Forum posts made by elitfromnorth

You make sure to come back to us!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/dtWK4ydgrWg

Thanks, but oddly enough these things never happen to me. So either I make my views clear enough, or people just don't care that much about what I have to say. Most likely it's the latter .

I'm gonna disagree with you and say it's most likely the former.

And people who try to victimise themselves when they're not a "victim" just looks plain stupid, kinda like girls who wear push up bras with massive cleavage and complain about men staring at their boobs. I'm also not participating in a witch hunt because I just ran out of torches and my pitchfork broke

And Warlock, the whole thing about a man being topless in your living room is pushing it, considering it states that we're talking in public. After all, once it's in your private property you could force people to wear burkas or have dudes wear skimpy thongs. Same way restaurants can send people away if they're not satisfied with what they wear.

So why should we allow this inequality where men can sit in a cafe shirtless but women can't? I can't see a good reason behind it.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/horrible/card_rainbow.jpg

Since She advised me to do it.

Happy Birthday

http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/horrible/card_birthday_badger.jpg

Oh, I see ..... YOU think it's ok to EDIT my words to your own opinion?? How dare you??

disgusting .....

A man that stoops to that immature level certainly shouldn't be a mod of any type. Right Farmer Phil???





Oh, so you do mind. Sorry. Will try to not make it happen again. Was only trying to make your view more clear for everyone

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and see if I understood this right:

You have three candidates, candidate A, B and C. Candidate A and B have the equal amount of delegates while candidate C has the amount of delegates that is required to win candidate A or B the nomination. The republican leadership wants candidate A to win, so with this new rule they have the right to remove all of candidate C's delegates to replace them with candidate A friendly delegates, ensuring that candidate A wins.

I'm just checking to see if I somehow get it before I go any further with my gutfeeling on this. If I'm wrong, can someone dumb it down to a foreigner who's not 100% into the American political system?

I realise that I now have lost the debate thus I will from now on try to belittle everyone of you by trying to make people think you're having a debate about something trivial

There, I fixed it for you. Hope you don't mind

A couple of months ago a journalist in the third biggest newspaper in Norway wrote an article on the webnews about how she was shocked that one of the oil companies had hired a company to do a survey and see which journalists were most positive to their company. Basically they did this so that when they invited journalists for their press conference odds were better that they would get positive press. I couldn't help but comment. The media today is all about headlines, twisting words and doing what they can to make it a scandal. There are more serious stuff being published in childrens books than in the newspapers today. The journalists are whoring themselves out to sell more, not to enlighten. Taking pictures from a private party just shows once again what a bunch of useless whores the journalists are today. I have no respect for them left. This is why I prefer the national channel here that gets all it's money from the government and us taxpayers. At least in that house it's more about enlightening, and not so much about tabloid.

I stated I don't want to see rolls, and hanging breasts .... because I don't. Not all women look like Jessica Alba, or Racquel Welch. I also stated, there are some men who really should "keep their shirts on"! (Again, because some guys just aren't - insert someone who has a good body) It was quite in jest, but I meant it not just as funny but in all seriousness. And your comment of "should we just limit what people can do, simply because you might see something you consider to unattractive?" is a ridiculous question. Laws are put in affect usually for the well being of society. And then, to get into the legal aspect .... I think that many agree that the gender bending laws in some countries are archaic. I am fortunate to live in a country were gay marriages are legal ... and I also live in a country with freedom of self-expression and speech. I am blessed.

And, hooray for such an interesting topic of conversation. Over dinner tomorrow, I'll ask my guests their opinions! Please note ... Clothing is mandatory at my dinner table.

PA



It still seems like you're using the "Some people don't have a good body, hence it shouldn't be allowed" as a valid reason for not allowing women to go topless. So if I read your post wrong then basically you're saying that it's for the good of society that ugly people keep their clothes on. So much for keeping shallowness out of the law.

And obviously you find the topic interesting enough to put in several posts here...

I don't think anyone took away from Poker what is really about that game, however as different as it is, it is gambling. Maybe, when playing we are not gambling just with cards, but with our instincts and how good they are that day, how familiar we are with opponents, how well we can read them, but at the end of the road,we are gambling.

As I said, no one said that poker is just gambling with cards, whoever is familiar with the game is aware of it.

Poker isn't a game strictly based on chance, which is the definition of a gambling game; that it's only gamble. Strip away "cards" from that sentence and put in stocks/shares instead and suddenly you're pretty much describing Wall Street or Nikkei or any other stock market you wanna go to. If poker is gambling, so is buying and selling shares, goods, currencies and so forth, and then that should be illegal as well.

Just because you're putting your money on something doesn't make it gambling. When you buy a house, will you consider it gambling? The house may drop in value rapidly for a short period of time(something we've all seen). Putting money in your education could result in a backlash because suddenly there are no jobs for people in your field. And if gambling is per definition outlawed, then they better start building new prisons because they're gonna need it.

So if gambling is based on nothing but chance, then poker isn't gambling. If gambling only need to involve a little bit of a chance then living your life just became illegal.

I'd like to post a rant, but I'm too meh to do it. I'm too meh to go into the rage cage. Meh

So if poker is strictly gambling, then there really shouldn't be anyone that's good at it. If poker is gambling then everyone knows that if I sit down with those that are ranked as the best poker players in the world I would have as big a chance as them to win, but who in here thinks that I have the slightest chance against them? It's simply because it's not all about chance. Sure, I have the same chance to get a royal flush as the best one, but the cards you get isn't even half of the game. If it was all down to chance then we should have blackjack tournaments and roulette tournaments and so forth.

So those of you who say poker is gambling on the same line as blackjack and roulette I ask you this; what is it that differs poker from blackjakc and roulette and the other casion games, since they have poker tournaments? Why are there no roulette tournaments?

"Me? I'm just a nobody"

Because I wanna be in the shadows today

Me? I'm just a nobody

http://www.youtube.com/embed/uVxvcs8D1tI

The moral of the story is: You can let out the most horrendous farts, but if you have nice tits you'll get away with it

https://images.nonexiste.net/img/irc/2011/10/12/epic-tits.jpg

Thanks guys =)

I appreaciate it. Believe it or not, I actually do. So drinks are on me!

Mankind's primary objective is self preservation, for themselves or their family should they have one. In some cases religious beliefs may trump that(as in some strictly religious people would rather die than breaking their religious laws), but then again this can also come down to self preservation in the after life, i.e. not going to hell.

I wouldn't go down that road unless every other option was depleted. I guess it would depend on who was there. If there's a bunch of cunts that I don't like then I'm off for hiding. If there's a bunch of friends with families of their own the decision becomes easier considering I'm single and all that. Technically, no one depends on me unlike if I had a kid. If I had a wife/girlfriend and kids that depended on me then things would have been a bit more different.

At least if there was a hot chick I'd ask her if I could get layed first....

It would give me great pleasure to join in the fight with you and go there and send her to jail, but

I respectfully disagree, interpretation of laws are not opinions.

No, you're right, not every 18yo is out of danger of being used and manipulated... But they are adult! you keep hammering on the word 'kids"

What if they were 19 or 20 or 21. They are still someone's children. Were is the line? The line is 18 so far and it should be 16, but thats on opinion.. mine.


The reason I use the word kid in this context is because they're still at high school. She may have started teaching them when they were 16, when in the eyes of the law they're kids. What if she puts thoughts in their mind then and this keeps rolling? Maybe she has been teaching them sex ed.(if they learn about that). Imagine the way she may appear to them, especially if some of the lads are virgins. Suddenly they see this authority figure that knows about sex and wham, at the age of 16 they get a crush on her which doesn't go away. That's abusing the authority she has.

We all know that when it comes to attraction it's not just necessarily good looks that is the only thing that lights your fire, especially when it's with someone you know. It can be trust, a close relationship built up over time and so much more, and she has gained those from her position as a teacher over a longer period of time from when they were young.

You can say "they're 18" all you like, but it's still against the law to fuck your pupils. You still risk jailtime if you do it. I for one am certain that if I ever have kids then I want to make sure that my kid won't be used as a tool to satisfy the teacher's sexual desires, it be consensual or not. Whether or not it's consensual is a ridicilous argument, because that's not the case here. Same as the judge shouldn't consider if they were 18 or not. What is the matter here is that the teacher builds a bond with the student that it is completely necessary to keep within bounds by the law.

I have experience with teaching children aged 13-16. I know how strong a bond you form with them even in a very short time. It's a whole lot easier than you think to see which one of them are the more insecure and would be more susceptible for a move than others. I doubt that changes over a period of two years. You learn to know these kids, and if you're good, they'll open up to you. You see them every day and you interact with them more that day than many of their parents. In the end they'll find it easier to talk to you than their parents, simply because you're an adult who knows them but you're not their parent. I know that if one of my colleagues ended up shagging a pupil then I'd volunteer to drive the teacher from the courthouse to jail. Because it is by far one of the greatest betrayls you can do as a teacher.

If putting money on that your skills will be better than other people's skills then we're all gambling. Taking a degree in a market with tight job application; you're putting not just the schoolmoney but also years of your life that your skills in the subject is better than your fellow students.

Making a business; you're putting money on that you can provide a service that is more comptetative than other companies.

When a footballclub pays 25 million quid + wages then they're gambling on the fact that the skills they aquired will be enough for them win.

Gambling is chance, where you might as well flip a coin. There's no skill involved in blackjack(unless you count cards which is not considered legal by the casinos), roulette and so forth. The fucking lottery is gambling.

Poker is all about being able to read your opponents, calculating probability and fucking with their heads. There's a difference between that and rolling the dice.

My view of this; pushing the expenses of the government over on the individuals in terms of crimerates going up. If anyone here have ever been addicted to something(cigarettes or anything like that) you know how difficult it is to quit. Add the fact that drugs causes you a greater craving then the removal of welfare isn't gonna make you quit. You'll just start doing other things to fuel your drug addiction, either through prostitution or other ways. Thinking that this is in any way the solution of the problem then you're narrowminded. This is gonna end up costing more than it saves.

And I consider the whole drugtesting at work a violation of privacy. What I do in my own spare time is nothing my boss should think about, as long as I function well at my job. What if a person goes to the Netherlands or somewhere else where it's legal to do a certain drug? Is that person to be punished for not doing anything illegal in my own sparetime. As long as I function at my job and I'm not under the influence at work I shouldn't be punished by any other than the law.

Everyone agrees that she violated a moral trust, and that she isn't fit to be responsible for our kids' safety. But does she really deserve 20 years in a hardcore prison for her "crime"? When people that shoot other people do half that?

I never said maximum security and the length of the sentence. I agree that it would be wrong if she has to spend 20 years in prison while a killer spends 10 years. But that's a different debate.

The question is should she go to jail or not? I say she should, because the law is there to make sure that you can send your kids to school without having to worry about if their teacher is gonna try to trick them into bed. Are people gonna say that every 18yo is out of danger of being used and manipulated?

Bottom line is: she broke the law. She knew that by fucking these guys she risked going to jail. She still did it. And like it's been said earlier. If it had been a male teacher fucking girls the debate wouldn't exist. How's that for equality?

When you're starving but for some reason the chatrooms and forums are more interesting than eating.

Well we really have to look at this from a few different point of views. why was she doing it? was there love involved. tbh sex between teachers and students...kind of a stupid rule, really its just there to stop kids from not focusing on the task at hand, but if u have a look at schools throughout the world that internet access and all, ull find kids with pornography, games and other "distracting" material. under those reasons then i would say give her a pardon, since the people who were doing it with her were legel and consented. BUT if we were to look at it from the point of view that we stop these acts from going ahead to set and example...kinda useless i mean c'mon, schools are full of horny teenagers who cant wait to whip it out, sex happens in school, no doubt about it, it is unavoidable, and once that happens wat are the authorities gonna do then? kick the children out from the school becuase they succumbed to their basic animal instincts? so really, i dunno, give her a pardon i guess, BUT tell her not to do it again as it will cause many many problems. oh and to the readers who read this rant, this may have sounded very confusing soooo yeah sorry XD

The problem isn't teenagers having sex. You're missing the point. The problem is a teacher having sex with a student. There's a difference.

I'm sure some of you have kids. How would you feel if your kid was at a position where he/she was having problems in life? Maybe a break up and the only person he/she confides in is the teacher. At this highly vulnerable point how difficult would it be for the teacher to talk the student in to sex? If know I'd have a fit. If that's not abusing your position then I dunno what is. Kids at that age are vulnerable whether we like it or not. Add a trusting authority figure and you don't have to be an expert at manipulation to get laid.

Fire her arse and send her to jail. She's abusing her authority as a teacher to satisfy her own sexual needs. When you're a teacher you can make an impression on kids that no other adult can. You're not just a grown up, but you're a grown up that connects with them. The kids can come to the teacher with any kind of problem and in some cases the teacher knows the kid better than the parent. If the teacher wants to then it's not really a problem coercing the kid to bed. What if it was a shrink? Or a doctor? It's the same kind of manipulation.

And in the US you're obviously not considered responsible enough to have a beer until you're 21 and we all know that we were far from mature at 18. She knew very well what the rules were when she became a teacher, and she knowingly broke the law. The teacher has a certain control over the still immature kid, even when they're 18, and she abused it. Keep the law and send her ass to jail.

Traffic and construction work. My homies got da beat, bitches!

If you have all the answers, why do you keep hammering us with questions?

Tell anyone and die!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/njos57IJf-0

If I find myself being nice to people, does that count as a bug? Because it sure as hell isn't normal...

You're all open and positive about me sending in a complaint. Then please explain to me this. How the fuck should I be able to send in a complaint when you have no fucking information WHERE I should adress it? Do I ship it to my local office? Or do I ship it to central office? Maybe you cunts could be a bit more informative! There is as much help from your websites as there are from wet toiletpaper when you have the runs. FUCK YOU!