Forum posts made by byronlord

Happily married BI guy, planning on taking it up the ass for the first time with a good friend. Any advice?


Tristan Taormino.

http://puckerup.com/smart/

Often I think the futility in the question is more to do with the choice of wording.

Someone will ask a question like " do you really like having your nipples played with? " Which I'm sure is intended as " do you find nipple play more stimulating than would be considered usual? " rather than as it's often read: " do you actually like your nipples played with? " - to which the answer will almost always be "well, duh!"
I think it comes from having a dozen a day from the same poster who doesn't seem to take any interest in the answers.

Depends if the target is Republican or Democrat, House or Senate.

There are some who deserve a pineapple

Do you actually ever read porn?

Sticking a finger or a thumb up the anus to stretch it during sex is a pretty effective way to amplify a female orgasm. Lesbians have been doing that since Sapho's time.

What does this have to do with proposed "by-the-mile" taxation to maintain and make necessary repairs to our highway system? "

Everything,, we build higher mpg vehicles to reduce the use of oil, now that the revenues are lacking as Americans save on fuel cost, then to have the government tax more thru a different way is just more of the same, got a problem means tax more that will fix it. Problem, US tax rates are the highest in the world for businesses.

The US government could cut back on the $100 billion it gives in subsidies to the oil companies. Problem solved.

The only reason they get those subsidies are the huge bribes paid by the oil cos to politicians campaign funds and by hiring the wives of congressmen (and SCOTUS judge Thomas) as million dollar a year lobbyists.

The blatant corruption of Thomas is particularly disgusting. The man should be in jail as the money paid to his wife goes straight into his pocket and he is hearing cases brought by the people who hire her and there really isn't any other reason to hire Ginny Thomas.

For sex or wearing out in public?

Depends if the target is Republican or Democrat, House or Senate.

Back then, gas cost a quarter what it does now. Since the cost of fuel has quadrupled, and the tax is a percentage of the sales price, the tax income has also quadrupled.

Sounds to me like legislators are so used to having a relatively limitless well of cash to dip a bucket into, they have no idea how to live on a budget. I'm all for charging hybrid users a per-mile usage fee so they pay their share for road maintenance, but the last thing we need to do is raise the percentage of taxes paid. Finance new road construction by selling bonds, like we've always done, and tell the pork-belly legislators to tighten their belts.

The federal gas tax is a flat rate, not a percentage. Any shortfall in the gas tax could be covered in a whole range of ways. Most likely would be a general carbon tax.

Or they might not need to cover it at all. The dire predictions of the US federal deficit come from CBO numbers that are obliged to assume that the current recession will continue into the future. The deficits will end when the recessions end. Clinton left a surplus. If people don't elect Republicans to squander the surplus on unfunded wars and tax cuts for their friends the deficit will be erased by growth.

If the US would reduce its military spending to a sane level, the budget looks even healthier. Right now the US is spending a greater proportion of its GDP on militarism than during the cold war when we were facing the Soviet Union. It is not 'defense' by any stretch of the imagination when you continue to arm against an enemy that hasn't existed in twenty years.

Regardless, the gas tax is just not a major source of revenue. Worrying about tax losses due to declining gas use is like worrying about losing cigarette taxes because people stop smoking.

Another problem the US has is it's view on the constitution and how it's unchangeable, despite the fact that it was written over two decades ago.

As recently as that, how time flies...

The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to stop the North from banning slavery by baring states from maintaining the armed slave patrols that were necessary to chase runaway slaves and put down the slave uprisings that happened quite frequently.

It was about maintaining slavery from start to finish.

I must admit the gun control subject has been one that divides the US and being from there i find myself on the side of gun owners. I am a gun owner and own a hand gun and two hunting rifles. And because of recent events plan to acquire my license to carry. I was one who did not plan to get this because i never felt the need, never thought I would ever need it. However society has changed and some people have no respect for human life and that's the ones who have pushed me to protect my family and myself. Point: went to a movie Monday with friends and our kids. a 20 something yr old man worked his way down our isle and sat in a seat between myself and other couple that was two seats from me, while there was an entire row in front of us with only two people and 15 seats on the other side of the couple he chose the sit between us. kinda creepy. he continually looked at his phone, place his hand in and out of his pockets and generally was restless the entire movie. my gut said something was wasn't right, my mind wondered if he was for the movie or some other crazy reason. well nothing happened, however because of all the recent events I couldn't help wish i had my carry permit and a gun. I don't think gun control is the answer because the ones that want to hurt people will find a way to get a gun and do their damage. we can put the statistics out to prove our side of the argument, but statistics will not stop bad people from doing bad things.

So you are going to get a gun so that you get an open seat in the cinema?

What the heck are you planning to do with it?

The reason that gun control is back on the agenda is because a racist idiot in Florida killed a black teenager he thought was acting suspicious and a nutcase went on a killing spree in a movie theater.

Having a gun does not make you trained to respond to that type of situation and without training you are just another person firing guns at people. You might hit the attacker but there is a very high chance that you will hit someone else and an even higher chance that someone will shoot you thinking that you are the shooter or acting with them.

I'm all for open, intelligent debate on this subject. However, every thread I encounter, on here, or elsewhere about it, always end up the same way. A slanging match between those for and against. Talk about flogging a dead horse.

This is the opinion of a non-US citizen, someone who grew up in the UK, and moved to Australia in the 90's.

First and most importantly, let's state the obvious. IT'S TOO LATE for the USA to backtrack. It's now totally impossible to control. End of story.


I beg to differ there. We have had quite a lot of success disarming various countries in the aftermath of civil wars. In the case of the Solomon Islands they went from a civil war to total disarmament in a couple of years.

What is actually being proposed is the type of moderate controls on firearms that you suggested. But the leaders of the pro-gun camp considers any form of gun control whatsoever to be exactly equivalent to banning all firearms and opening concentration camps. And I am really not joking there.

The pro-gun '3 percenters' believe that they need their weapons to defend America against a Soviet invasion like in Red Dawn. The fact that the US military is more than capable of dealing with any imaginable threat...

We are not talking about hunters or reasonable people here.

I think that is a rather stupid legislative strategy for them to follow. But if they are going to say that banning high capacity magazines is just as objectionable to them as banning handguns then I will take both. Banning handguns won't stop all the firearm murders but it would reduce them. There is abundant evidence from Australia and elsewhere that gun control does not need to be 100% effective to have a significant effect.

They had nine mass shootings (5 or more dead) last year and one so far this year. I think it is rather obvious that there is a link between video games and the form of the mass shootings. But banning XBox as the NRA gun nutters propose is going to be a lot harder than banning the guns.

The question is not whether assault weapons are going to be banned but how many Newtown massacres it is going to take for the members of Congress to be more afraid of their angry constituents than the NRA.

Which is why one of the executive orders signed by President Obama in the press conference this morning states that women are no longer allowed to complain that men refuse to ask for directions.

I am glad most people do not abuse their second amendment rights the was ByronLord abuses his first amendment rights. Calling some one stupid that disagrees with your narrow point of view say a lot about your state of mind. If the European countries are so great.........

When I lived in Europe we had US gun nuts telling us how they thought we should live in our country, I am merely returning the favor. And I use the term with accuracy, one of those Internet gun nuts was a man called Timothy McVeigh. He murdered almost 200 people.

If you are accusing someone of abusing their first amendment rights then surely you have some specifics?

The history of the second amendment is hardly a glorious one. It had absolutely nothing to do with freedom. Do you know what a STATE Militia was or why the state of Virginia insisted on maintaining them as a condition of ratifying the constitution.

The state militias were slave patrols that were necessary to put down slave rebellions. Without the police state there could be no slavery.

The purpose of the second amendment was to preserve slavery, not liberty.

I am glad most people do not abuse their second amendment rights the was ByronLord abuses his first amendment rights. Calling some one stupid that disagrees with your narrow point of view say a lot about your state of mind. If the European countries are so great.........

When I lived in Europe we had US gun nuts telling us how they thought we should live in our country, I am merely returning the favor. And I use the term with accuracy, one of those Internet gun nuts was a man called Timothy McVeigh. He murdered almost 200 people.

If you are accusing someone of abusing their first amendment rights then surely you have some specifics?

The history of the second amendment is hardly a glorious one. It had absolutely nothing to do with freedom. Do you know what a STATE Militia was or why the state of Virginia insisted on maintaining them as a condition of ratifying the constitution.

The state militias were slave patrols that were necessary to put down slave rebellions. Without the police state there could be no slavery.

The purpose of the second amendment was to preserve slavery, not liberty.

The Pakistani military is not necessarily acting on behalf of the democratically elected government.

Musharaf staged the coup that put him in power because the elected President attempted to dismiss him for refusing to stop trying to start a war with India. The Pakistani military has not changed much since. Musharaf was the prime mover behind the Taliban, he brought it into being.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 there was a choice between going into Afghanistan through Iran or Pakistan. Going through Iran was a much better option. The authority of the 'Supreme Leader' had been weakened by Bin Laden's terrorist act. We had good intelligence as the diplomatic codes had been broken (this was uncovered later during the occupation of iraq). The obvious move to me was to form a grand alliance whereby Iran would liquidate the Supreme Leader and his clique in return for adding Afghanistan (or at least the Western, Shi'ia half) to its sphere of influence.

Instead Bush decided to form an alliance with the creator of the Taliban then invade Iraq and add that country to Iran's sphere of influence instead. There might be a logic to that move bu I could never see it. It was pretty obvious that the US was not going to occupy Iraq forever and the only regional power that could plausibly replace the US was Iran. Why else try to make Chalabai, a man that the CIA had told me was an Iranian agent back in the mid 90s? (Chalabai happened to have been a former student of a colleague when he was at MIT).

Tensions between India and Pakistan rose on Tuesday with the killing of two Indian soldiers by Pakistani troops. An unspecified number of Pakistani troops entered the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC), after which a firefight ensued in which the two Indian soldiers were killed and their bodies mutilated by Pakistan Army. India lashes Pakistan after this deadly encounter.

That sort of event happens quite regularly and the job of diplomats is to de-escalate the situation. They can lead to war but usually only when the parties want it to.

I think some of the creepers in the chat rooms are likely to remain virgins quite a long time unless they work out a more appropriate approach.

The same games are sold in pretty much every country. In the developed world only the US has had a series of spree shooting incidents.

Most European countries have had zero shooting spree incidents in the past ten years. The US had eight last year alone. That is more than the whole of Europe put together.

This is just an attempt to distract attention from the real source of the problems in the US: Its the guns stupid.

The group anonymous posted this up on their channel 3 days ago,

For those of you who don't know,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)

The same suspected hackers who broke into Sonys PSN and stole millions of credit card numbers. (Which was later found to be someone else and NOT anonymous)

But this video talks of a bill that was supposedly passed regarding military actions on us soil.
but.. Is it real? Or an elaborate hoax? they certainly have some interesting things to say.
real or not it's definitely worth a few minutes to listen in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/HrXyLrTRXso

An for anyone interested the bill is being discussed on CNN and fox. it's apparently a real bill that was backed by us senator McCain.

What do you think of this? Where will you be on November 5th 2012?

I would not take the Anonymous group seriously, they tend to lie rather a lot.

There is currently an argument between the House and Senate over a part of the 'defense' (aka military) spending bill. The Democrats in the Senate attempted to insert a clause stating that the military cannot imprison anyone indefinitely without trial. The House GOP insisted it be taken out in conference (they didn't bring the issue up for a vote in the house of course, just in conference). The administration threatened to veto over dropping the clause but it does not appear they will follow through.

So there is a group pushing for that sort of thing and it is the party of the people who spend their time spewing rumors that Obama is going to do what their chap did when he was in office.

You always have my support. As you know, I've had to carry one too. Actually, I rarely loaded my weapon in Afghanistan as I figured if I had to use it, I was already dead. But I wonder if these people know that the fact that Japan knew most Americans had guns kept them from invading us in WW2.


If so, why would they have attacked Pearl Harbor?

Of course its complete nonsense as the Japanese knew that they did not have the firepower to invade the US and defeat the US military before subduing the local population was an issue. The point of attacking Peral Harbor was to break the US blockade and enable the Japanese conquest of China, Korea and South West Asia. The Japanese rightly assumed that the US would not let Japan get into a position where it could invade the Americas.

It had absolutely nothing to do with home ownership of guns.

Disarming a population is much easier than the gun.nuts imagine. The US army even has a protocol for doing so which is what they were doing in Iraq. The reason it did not work there was that the insurgent groups had an entire infrastructure to re-arm them.

I don't think that we are going to see Iran helping re-arm the NRA.

http://i586.photobucket.com/albums/ss309/tbonifie/gun-deaths2_zps748f6c48.jpg

So banning rifles isn't enough, we have to ban all guns. The 6000+ handgun deaths are more than half the total.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/4792/timothymcveighdidntusea.jpg

I knew Timothy McVeigh.

He was a gun nut. A complete whacked out gun nut.

He didn't use his gun to set of the OKC bomb but he did use a gun when he committed the robberies to get the money to buy the fertilizer.

He used to argue endlessly on talk.politics.guns.

Oh and bulk sales of fertilizer are tracked and have been ever since the OKC bomb.

"Predator Drone Strikes: 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist, and the CIA Only Wants to Up Drone Warfare "

Tanks are very maneuverable, it’s not going to be driving around on the 5th floor of a skyscraper trying to get people, eventually people will have to get out of their tanks and come in on foot, then you take hostages.

Best case scenario people realize how dumb it is to be killing their own people, worst case people become martyrs.


Well that is just the point, since WWI most wars have ended because the populations refused to keep fighting. Germany was not defeated militarily, its soldiers just stopped fighting and deserted in larger number than the allies. Same happened on the Russian front with the Russian troops.

Right now the Syrian army is collapsing due to desertions on a massive scale. The US withdrew from Vietnam because support for the war was broken at home.

The idea that a US president could order the use of the US army against the population of the US without starting a civil war is really rather weird. The Libyan rebels were mostly armed with guns taken from government depots. Same is true in Syria.

The weapons from Libya are currently washing across North Africa. Hence the fighting going on in Mali and parts of Nigeria. That is mostly driven by armed gangs that were formerly Ghadaffi's mercenaries who have made their way out of the country with little more than their rifle and some clips of ammunition.

The US government is not an automata. It is made up of people and those people have rather different internal agendas. Any of the fanciful gun-nut 'gubermint takover' scenarios would require a huge force of Stormtroopers to carry it out. They would have to be fed a bunch of lies about some group going to take away their rights and their guns and make them slaves so you would need a propaganda outfit, lets call that Box News. And there would have to be a club for them all to join and wave flags for, call it the MeParty.

Come on, we know which side the gun nuts would be on in the scenarios they propose it would be the one with the guns and the highly polished jackboots.

The shooter was diagnosed with a personality disorder.

That is a mental illness but not one that provides a defense of insanity. She must know that legal insanity is a small subset of mental health problems.

Depression is a mental health issue but it isn't a defense.

oh my god!

just when i thought that i had heard it all, someone posts something like 'myself'.


I have heard the same rant from Timothy McVeigh.

Then he went out and murdered almost 200 people.

When someone says that the gun they are waving in my face protects my freedom I see a pair of stinking jackboots and a NAZI salute. I see the carbines that the guards carried on the watchtowers on the Berlin wall.

I don't see freedom, I see a threat.

Where were the gun wankers during the fight against slavery?

Oh yes, they were committing treason against the federal government, taking up their arms against it to keep black people as slaves.

Where were the gun wankers during the civil rights movement?

Oh yes they were running round with pillow cases on their heads

Where were the gun wankers in NAZI germany?

Oh yes, they were the ones with polished jackboots goose stepping.


Putting a gun in people's hands does not make them a good person. The idea that gun wankers protect freedom is completely a-historical. It is pure wankery.

We have heard rather too much from the North American Man-Gun Love Association on this topic.

The US has an Aurora massacre and a Newtown massacre every single day. Unrepresentative cases make bad laws but Newtown was not an unusual event in any sense. It is merely a symbol of the gun wankery that the NRA and its supporters stand for.

Typically, someone with a more liberal mindset will speak about "gun control" and people with a more conservative mindset hears "take away all our guns and leave us defenseless". Gun control is too broad a term. It's difficult to have an opinion either way with such a broad statement. "Stricter"... how much stricter?

The problem is that the gun lobby resists any and every form of gun control claiming it is part of a slippery slope to a complete ban.

That is not going to stop gun control. It is just going to mean that a complete ban is the only option left when the next massacre happens.

What is the difference between NAMBLA and the NRA? NAMBLA doesn't want to help the men kill the kids.

Gun owners have a choice here. Either agree to a sensible ban on assault weapons, high capacity clips and some controls preventing criminals and the mentally ill getting hold of them or continue on the scorched earth, resist all compromises strategy and face your worst case outcome.

The only way to keep the guns is to find an effective way to stop the massacres. If the massacres continue then we are going to get a total ban.

If the Principal was licensed, trained and carrying a hand gun, or better yet every teacher openly carried one, do you think the young man would have even entered the building. Before you mock, the Colorado theater shooter by passed both a closer and larger theater to go to the one that posted "No concealed hand guns allowed".

Of course he would. And he would have had his weapon drawn giving him the advantage.

The man was insane. Trying to argue about what would be logical for someone to do misses that point.

Seven gun saves owner anecdotes

That is a rather small number of anecdotes compared to the 30,000 gun deaths a year.

There are circumstances in which a seatbelt can kill you but it is much more likely to save your live (by about 100 to 1).

The NRA has a whole staff looking for stories like those. If there was any validity to the claim there would be hundreds of them.

If the penalty for carry a gun was the same as the penalty for carrying pot, there would be remarkably few people carrying them.

I was out of town (and still am) when I heard the news. There's been criticism here in the tank about jumping to conclusions and flying off the handle with opinions, etc. I think the discussion is healthy for the most part. I was shaking my head when I saw an NRA spokesperson on TV, already playing zone defense politics an hour after the fact, perhaps even as a few clung to their last breaths. Maybe some would say that people here are guilty of the same reactionary speech, from either side, but we're just goofballs on the internet. We don't shape policy or disseminate information professionally.


I do.


I also think the gun-nut label gets thrown out their too quickly at times, myself included, but I wonder if some of you know how you sound when this stuff gets discussed. Any discussion of gun control as a general subject immediately conjures creepy diatribes about government goons in "jack boots" (learned a new term, at least), and comparisons between guns and cars, leading to breathless "well should we just ban cars too??" rhetoric, and then the stat wars get launched, where two sides lob opposing sets of 'facts' at each other. I'm at the point now, that when numbers get posted, I check out completely. Big numbers designed to sway arguments do me, and us, no good. Garbage in, garbage out.


The problem that led to the Newtown massacre is not the guns or the gun owners or even the gun owners with guns. It is the gun nuts with guns. And when they start spouting off about black helicopters and government jackbooted thugs it is time to point out that they are complete whack jobs and that their views are completely crazy and fact-free.

Not everyone who owns a gun is a gun nut. But it is the gun nuts who are the problem here. Having a gun in the house is far more likely to result in you or a member of your family being killed with a gun than not having a gun. But people don't react rationally to risks, that is a well known fact.

But there is illogic and there is gun-wankery. And when people are buying more automatic weapons than the Baader Meinhof gang had guns that is gun-wankery. It has nothing to do with recreation or hunting and everything to do with compensating for having a dick thats three sizes too small.

I think that the debate is actually going to converge on the following understanding:

1) Accepting restrictions on gun ownership is not the start of a slippery slope to a complete ban, it is the only way that a complete ban can be avoided. If the NRA keeps resisting every gun control measure out of hand they are going to push gun control advocates to the point where the only way gun control is going to happen is when the massacres become so common that gun control is irresistible and then there will be no need to moderate our demands.

2) The gun nut culture has to end. Military styled weapons have no place in hunting animals, the only purpose is to hunt people. Nobody uses an UZI or an AK47 in self defense.

3) The assault weapons ban will be reinstated

4) The gun show loophole will be closed

5) There will be a national system of gun registration

These measures are not going to happen overnight but they are going to become the consensus position very quickly. The debate proposition has flipped completely.

In any political debate you have certain positions that are considered to be essential. Until recently it was considered unthinkable that there would be any measure that might conceivably threaten the 'right' of people to own weapons for hunting. Right now the unthinkable position is that these massacres in our schools will continue and more kids are going to be killed.