT an expletive.





Okay, SugarTits. Since you want to act all jackassish, I'll match your jackassery and general assholishness.

YOU don't seem to understand the feats produced in that video that you're offering up as "proof" of your superior internet wizardry.

It's not your fault that you're ignorant of how a firearm works and what components a firearms is made of. It absolutely IS your fault, though, that you remain ignorant when you have the entire internet waiting to teach you. Those guys manufactured magazines and a lower receiver. Two components of the rifle that bear absolutely NONE of the stresses of firing. They did NOT make a rifle. They didn't even make the important parts of a rifle. The didn't make the barrel, the chamber, the buffer, upper receiver, firing pin, recoil spring, buttstock, buffer tube... In short, they did NOT make the rifle that you seem so stupidly intent on saying that they built.

So, SugarTits, instead of railing on and on about how nobody understands the issue, and nobody watched your "proof", maybe you should try and learn a thing about the subject you're "bloviating" about instead of remaining ignorant. Or, maybe you should just shut the fuck up your own self. (No, I'm not gonna use the initials, like typing 'STFU' makes it less insulting.)

And hey, if calling you out on your jackassish nature is 'bullying', then so be it. I guess I'm just a big, fat, nasty ol' bully.

I've never seen a magazine, so I can't say whether you can actually see how it is made, or whether you just see the outside of it. In that, I'm at a disadvantage. But, whether or not you can see that it is "just bent sheet metal," that still does not mean that someone knows how to bend sheet metal to specific specifications. (A magazine, which will fit his or her particular gun) If I take my computer apart, I can see that the circuit board is "just metal laid out on plastic," but it doesn't mean that I would know how to actually make it. So does that mean that I don't know how to use a computer? You may think that you have proven that he knows nothing about gun use. To me, at best, you have proven he doesn't know anything about gun manufacturing. And he never said he knew how to make a gun, or a magazine, or even ammunition.

And the last point, I don't even know what to say. You want to make people think, to consider the opposite side, but refuse to do the same yourself. You shoot down every attempt at a compromise, admit that limiting magazine sizes would delay someone, either by forcing them to create a larger magazine themselves, or by forcing them to change magazines more often; and yet, still don't believe that there is a benefit to that. I asked you what you thought was a step in the right direction, as a way to help us understand how we could bridge the gap between us. That's always a good way to get a compromise started, if the other side is willing to move. Which you are not. I shouldn't have even responded to this, knowing that you are only looking to tell people they are stupid, naive, or flat out lying, when they have a viewpoint that's different than your own. But hey, I'm stubborn and reckless sometimes, and figure I just might be able to bite the troll before he bites me.

That's fair. Given the opportunity, I'd show you an assortment of magazines for different firearms, some metal, some plastic, and you could see for yourself how easy it would be to turn a ten-round magazine into a twenty, thirty, or forty-round magazine. It's not like a computer where all the work is done by invisible electrons, and hidden away from sight. And that's my point. ANYONE who has fired as many rounds through a magazine-fed firearm as is required to graduate basic training would know the exact same thing. What simple machines the magazine part of a firearm really is.

Limiting magazine size isn't a "compromise". It's an exercise in futility. It will only result in three things: creating criminals of people who are unwilling to turn in the ones they own, creating a black market in standard capacity magazines, and artificially raising the prices on the new, low-capacity magazines, as the demand skyrockets past the infrastructure's ability to supply. If doing these things are the actual goal of this new theory, then it'll work. If the goal is to reduce crime then it'll be a dismal failure, because not only will it NOT reduce crime, it'll actually spur an outbreak of a whole new class of criminal: the illegal magazine possessor.

What an old Beatles song has to do with anything, I don't know.

Of course there are deranged people in the world. There always has been and possibly always will be. Wayne LaPierre and his co-horts just defeated a bill that would have helped keep guns out of those deranged people's hands. That is equally deranged. Perhaps more so, as Wayne Lapierre is supposedly sane and legally responsible for his own actions.

The fact is, guns can be withdrawn, and murder rates - especially mass murder rates, can fall dramatically as a result. Australia has done it.

Will there always be something that can be used as a weapon, by someone intent on harming others, or by some deranged person? Of course. The point is to lessen the destructive power of weapons madmen can use, not to increase it. Mutually Assured Destruction only ensures one thing.

Right now, Iran is using a version of Stuxnet - a computer worm we unleashed on their nuclear facilities - to probe the internet security of our power grid. Pretty stupid of us, huh?



What a discussion on computer worms has to do with anything, I don't know.

Fact is, the bill that was up for a vote wasn't defeated by "Wayne LaPierre and his co-horts", it went through the legislative process and failed to garner enough support to be made into law. it was a stupid bill anyway. It deserved to die an ignominious death. Most of the provisions it contained were unenforceable, and those that were enforceable were already covered by preexisting law.

The day started out like any other day. Well, like any other day in the past few weeks, that is. Normally, I would have gotten up, shaved, showered, and headed off to work. But it’s tough being an executive of a company where the owner is more concerned with what’s going up his nose than he is earning a profit. Since my firm closed, my days have taken on a monotonous regularity. Get up,...

Added 20 Jul 2010 | Category Exhibitionism | Votes 23 | Avg Score 4.81 | Views 31,056 | 14 Comments

From Part 1: “No, YOU made the mess,” I chided. I giggled back. It was only then that she kissed me – just a quick peck on the lips. She pushed me over backward and leaped up, running for the surf. I watched her go, amazed again at the natural wonderfulness of her. At the water’s edge, she turned quickly. “You coming?” she called. Yes. Yes, I was. We splashed in the surf like kids....

Added 12 Aug 2010 | Category Straight Sex | Votes 11 | Avg Score 4.82 | Views 6,962 | 4 Comments

I drink red wine before the fire; She shares my cup with grace. Cold winds howl, the fire’s blaze Chases chill away. I lay her down and drink my wine From the hollow of her throat; Spilling out across her breast, My hungry lips then race. Her navel is a tankard full Of wine, ripe for the taking. Below, out spills her own sweet wine; A far more heady vintage. Rosé cheeks. ...

Added 04 Aug 2010 | Category Love Poems | Votes 5 | Avg Score 4.6 | Views 982 | 2 Comments

I had known Rachel for a few years.  She was a neat chick -- cute, a good friend, and an all-around nice person.  We first met when we were both in high school.  We went to different schools, but that rivalry never mattered to us.  We got along well, right from the start.  I'd be lying if I said that I was never attracted to her.  She wasn't what you would consider a stunning beauty; neither...

Added 02 Nov 2009 | Category Straight Sex | Votes 25 | Avg Score 4.65 | Views 5,826 | 2 Comments

When I was 22 and single, I lived in a teeny little mobile home.  On one side of me was the laundry station, on the other was a trailer with three women in it - a mom in her late 30's to early 40's, and her two daughters (18 and 20).  At that time, being still young and hot, I had made a habit of never wearing clothes when I was home.  I could go the entire day naked, only putting something on...

Added 29 Oct 2009 | Category Masturbation | Votes 22 | Avg Score 4.55 | Views 11,556 | 7 Comments

It was Saturday night, and Damien had just resigned himself to closing out another week-long bout of boredom, alone. His life lacked any kind of excitement. One day blended into the next seamlessly. Nothing fun or even remotely interesting ever seemed to happen around him. The problem, he reckoned, lay within him. He saw nothing special or exciting about himself. He was just about...

Added 02 Sep 2010 | Category First Time | Votes 20 | Avg Score 4.83 | Views 6,583 | 11 Comments

Previously: Soon, she pushed him away again, saying, “Can you get me my clothes?” “Going somewhere?” he asked. “Oh, yes, I am.” She replied. “I’m going to my room. And you’re coming with me…” Damien watched as Rebecca slowly slid her skirt up her smooth, silky legs. Her panties were so full of sand from lying on the beach there was no way she was going to even try to put them on. He...

Added 23 Sep 2010 | Category Oral Sex | Votes 13 | Avg Score 4.62 | Views 3,271 | 4 Comments

From Part II As they reached the door, Damien paused, laughing. “This is totally crazy, you do realize that don’t you?” “Well,” she answered, giggling delightedly. “You didn’t think I was totally sane, did you?” Laughing, she opened the door, peered out both ways, and pulled him unresisting into the hallway… Damien's heart leaped into his chest as he heard the heavy...

Added 29 Oct 2010 | Category Anal | Votes 7 | Avg Score 4.86 | Views 4,830 | 4 Comments

Jack Brewster was not in a good mood. He came home from work in a good mood. He was in a good mood through most of his dinner. That all changed when his wife reminded him of their after-dinner engagement. "Don't forget, honey," Paige Brewster's voice rang out. "We have that gallery opening to go to tonight." A sodden lump grew in Jack's stomach as he finished his dinner mechanically. He...

Added 22 Jun 2011 | Category Straight Sex | Votes 16 | Avg Score 4.88 | Views 5,123 | 9 Comments

"You know I would just break your heart," she said with a smile. "I'll take that chance," he chuckled. I. Bethany was the perfect girl. All through school, she never had to work at anything. Good grades came easily, and team sports were a natural for someone with her athletic physique. Add long light-brown hair and blue baby-doll eyes to her fit 5' 5" frame, and a beautiful face with...

Added 03 Oct 2010 | Category Supernatural | Votes 31 | Avg Score 4.90 | Views 16,809 | 10 Comments