Forum posts made by sprite

i'm against it - i'd rather see the kid starve to death than to see a glimpse of the horrible awful bewb. what is wrong with people? those things are disgusting!

oh, btw, the entire PURPOSE of the breast is to supply children with milk. no, really guys, they're not there just to ogle, or squeeze, they have a purpose. and guess what, like it or not, a lot of you were raised sucking milk from a teat.

I agree. That is why I asked. How do you plant to defend yourself when you are in a dangerous situation? For example: #.UZBGVnco46Y

depends on the situation. hopefully, i'm smart enough to know when to fight and when not to, when to use what i have available and when not to. i carry pepper spray, i have some martial arts training, i have my brain, and, when at home, i know where the baseball bat is kept, the knives, and other things that can double as weapons. i also am always aware of escape routes and i pay attention to my surroundings, which is a defense in inself. simply put, i do not put myself in dangerous situations as much as possible.

- your link didn't work, so i don't know what you were referring to in specific. :)

btw, i am on record as stating, over and over in these threads, that i have no issue with someone keeping rifles, shotguns, or handguns in their homes for protection. i have chosen not to, but if someone else chooses to do so, than that is their legal right.

I get a kick out of people who defend the Washington petty dictators who are trying to change our country into a wonderland like nazi Germany or China. What happen is a government agency at the orders of the leader behaved like a state secret police agency. If you are a leftist and think "Big deal." think what would happen if things were run by another bunch of petty two bit dicators who didn't want any gays, or liberals, or if they (which they are now) run by big buisness and wanted anyone who owned a small business forced out, or if they wanted all unions, etc. Look at history. The old saying about Nazi Germany and Communists Russia. First they go after this group, that was ok, I didn't belong to that group. Then they go after another group. That is ok, I don't belong to that group. Then the go after my group. Now I complain?


hmm.... pretty sure we're not rounding up random groups of people and tossing them in jail. for the record, my stance was, this needs to be addressed and let's make sure not to simply fire anyone who has involved in any sort of why - if someone needs to be held accountable, let's make sure it's the person or people actively being discriminatory.

for the record, despite actively campaigning for Mr Obama and have a liberal stance, there are many things on his record that i have an issue with, starting with Guantanemo Bay, and reaching into Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some things he's done, or tried to do, i am 100% behind. Other things i'm deeply disappointed. Not as disappointed as i am about some of the current republican party's policies, but disappointed nonetheless.

by the way, i am very aware of how certain groups are targeted. i'm a woman. i'm gay. i grew up in a predominately black neighborhood, and my wife is a minority, Mexican-Filipino American on one side of her family - she could easily pass for Latino. :) trust me when i say that i have been very aware and active in regards to equal rights for most of my adult life. :)




sprite, you have to realize you are the type of individual who is willing to sell themselves into slavery by putting their head in the sand and saying "It won't happen to me. So what difference does it make? " First Washington has taken freedom of the press, working on taking freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, and now they intend to punish anyone who they believe is an enemy of the State. Not the Constitution or the people, but political enemies against letting them have a free hand. They want to be royalty and all others to be serfs. There is no difference between a Tsar and a Comazar or a Chairman and an Emperor or a commie, nazi, dictator of any type and a Middle Ages King. They all believe that the people do not have any rights.

But as long as people say "Well it won't happen to me, or it won't happen to my group." It Will.

obviously, you don't know me very well. we'll just leave it at that. :)

quick movie review time. just got back, went with friends who wanted to see it. first off, we all agreed that the soyngs worked. Yes, they were anachronistic, but they weren't up there in your face so. some of them are beautiful - love is blindness by Jack White was especially moving to me. The Lana Del Rey song, however was the only one i didn't care for (the lone dissenter among 6, bw).

ok, on to the movie. not everyone is going to like this maybe most aren't. it uses a device, that, while i understand why it was used, makes the first part of the movie a chore. it comes across as fake, plastic, very music video looking. exaggerated expressions, colors, in your face camera work, over the top choreography (not just talking about dance, but about the movement of actors, props, everything seemed very staged.). it was beautiful but empty and i came close to falling asleep... and then...

that the thing, it's two movies. the first, is fake, empty, pretty but shallow, and it's all a device. when Daisy and Gatsby come together, it becomes a different movie. all the emptiness is left behind and it becomes incredibly intimate. i loved the second movie. it's brilliant, despite the fact that you know it's going to break your heart - and i think it succeeds because the first half is how it is... i found myself reduced to tears, quite honestly, drained by the beauty of it's tragedy, and i think it does the book justice.

it's meant to be like that, i think - Luhrman took a huge risk, but really, it's as if you're seeing it all thru Gatsby's eyes - nothing matters except his fantasy of Daisy, and it is a fantasy. he has this perfect vision, it's all a lie, but it's a beautiful lie and we are let into it for a time, sharing it until it all goes up in smoke and the harsh light of reality returns...

will i recommend it? hard to do. some people are just not going to like it. out of 6, i was the only one who really truly loved it. everyone else was more along the lines of: it wasn't bad. be warned that it really is a hard movie to love, but the more i talk and think about it, the more amazing i think it was. just be warned, the first half may have you wanting to sneak into another theater and catch ironman 3. :)

The IRS really dropped the ball all the way around on this one. The apology was good but every employee taking part in that conspiracy should be fired. It is an outrage that they have not been.

No group whatsoever should be singled out for such action whether they be conservative, liberal, or middle of the pack. The Federal government should do its due diligence to purge the IRS or any other government agency of anyone who would do such a thing.

And for that matter conservative groups have the same right as liberal groups to apply for tax-exempt status and deserve the same consideration. Anything else would be total discrimination. Discrimination comes from bigotry! Bigotry can work from either the right or the left! Bigotry should not be tolerated in any form! Unless stopped bigotry begets itself, grows into a cultural monster and you get something like the Spanish Inquisition, The Third Reich, or The Cultural Revolution. Freedom thrives in a culture of tolerance.

no. the ones who were an active part of it, perhaps, but not the poor guy who's told. hey, take a look into this file. that would be a restaraunt owner buying dog meat and serving it as hamburgers and then firing the waitress who brought the meal to the table. :)

"Need" has nothing to do with it. When the government gets to dictate what private citizens can purchase based on "need" then everybody will be driving around in Yugos and eating Ramen noodles for dinner. Because why would you "need" a car with more than 84 horsepower? And why would you "need" a Porterhouse Steak?

one) can't really recall the last time someone used a porterhouse steak to kill mass quantities of school children (tho, i could easily make the argument, being a vegetarian, that thousands of people die annually as a result of eating too much meat, and i won't even go into the inhumane treatment of cattle in order to obtain your steak).

two) are you really suggesting that the government is going to somehow create legislation that forces people to eat only ramen noodles? you do realize how... ok, i was going to say paranoid, but i think i'll go with crazy instead... that sounds? :)

three) same argument for cars on both counts. not usually the go to weapon for theatre shootings, etc. andy yeah, pretty sure no one's putting a bill thru outlawing SUVs any time soon, either.

So what do you think about agents of our government "stomping on people's rights?"

i assume that's a retorical question? if you want a real answer, what happened was wrong. the IRS admitted it was wrong. an apology when out. an IRS spokeswoman said Friday that no disciplinary action had been taken. yet. pending, i am assuming, further investigation. i am not defending them. if the government had tried to cover this up, that would be one thing. obviously, they didn't. next.

Good God, y ou'd have to be a total, bloomin' idiot to not be able to understand the link between one person saying that the government won't ever infringe on a person's rights, and a rebuttal post showing the government doing just that. Are you a total, bloomin' idiot , Mon? if you are... well, they shoot horses, don't they ?

lol - i really should delete this post, seeing as it broke your own rules - really, name calling? threatening to shoot monocle? damn, where's KirstinD when you need her - oh, right, she's a hypocrite, so she gets censored. got it.

I didn't bring it up. I guess this one's aimed at you, Sprite.

don't look at me - i didn't bring it up - i had the same question as monocle.

Nah, sorry Beautiful. I've already gone way too far into my personal life as it is. You'll just have to take my word for it. Or don't. Choice is yours.

thought we already had this conversation. it's sprite. i'm not a lap dog to be patted in the head and called "beautiful". it's demeaning in my eyes.

oh, and ok, too personal. ok, how about if you cite how you perceive the writer of the editorial was discriminated against due to his pro-gun stance?

Both those rifles can hold a "large magazine". Your "thirty rounds a minute" figure is bogus - they each fire one shot for each pull of the trigger. You can't legally modify either one to become fully automatic - if you do and you're found out, it earns you a lengthy stretch in the Federal slammer. Neither one is for "taking down mass targets", because neither one orients itself, aims itself at mass targets, or pulls its own trigger. They're tools, nothing more. It's already illegal to use them for "taking down mass targets", just as it's illegal to use a car, a knife, or a bomb. Passing another law won't get rid of them - Pandora's box is already opened. You can't shut it again. Not when any decent machinist with access to even a poorly equipped shop can physically construct a fully automatic machine gun in a matter of hours. You would have to take civilization back to the bronze age (or farther) to achieve your goal.



Unlike their military cousins — which have three-round burst settings — commercially available AR-15 type rifles like Bushmaster’s are semiautomatic, meaning one bullet per trigger pull. But a little searching on YouTube turns up numerous videos showing how quickly AR-15 type rifles can unload dozens of rounds and even one example of how to turn a “semi-auto into a full-auto machine using a household rubberband.”

if someone plans on shooting people, i doubt they'll be concerned with breaking a law modifying a gun. how about if we just make it a little more difficult to kill large numbers of people? is that really such an issue with you?



And "need" really has nothing to do with it.


ok, so it's all about want? I "want" to be able to drive my truck down the freeway at 100mph. but i don't. why? it's dangerous and it's against the law.


And FWIW, see this link. The IRS has formally apologized for targeting groups for investigation based entirely on the fact that those groups happened to have the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their name. How long before the IRS targets groups with "gay" or "pride" in their name? And gee... who do you suppose could have ordered the IRS to take such actions? I'm hardly a tin-foil hatter, but this kinda makes me go "Hmmmmmm."

i have NO ideas what any of the above has to do with gun control. as for the IRS targeting groups with 'gay' or 'pride' in their names, to be quite honest, i'm not so paranoid to think that it will be an issue. i'm more concerned with getting shot by intolerant bigots than i am about being unfairly taxed, quite honestly.

I never said I've had rights denied. I've said that I've been discriminated against.

specifics please: events of discrimination based on your pro-gun stance. to help you out:

1. Bias or prejudice resulting in denial of opportunity, or unfair treatment regarding selection, promotion, or transfer. Discrimination is practiced commonly on the grounds of age, disability, ethnicity, origin, political belief, race, religion, sex, etc. factors which are irrelevant to a person's competence or suitability.

2. Unequal treatment provided to one or more parties on the basis of a mutual accord or some other logical or illogical reason.

3. Differences in two rates not explainable or justifiable by economic considerations such as costs.

Nobody has ever said that, have they? But just because you get discriminated against, does that make it proper that I get discriminated against? We should both be angry as hell at both of us being treated unfairly. I'm pissed that you've been treated poorly. How about you?

what rights of yours have been denied? that's a serious question, btw, and i would appreciate an honest answer.

ok... was there a point to this? Think tank is about editorial discussion - in other words, make a statement for discussion, don't just put up an article. really, what are you looking for? was what happened wrong? by their own admission, yes - pretty sure you won't get anyone disagreeing with that.

I can come to the table as a "gun-person" to meet a "anti-gun person." I will come with reason and respect, trying to see their side as well as letting them see our side.

Question #1
What can we do about automatic weapons with high capacity rounds?

My answer:
I personally would offer a compromise. Do we need those high capacity rounds, no. If they are you are truly a gun person. Then you should be able to get what you want out of your weapon in one shot. We trim the round capacity from 30-20-15 to a max of 5. To those saying. "What if another country invades us?!?!" Chill out, if they did, most of you would be laying in your cellar, with your hands holding your ass checks together to keep the shit from falling out and crying for mommy. We turn fully automatic weapons(Assault, SMG, Pistols etc.) single shot. Then go through and shutdown any business doing illegal modifications to the weapons.

Question #2
How do we keep guns away from people who want to use them for harm.

My answer:
We make mandatory mental health screenings for anybody wishing to purchase a gun. You have to take one before holding a gun for your military, so why not before you make a purchase. If you show any signs of psychopathic tendencies or anything in the same context, you can not legally purchase a weapon. And for God sakes, lets put a better lock on our cabinets to keep kids, and thief's out of your weapons.

Here are some ideas. I am game for a discussion.

that, as an "anti-gun" person, is really all i am asking for. nothing more. see what happens when reasonable people sit down together? :) i'm not about taking away everyone's guns - just making sure that people who shouldn't have them, don't and making sure that no one's running around with something that can do maximum harm in minimum time. :)

haha I noticed him this morning and was like wait, is this a really late halloween doodle of sorts, like google does, but I think it would be funny if he popped up randomly.

kind of like a "tag, you're it" kind of thing? :)

lol - i was wondering how you managed -105 posts! honestly, i think that's a new record. that said, i don't have the power, but i'm sure there's a cure and someone will probably address it sooner rather than later? :)

OK - answering as something of a porn connoisseur it's different every time, depending on my mood. Sometimes I want perfect picture quality, sound and everything else. Sometimes a crappy muted clip is enough. What I really want to see is people doing things that *they* love doing... that I want to do or have done to me at that moment in time.

you owe me a new keyboard. mine's got tea all over it now. :)

We have two winners!

Nikki703 and paulfromma are both correct.

I went to college with a lady who worked as a fluffer in the porn world. Most, but not all of her job, was to get the male star(s) hard before a scene was started (like first thing in the morning or after lunch), or keep him hard "off screen" while a scene was being discussed, re-written, camera angles were re-set, etc.

A woman porn star can fake it (and do it convincingly), but the male star is eother hard or not; he either cums or not.

Her real talent was not in getting the guy hard, she thought that was the easy part. Her talent was keeping the guy from cuming, particularly as the shooting day progressed.

I want to ask Nikki in particular how she knew the answer?

i actually knew the answer (having worked in the industry, not as a fluffer, but as a crop duster) for several years. i was just going for funny. ok, your turn. do you know that a "crop duster" is?

quote=LadyX

If you worked in a venue where you were discriminated against on a daily basis, you may get a little touchy also.


.

for the record, i live in a world where i am discriminated against on a daily basis. i do get a little touchy at times. so the discrimination he feels somehow trumps mine?

Which brings me to one of author Snell's primary points. Gun laws are being proposed and voted on by people with extremely limited experience with guns. There's no study, no finding of fact. Someone with no knowledge about the subject writes a bill, and if they're persuasive enough or have enough political clout, the bill gets passed into law. usually without even being read by the legislators that vote it in.

You're briefly familiar with firearms - you have a basic knowledge greater than some. Certainly you have a basic knowledge greater than Mme. Feinstein. And yet you're willing to allow some guns and disallow others, based purely on a scary name: "assault rifle".


Which of these two rifles is the more dangerous?



This is not a difficult test. The answer is really easy to guess.

let my clarify my stance. when i say 'assualt rife' i'm throwing a generic term out, one that's become kind an umbrella for all sorts of weapon.

what i object to are guns that are capable of holding a large magazine and firing at a very high rate and are either military grade or one step down. there's no reason, be it hunting or home defense that some one needs to be able to fire off an entire magazine (30 rounds) a minute. and that's if its unmodified. i've come across sites that claim you can legally modify them to fire at least twice that rate. those aren't for sport, they're for taking down mass targets as quickly as possible, and when those mass targets are living breathing human beings, i would like to see them banned. period. why is that such issue? do you really NEED to own something like that? if so, tell me why - and don't tell me it's to keep the government from stomping on your rights - please don't insult my intelligence like that.

gonna kick myself for saying this, but summer has an incredibly loyal fan base and she's worked hard to get it. :)

Since you are against gun ownership, how do you plan to defend yourself against an armed intruder? or mugger? or if you find yourself in a dangerous situation?

there are other ways to defend yourself besides guns. also, even if you have a gun, that doesn't automatically make you safe from armed intruders, muggers, or dangerous situations.

here's the thing that's an issue...

the editorial talks about the anti-gun people like they're intractable. i'm one of the so called anti-gun people. i already came half way, i'm at the table. i'm ok with people owning guns. reasonable guns. rifles. ok. shotguns. ok. hands guns... i don't lke them, but ok. all i am asking is... no assault rifles, clip limits, and back ground checks. that's all. and what do i get when i bring my points to the table? people shouting at me, telling me that it's their right to own any gun they want, that i can't take their guns away, that i will have to pry them from their cold dead hands. if i'm willing to be reasonable, why can't you? the editorial mirrors that. it simply says "No" we're not budging. you meet us all the way or not at all and THAT is why we can't all sit down together - because when i sit down at the table, no one is will to take the seat across from me.

You, on the other hand, (and I use the generic "you", because while some people may not feel this way, in my opinion the vast majority of you do) you do believe that it's proper and right to hurl insults, call names, act boorish... Hell, that Kristin thing actually posted that I should be shot. Twice, if I'm not mistaken . If that's not the ultimate hypocrisy, I don't know what is. And not a single damned one of you pointed this out, or raised up a red flag and said, "Hey, we're all entitled to our own opinions. It isn't right to say that to someone just for posting what they believe in."



Nudie, if you are going to make those kind of statement, please cite the the source. Unless i missed it, i don't see a single post where Kirstin suggested you be shot which makes your statement slander. if you're going to set up rules here, if seems only fair that you play by them as well, if you expect the rest of us to.

quite honestly, after reading the entire editorial, what i got out of it was: gun owner's don't trust anti-gun people because they're: and then a list that could be diluted down into a series of adjectives - naive, stupid, liars, uneducated, uninformed, deceitful, untrustworthy, stubborn, rude, etc. how this is supposed to bring me as someone on the "anti-gun" side to the table, i have no idea.

this particularly made me roll my eyes:

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when things like the Boston Marathon bombing happen, everyone correctly blames the bomber, not the bomb. Nobody is calling for bomb control because killing people with bombs is already illegal — just like killing people with guns is illegal too .

so, is the point of this that bombs should be legal as long as they're not used to blow people up? go ahead, you can have all the bombs you want, just make sure you use them at the bomb range or for hunting, not for blowing limbs off of people at marathons, etc.

head over heels over headi lay in my tub
bladder full from too much to drink
flat on my back my clit i did rub
thoughts of what i'd done in the sink
mouth open, eyes closed, mentally assigning fault
too late to stop it, pressure too great
golden stream arcing too late to halt
listening as it left my cunt with a hiss
covering my belly, tits, face with hot piss
then giggling madly i ran from the room
dripping wet droplets all over the floor
why had i done it, i can't really explain
but now that i've done it, i know one things for sure
just like i know that the winter brings rain
i know i'm going to do it some more.

a silly poem by sprite :D

next subject: pet play

It's a dominant's desire to push limits that can cause mental harm to a sub? And that's OK?



actually, no. it's not. not ever. that's my stand.

usually between 6 & 7 pm. :)

i am going to share this, because... well, i want to. not the riskiest place, but today i masturbated to two orgasms on our back patio, setting in a chair, lap top on the patio table. no pants on, no panties. just a tee and a hoodie. oh, and i peed right before i climaxed the first time. there. i put that out there. now, if you'll excuse me, i'm going to go hide my face for several weeks.