Forum posts made by byronlord

http://www.rivieralust.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/tied-to-tree.jpg

Tied for use

Bush has collected $500 million for his self aggrandizing 'Presidential Library'

It would be nice if the place had a fitting statue in front. I suggest a 50 foot tall statue of 'Abu Ghraib man', the one being electrocuted on Bush/Cheney's orders in a cruciform pose. Surrounding the base fountain would be a churning fountain of blood.

Nothing complicated or garish you understand, just a fair commentary on the man's actions in office.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS42wiYlBWQnthPpuq_DURGacQMrMk1Tkky3rNp8v8MmPJ52NcVMg

Look, I know that this is a topical debate.... which I have had over the past couple of days but my feeling is this: She was a strong woman who believed in what she did, didn't sway like the wind, like other politicians, probably didn't take advice either, which was apparently her downfall, however, she had more conviction then 99% of the crowd that are there now and will bend to whatever tune they think will benefit them. In fairness, how many people will talk about the politicians that are in power now after they are dead? They don't have any conviction... Right or wrong! Just my opinion, and I know won't suti a lot of people. The woman is gone now and what will be will be.

I was happy to criticize Thatcher while she was alive, just as happy to criticize her now she is dead.

I criticized her to her face while she was still in office. I told her that there was no way that I was going to consider her party to be the defender of freedom and liberty while their student wing was engaged in the Stalinist/McCarthyite practice of drawing up enemies lists and circulating them to employers.

Now to be fair, in that particular instance she did act but only after the same Tory students accused former Prime Minister Macmillan of being a war criminal due to his involvement in the repatriation of Kosack POWs to be murdered by Stalin.


If the right wing was not spending so much time saying how wonderful she was there would be no need to point out what a horrid, nasty piece of work the woman was.

she and RR did great thing for our world. I thank her for what she did for England and in long run helped us here in the US. The vilification of this lady is very sad for she only did what she thought was right for her country and it was the right thing. "limp dicks" in both our country are screwing us over today
R.I.P Lady Thatcher

George W. Bush was only doing what he thought was right for the US. But he still crashed the economy, added five trillion to the deficit, ran a network of gulags, sanctioned torture and caused the death of half a million Iraqis.

Good intentions are not enough. As she used to tell me.

She was Prime Minister when I was young. But from what I have studied about her...the only positive thing that she did for the common person was acknowledge the deterioration of the ozone layer and what devastating effects that would have on mankind. She talked RR into following her on that and he did in spite of arguments to the contrary from his Republican Party. HOWEVER...her political position was sided with the wealthy and never addressed the common man. ALL of her policies were at the EXPENSE of the middle and lower classes. And she didn't bat an eyelash. She really didn't care. This was a period of time when the left in both the U.K. and the U.S. over extended their liberal agenda. So, she was able to get away with it. I would call her a shill for the rich and an enemy of the left.

She was also the first world leader to take a 100% action stance against AIDS. The Tory anti-AIDS ads were totally no-nonsense.

But she was totally full of herself and totally convinced of her rightness when she was wrong.

I remember people dancing in the street when the Tories got fed up of her and sacked her. What is rather amusing about the canonization of St Margaret is that she was sacked by her own party that is now lionizing her.

Here's a challenge for you:

Find us any jurisdiction in America that passed more lenient gun use laws where the passage of those laws resulted in any kind of dramatic upswing in the crime rate. Any jurisdiction at all. You made the statement that more guns equals more deaths. Back that up with facts, not wishful thinking. Fact is, people will be people, no matter how you arm them (or disarm them).

Here is a challenge for you:

Why does the US have a gun murder rate over a hundred times that of the UK where all guns other than actual sporting guns (shotguns) are now completely banned?

Why is the US non-gun murder rate almost exactly that of Europe?

It turns out that the US is not actually a more violent society than Europe. It is just the ready access to guns that means far more tense situations end up as murders.

I meant Britain as a whole, rather than Scotland as an independent country, but yes - I believe that she polarized the Scots...

I think she polarized pretty much everything she touched. And she never won more than 44% of the vote. She had a minority mandate.

It was the way that she seemed to take such glee from the consequences of her decisions.

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/archive/displaydocument.asp?docid=112005

Now I would like to say something in a very confidential manner, and I would ask you not to record this part of the conversation.
Gorbachev:

As you would like.



MT: We are very concerned with the processes that are underway in East Germany. It is on the verge of big changes, which are caused by the situation in the society and to some extent by Erich Honecker's illness. The thousands of people escape from the GDR to the FRG are the primary example. All that is the external side things, and it is important for us, but another issue is even more important.

Britain and Western Europe are not interested in the unification of Germany. The words written in the NATO communiqu��½��½ may sound different, but disregard them. We do not want the unification of Germany. It would lead to changes in the post-war borders, and we cannot allow that because such a development would undermine the stability of the entire international situation, and could lead to threats to our security.

We are not interested in the destabilization of Eastern Europe or the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact either. Of course, the internal changes are ripe in all the countries of Eastern Europe, but in some countries they are more pronounced, in some countries not yet. However, we are in favour of those processes remaining strictly internal, we will not interfere in them and spur the decommunization of Eastern Europe. I can tell you that this is also the position of the US President. He sent a telegram to me in Tokyo, in which he asked me to tell you that the United States would not undertake anything that could threaten the security interests of the Soviet Union, or that could be perceived by the Soviet society as a threat. I am fulfilling his request.

History has proved that she was completely and utterly wrong. We do not know if she was telling the truth when she claimed to speak for Bush I and the other NATO leaders but it seems unlikely she would have said something that would quickly be found to be untrue.

Fortunately others thought differently.

In Scotland, the news reports are somewhat different. She was incredibly unpopular north of the border... We even had riots!!

I was a bit too young to understand much about her at the time and I can see why she was so detested, however, I do think that she was a force to be reckoned with and I'd rather have her than the limp dicks who are in power now...

Our country is a fucking shambles...

Thatcher did more for the cause of Scottish independence than anyone else in the 20th Century.

The 1986 Commonwealth games were held in Edinburgh. Just ahead of the games Thatcher came out in support of apartheid in no uncertain terms prompting a boycott by half the countries due to attend. The speech was totally gratuitous and unnecessary and everyone knew that Thatcher would never have sabotaged a London event the same way.

Tories became an endangered species north of the border as a result and their place was taken by the 'Tartan Tories' aka the SNP.

She did a lot of stuff like that. When Pinochet came over and was arrested for war crimes, Thatcher decided to make a public show of support for the mass murderer who committed treason against a democratically elected government had his opponents dropped out of helicopters as a friend of freedom.

Condolences to her family. Particularly the Grandchildren.

I'm not sure she did that much for women. I could write a lot about what I think to her policies, but today is not the day for polemical writing.


She wasn't much of a force for Britain either. We lost two thirds of out manufacturing base in 18 months under her government. She was a lion for the interests of the powerful against the powerless. She stood up for apartheid and for murderous dictators like Pinochet. When the Berlin wall was about to fall her first instinct was to beg Gorbachev to send in the tanks and prop the communist system up.

Having watched what was done when St Ronnie Reagan was given a free pass after he died, I don't think we should make the same mistake again.

Such a fantastic question!!! Super interested in this answer men
I think in this particular case the guy was two timing with two different women and did not want to choose between them. When one of them forced the issue he went for the other one.

I don't think working out the motives of this particular guy is very difficult: Some men are a-moral bastards and always will be.

What I find rather more mysterious is why women who otherwise seem to be quite sensible seem to fling themselves at such men against all the advice of their friends (both male and female) and stay with them long after their true nature is acknowledged.

So that "in a relationship with" option has caused problems - wow, who'd have thought?

I've heard of similar problems about people asking stuff like "Why am i not on the top of your friend's list? lol" It's right up there on passive/aggressive lushisms with "wow. you have a lot of friends"


It happens in real life as well.

I watched the marriage of my wife's best friend fall apart after she told her husband she was going to start sleeping with other men. Then after the marriage broke up the man she was sleeping with walked off.

There are many of reasons that it happens and they are not always the same. Men are just as prone to engage in fantasy as women. Telling a woman you love them is easy. Knowing what love is, rather harder. Knowing what you mean by love is what the other person does, harder still.

If you don't believe defining love is hard, try this, describe what the colour red looks like to someone else. By which I don't mean tell me what something that is red looks like, I mean what is the sensation of redness like for you. It is completely impossible as there are no intersubjective frames of reference.

That is why telling someone that you are thinking about them, or that you hope something happens for them, or that you want to spend time with them means rather more than 'love'.

Another reason is that sometimes you thought you were in love with someone right up to the moment you tell them you love them. And that is the exact moment you suddenly realize that you don't. Hey, I was 16 at the time and we were Saddlebacking. Sue me.

Finding all the negative responses to having an erection at a nude beach a little troubling. But it appears most are from people who have never gone. When answering please let us know if you have ever experienced public nudity or have seen a guy get hard in that type of setting. Thanks

??? I have to wonder about your candidness here since what you asked is discussed in EVERY nudist guide I have ever seen and the answer is ALWAYS the one you got here. So to fein surprise or dismiss the opinions in the way you do really does not give you much credibility.

The reaction you are likely to get on any of the beaches I have been to ranges from indifference to being kicked off the beach entirely. There are some beaches that I know of where something else might happen but they are strictly 18+ beaches and people go there to have public sex so your erection is not exactly out of place. But those are not what I would call a nude beach, they are beaches which permit public orgies.

i guess i just need too much personal attention to thrive in a situation like that. and being a Dom/me is hard work, doing that for more than one sub just seems like too much.


... you think there might be subs that are so demanding their Dom's need a rest from time to time? Should that surprise me?

One of the bad habits of the net is the way that everything seems to turn into what we call in the UK a dick size measuring contest. People assert that there is only one proper way to do something and if it isn't theirs then it does not count or is wrong or inadequate. The only real Lesbians are gold stars! Role play is not proper BDSM, got to live it 24/7! A/V double penetration is passe, got to be double anal or it s nothing!

Most people get on with two parents, so I can't see why having two Masters would be inconceivable. The main issue would be whether the Masters could agree on a consistent approach. Otherwise it is a recipe for, umm a sub plot for one of my novels.

This was just brought to my attention by Peter_Pan.
I have 17 (seventeen) stories here that are "Famous"; that is, with more than 30,000 views each.
Is this very high? Do any other folks have more "Famous" stories than this?


Let me guess, how many of those are in the 'Incest' category?

Like peasants in Blackadder, those only count in the case of a tie.

My only experience of nude beaches is the one at Brighton (UK South Coast). It's not really a family beach, but otherwise there are a real mixture of ages. I wish I could say most people go there for non sexual reasons, but a lot of gay men use it, and some of them don't seem to hide their erections as well as they should. Perhaps I'm just jealous because I'm not the cause lol. Mind you, that does give me the freedom to look without fear of being chatted up...

Which is I think one of the reasons I am skeptical about Trinket's position.

Yes there are some people who go to nude beaches without any sexual thoughts whatsoever. But there are rather obviously some who go with very sexual thoughts in mind and everyone is aware of that or why else would an erection be an issue at all?

I have to disagree. There are many levels to ones submission. Not all D/s relationships are roleplay, those who enjoy the roleplay, its just that. Those who choose to live the lifestyle its a much deeper commitment and meaning than those who simply want to play the role while in the bedroom.

I thought that is what I was saying there. It is a deeper commitment but what I don't think gets sufficiently acknowledged is that it is a huge commitment for the D and not just for the s.

However it is not quite clear what the boundaries are here and maybe that is what they should be considering. It is not a choice between roleplay in the bedroom and 24/7 D/s. Maybe they might want to move to D/s in the bedroom rather than roleplaying it. Or D/s in the whole house during the weekends or even the whole week. See how they both feel about it and whether they want to extend those boundaries.

I wouldn't take children to one either. Unfortunately some people do.

i think it depends on the beach actually. I would not take my children to Baker Beach in San Francisco but I might take them to a family centered resort.

trinket wrote:
Nudist beaches are all about the freedom of not wearing clothing, NOT about anything sexual at all.

If you are going to a nude beach to perve at naked people, then you shouldn't be there. That makes you a pervert. I'm not saying some people don't go there to perve, I'm saying that is not the purpose of nude beaches.

Do you have a different view of what nudist beaches are for Byron?

I am simply rather skeptical of the vehemence of the denials. Everything that happens in our culture is connected to sex. And that is even more so in countries like Saudi Arabia where people think about sex far more, not less.

So the idea that people are cavorting around nude and it has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH SEX... well I think folk are being a little over-defensive and not exactly accurate.

There is however a big difference between going to a nude beach to enjoy the sight of beautiful naked bodies and going there to letch at them. But it is a rather more subtle difference than I think you allow. Its the difference between buying a girl a drink in the bar while you are chatting her up and slipping rophinal in it. There is a line there but I don't think it is drawn quite where you claim.

My boyfriend and I have always had a very creative and satisfying sex life, and I've always been open to trying new things, but I was a little apprehensive when he told me he wanted me to become his submissive. He's always been assertive and dominate over me, and I like that about him, but I guess the thought of giving myself to someone utterly and completely kind of scares me.

My question is what is to be expected when becoming a sub? What's it like to surrender your body and soul to someone? How do you keep from losing yourself in the process? And doms, how does it feel having that much control over someone? And how can you tell when you've taken too much from them?

I would wonder about it from the other side as well. Does he really understand what he is getting into? The fact that he would ask you rather than wait for you to ask him maybe suggests a misunderstanding.

I have no use for a sub because I have more than enough to do looking after a wife and two kids. A sub is basically asking you to micro-manage their lives for them. That is a non-trivial investment in time and energy. Roleplay is a time limited commitment.

Nudist beaches are all about the freedom of not wearing clothing, NOT about anything sexual at all.

Hmmm, yes, really. I know that is what everyone says. I am not at all sure that it is true.

But there is a particular etiquette to be observed even at an orgy, or rather especially so at an orgy. And there is an etiquette for a nude beach which is you cover up an erection.

Only if she didn't insist on me doing superman - I don't think my back would hold out.

Date yes, but whats she going to do after her looks fade? Its kind of a short term career that.

Almost all of them as I don't watch television much. American sitcoms with canned laughter are just not interesting to me.

I do read comic strips though and there are quite a few there that seem to be completely devoid of interest of any kind. Zippy the Pinhead was considered a cult when I was at MIT. But to me its just an Emperor's new clothes situation. People pretend to find it interesting because it is considered uncool to point out that it is just crap.

I'm a female and I far prefer hetero porn to girl/girl. I probably watch a bit of everything at some point, but I would say at least 85% of it is hetero based. Honestly - the 'soft and sensitive' lesbian porn tends to put me to sleep.

To be fair, there is a lot of really lame/generic porn out there that comes in all sexual orientations - namely the fake orgasm, no eye-contact, vacant sex-bot style of sex. It's easy to avoid those, however, unless one's porn habits are relegated to the kind of stuff that plays on the movie network and fringe TV channels after 2am.


Which is what I think drives the girl/girl thing. Good male porn models are pretty rare. Most porn is made by people who see their male audience as seedy sleazeballs and they hire actors that fit that stereotype. The girl is obviously not turned on by the guy and is faking it. The guy obviously doesn't have the slightest interest in the girl.

There is some good hetero porn out there, but it is pretty rare.

I'm a firm believer in the give and take. How can you expect someone to give it and not want something back?

I think it is very different for men and women. I actually prefer to give than receive.

For a man oral sex is an appetizer, for a woman it is often the main course. So when a man doesn't reciprocate he is doubly neglecting his duties.

The right loves sales taxes because their whole goal is to provide the largest return possible for their shareholders while bilking the rubes who vote for them. " LB

do tell , how does a business that collects the tax make a profit ?

The GOP runs as a business. Koch brothers give them money, they pass bills to lower their taxes and let them do whatever they like to the environment. It is known as transactional lobbying. Sheldon Adelson is the same, he faced possible jail for the bribes he paid to set up a casino in China. Giving $200 million to the GOP made the prosecutors back off lest they be accused of retaliating.

The Koch Bros and their ilk love the idea of a switch to a sales tax as it would reduce their taxes at the cost of everyone else. Romney has already managed to reduce his tax bill to 15% and you can be sure the rest of the GOP shareholders are the same.

Meanwhile the Republican politicians think that all they need to do is find another group for elderly white men to hate and they can maybe win another election cycle. Only that has stopped working. It is no longer OK to hate Latinos or Gays.

I know a urologist that specializes in men's sexual health and he prescribes, so to speak, penis pumps to older gentleman that have erection problems. Evidently there are several ways they treat erection dysfunction from the viagra type medications, and injections, to penis implants. Evidently the injections go right into the penis. That sounds awful but I guess it works. He said that with the pump they usually take a pill, then pump their penis up and then slip a rubber cock ring on to hold the blood in.

I guess guys if we live long enough we'll be finding out first hand about all of these procedures.

I think there are two separate issues, one is the use of a pump to get an erection, the other is to make the penis bigger. There are good anatomical reasons to expect the first to work and the second to not.

Found this out firsthand not long ago. I'm 22, and if my circumstances were slightly different, I'd qualify for an FHA loan, which gets me in the door for about 3% of the total cost. So on a $150,000 home, that's just $4,500 down. The FHA is widely available, and geared toward both first time buyers and high-income/low-cash-reserve buyers.

Byron's point is well taken, but the large-scale problem of foreclosures and defaults has more to do with the predatory $0-down and ARM loans. If and when I go the FHA route (assuming it's still available, of course), I'll keep a few thousand on hand, hopefully, and if the worst happens, then the worst happens. But there's no way in hell I'm going to amass 30k before I buy a house, nor will I buy something shitty just to get that 20% number down to something reasonable for me. If that's what the market coerces me to do, then I'll happily rent, just as I do now. Given the choice though, I've seen the light: it's better to buy.


The problem that arises with zero downpayment loans is that they allow house prices to spiral out of control because nobody is actually grounded. Houses are usually a constrained resource so there are always more potential buyers than sellers. There isn't enough housing stock for people to buy their own at 22 so the question is not whether you will be able to buy but how people like you are going to be squeezed out of the market.

During the bubble the almost the only people who could get a house were those people rash enough to over-extend themselves with a mortgage they couldn't afford. A 20% downpayment may seem to be an unfair means of rationing houses but it is a lot more stable than the previous attempt.

The other problem with zero downpayment loans is that they enable all sorts of anti-social speculation. Sales of new condos being a case in point. The school next door to us closed down and the building was turned into condos. The cheapest 2 bedroom condo cost more than I paid for our 7 bedroom house. The most expensive 2 bed condo was three times the price of the five bed house on sale across the street from the development.

The developer knew that the prices were ridiculous. But the reason he thought he could get that much was that pretty much every condo development in the area was sold out before the project was complete as speculators piled in to buy properties and then 'flip' them at a tidy profit due to the appreciation in house prices while the project was being built. The speculators didn't know or care what the places they were buying were actually worth because they thought they would be selling them on to a bigger fool than them. So people who wanted to buy a place to live in just saw the prices going up and up.

The other pernicious effect is 'home equity loans'. A lot of people lost their houses because they borrowed against the equity of the house rather than paying their mortgage down. When I bought this house the deeds showed that the previous owner had done just that. All of the money (and more besides) had gone to the bloodsucking cult they were members of.

Of course.

Lara Croft (because she is fictional)

Angelina Jolie (because she went for Brad instead :(

I agree. The kids should have to say a prayer to Allah every morning, and learn a sense of value for Allah. Oh, wait, you meant your god, didn't you? Which god should you force students of every religion to pray to, exactly? There's several thousand, at least.

Don't forget the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!

Sales taxes are beyond question regressive and especially so in the US where due to an oddity in the way mail order sales are taxed, Internet sales are considered to be 'tax free'. According to the states they are not but almost nobody pays the taxes due on their Amazon purchases.

I spend more at Amazon each month than the rest of my shopping put together. And most of my in-state purchases are of exempt items like food. So even though the sales tax and the income tax in my state are roughly the same on paper, I pay more than ten times as much in income tax than sales tax.

The right loves sales taxes because their whole goal is to provide the largest return possible for their shareholders while bilking the rubes who vote for them. Glenn Beck's goal is to sell as many gold coins as possible for at least twice the melt down value. Clarence Thomas wants his wife Ginny to collect as much in consulting fees from the companies he works for on the court. Karl Rove wants to keep that river of gold from Adleson and the Koch brothers flowing through his coffers so that he can divert as much as possible into his pocket in management fees.

All the talk of the trilateral commission and black helicopters and such is all just deliberately crazy talk to discredit the notion of conspiracy theories as stupid and far fetched. Meanwhile they rob blind the rubes who vote for them and spend their time trying to get elected.