374 Forum Posts by "Leeloo-Minai"
At 1/30/09 04:40 AM, esko-man wrote: #3 just made me jizz a little...
I just realized this thread is almost two years old.
ALL those nugglets of goodness were already sparked and buried, having been inhaled to better places.
A moment of silence, please.
At 1/30/09 04:10 AM, Lost-Chances wrote: Have your parents whined about something that has nothing to do with them at all?
Other than walking in on me and my love in the midst of an all out boning, nope.
If I wanted high percent alcohol, then I'd just buy vodka. It's easier and I know about it anyway. I then went in detail about why I wouldn't become a raging alcoholic (due to me drinking it the following week, only on weekends and don't plan to get very drunk off it). He carries on ranting about me becoming a raging alcoholic so I just give up, leave the room and decide to just store it in my room anyway.
Storing it in your room helps his story more than yours.
You should sit down, have a drink or four with him, talk about life and what it means to you so far, bond a little and show him you're mature enough to imbibe the good stuff.
Don't let it self-fulfill your namesake.
At 1/30/09 04:34 AM, MrNiceGuytm wrote:At 1/30/09 04:28 AM, i-hope-you-die wrote: mid nugs, $35/dubNorthern lights or w/e is called hydro, or dro for short, here in Texas. Also, "mid nugs" go for $225/oz, while "nug" go for $152/oz. So down here, mid nug > nug.
no brick, just nug. hella homegrown, $45/dub
northern lights, $60/dub
THERE IS NO WAY THAT #2 IS BRICK. Shit, I'd love to taste a ghoulash of that shit.
It's crazy out here, but not as bad in N Dakota. Brick goes for 200/oz out there, but <250 nugs is a thing of the past unless you get quantity.
Wait, lemme see your badge >:[
At 1/30/09 03:23 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I think I'd prefer you not use my first name like you know me.
I figured if you were insinuating I was a fuck-up, you knew me about as well as I could possibly know you.
I won't use your name, but at least be aware if you play in the sandbox you might get dirty.
At 1/30/09 01:32 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:At 1/30/09 01:20 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: We don't drill kneecaps and limb the bodies pre-immolation.Oh, well as long as we don't do THAT, then it's all good. Please reattach those electrodes to their balls with my blessing (I'm trying to be funny people, don't take this as me literally saying they attach electrodes to their balls, I don't have evidence)
I'd rather have my nuts tazed than my life taken with a dull knife.
I'd joke more, but I guess it's not really all that funny, is it.
Are you really such a fuck-up?Are you?
What do you think, keith?
I always thought Isle-of-Poozy was wittier.
watch the rush.
At 1/30/09 12:53 AM, wismty wrote: All the hot chicks.
The popular kids.
At 1/30/09 01:15 AM, Musician wrote: Adrsheperd, could you clarify something for me?
Why is it "torture" when the Islamic radicals do it, and "physical and mental discomfort" when the US does it?
We don't drill kneecaps and limb the bodies pre-immolation.
Are you really such a fuck-up?
At 1/29/09 11:48 PM, adrshepard wrote: Obama's efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and put an end to the interrogations there represent one of the worst outcomes for a nation's interests when fleeting emotional concerns and self-delusion override cold pragmatism.
The same could be said, that a cold-logic pragmatism concluded Gitmo is doing more damage worldwide than the benefits of continuing its operation in Cuba. It's not mystery the US has military installations worldwide, and it's no mystery we house non-traditional prisoners of war there, offshore yet close enough to maintain a firm grip.
Gitmo served an important purpose, but the opportunity to capitalize on shutting it down as the first order of business for BHO is too great to pass up. It had to close eventually; too many knew about it and it no longer served any purpose another offshore installation couldn't. Gitmo had to close, and closing it quick is better than waffling.
Fortunately, the stakes are small in this case. The 245 men held there, were they all to instantly return to their place of capture, probably wouldn't make that big of a difference to the US counterterrorist campaign, and their intelligence value, though useful, was never critical (they mostly gave information about terrorist networking and operations rather than specific details regarding attacks or leaders' locations). But that doesn't make the closure any more palatable.
Every cloud has a silver lining, I guess. We should know more about them now than before, and can probably expect certain things from them. DO you think they'd reintegrate well back into their native habitats after X amount of years and still be accepted... or would they be somehow tainted after being captured for so long?
I dunno the answer to that, but I think it's interesting to think about. Maybe they'll end up leading us to bigger cheeses, ya know?
But adrshepard, you are saying, Guantanamo Bay SHOULD be closed. I know. I have heard endless reasons. I'm saying they're all bullshit.
No they aren't. Some are fairly convincing if you believe in the military's capability to house a prison like Gitmo pretty much anywhere.
I believe they're capable, don't you? And maybe they'll keep it a lil quieter this time?
They all rest upon pointlessly debilitating notions of justice and fundamentally incorrect views of foreign affairs. And now, thanks to Obama and the brilliant actions of the Supreme Court in granting terrorist suspects and foreigners Constitutional rights (basically, they apply precedents concerning the extension of rights to people in US-controlled territories like the Philipines and Puerto Rico to rule that terrorists captured thousands of miles away are equivalent to the average Hawaiian citizen during the US annexation. Way to go.) these opinions have gained undue legitimacy.
Combatants are combatants and fit to be shot on the field of battle. Why even capture these guys anyways? Theoretically, they're taking everything they know to the grave for Allah, and capture wouldn't yield much fruit.
If you were a commander, and you were told by your superior that the only questions allowed are name rank and serial number, would your marching orders not be to capture, but to kill? In light of suicider bombers, it should be obvious.
People detained within the US shouldn't be sent offshore, period. If they're treasonous, execute them here, in America, with due process.
1. We are Americans; we have to be a moral people and proudly lead the world again.
This falls under the whole "internationalist" category of anti-Americanism, employed by Kerry with "Bush alienated our allies," and Obama with "When Bush leaves office, the world will breathe a sigh of relief."
That's politics, not internationalism.
The foundation of these remarks is the belief that other nations' interactions with the US are dictated not by their relative power, wealth, influence, or potential for mutual profit, but by a collective moral judgment of US behavior, including events with absolutely no bearing on the countries involved.
Morality helped found our nation and forge the founding documents. We didn't close Gitmo because the world hated it, BHO nixed it because it's expedient.
For example, people in countries all over the world protested at the US invasion of Iraq and more recently the Israeli operation in Gaza. Why?
Boredom.
The Japanese or Germans have absolutely no interest or connection with what went on in these small, insignificant lands, nor did any harm come to them because of US or Israeli actions. Yet passionate diatribes against these countries abound. More importantly, notice also that nothing ever came of these protests in either case.
Because both are defeated nations in the previous century with no military aspirations or obligations, does it matter if they bitch about war? It does nothing, as you've seen.
The UN
Obsolete, at least at the moment. An overhaul is overdue.
Basically, I'm accepting the "realist" view of international relations, as in that described by Morgenthau in "Principles of Political Realism." Simply put, nations do not act out of virtue, passion, or justice, only material (economic, strategic, security-related) interests.
Bullshit. Each of those is fashioned around a justice of it's own sort, embodied by it's respective laws centered on the US Constitution. We do what we do because it's supposed to be right, as far as well understand it, and Gitmo in 2009 was just that. Sorry, but it's the cold truth, from a libertarian American who voted against Obama. He's the president, so buck up.
2. Guantanamo Bay only inspires more terrorism.
It's too well-known, so yeah.
Islamic terrorists, however, cannot win militarily and slaughtering innocents represents the peak of their capability). Neither does terrorism represent anything remotely close to what we could call normal Western values. Since it targets people completely uninvolved with the dispute, it cannot be considered self-defense, and attacks with no objective other than to maximize the slaughter of innocents cannot be rationalized as just retribution for anything less than genocide.
...which is why we're in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and 50 other countries nowhere near the umbrella of US law.
We're fighting a war with shitty odds and a crooked bookie for nothing more than pride and peace of mind.
What was 9/11 retaliation for? Having US troops "defile" a sacred desert? Giving money and weapons to Israel so it could defend a tiny speck of land? Or how about the first WTC attack or the USS Cole attack? In what way did the US "force the hand" of Islamic terrorists?
By not submitting to Allah, of course. And for not paying debts. A little probably came from the Iran contra fiasco, maybe a little let over from the awesome endorsement of the Saudi royals... the old shahs... unwavering Israeli support...
.... there really is a shit-ton of reasons, non of which are reasonable, mind you. The trick is getting the KO without spilling blood on the crowd, ya know?
That covers most of them, though I completely able to go after the anti-torture and "trial by jury is a human right" people as well.
Don't they get tribunals? I'm fairly certain they would.
Nice thread :)
At 1/29/09 09:47 PM, unowned wrote: because all palestinians think that way
severed heads is dead.
At 1/29/09 02:28 PM, poxpower wrote:At 1/29/09 01:57 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Like, 1000 death years? Just what part of you is being tortured after you've been dead for decades or millenia?Wtf, I don't know, I didn't come up with their stupid religion.
Go ask them.
Oh, I thought you were the one with issues on it.
My bad.
At 1/29/09 12:38 PM, poxpower wrote:At 1/29/09 12:13 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:Where did you come up with this analogy.. clergy, professors, parents... yourself? It's a helluvan analogy, which really disarms the atheist faction that proclaims, "God wants this because he's a bad man."Yeah the "tough love" argument seems brilliant until you realize he'd send you to hell for 1000 years of mental reconditioning via extreme torture because you had sex with a man you weren't married too.
Like, 1000 death years? Just what part of you is being tortured after you've been dead for decades or millenia?
Seriously pox, get a grip.
At 1/29/09 06:12 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote: "Hell" is closer to the idea of a blacksmith's workshop than it is to the idea of a place whose ONLY function is that of torture where people may never ever return from. Iron is cold and rigid, but in a furnace it softens, can be banged into proper form, and may be made even MORE durable than it had been before. That being said, it's preferable to do the tempering yourself while you have the chance rather than eventually have your impurities forcefully whacked out of you.
I hope this didn't go overlooked.
Where did you come up with this analogy.. clergy, professors, parents... yourself? It's a helluvan analogy, which really disarms the atheist faction that proclaims, "God wants this because he's a bad man."
At 1/28/09 09:08 PM, TightRope wrote: NG what is the most original criminal act you can think of? I want to hear your ideas.
Buttfucking the president.
<3
At 1/27/09 11:19 PM, KronikAvenger wrote: thats why i started sellin pot
it worked!
fixedzords
At 1/27/09 07:06 PM, DonPatch-0110 wrote: Do they? I'm not giving out mine. Lol.
Mine has roots going back to Dionysius.
..pretty much anything English closely related to "Dennis" is..
At 1/27/09 10:03 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:At 1/27/09 09:35 PM, Proteas wrote: Well, the thing is, you do it for fashion reasons... dress up and cosplay.Ahem. We do not like our hobby to be referred to as "cosplay." Cosplay is what the freaky anime kids and the girls with the tails and cat ears do. We are costumers.
You don't play around in your costumes?
I'd just as soon be honest and call it foreplay.
yay for unwillingness to support your ideas.
At 1/27/09 05:00 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: Or a Penicorn that you could put an aerosol can of whipped cream in it.
HAWT
I'd say NG sugar-based suckers, based off AH and aingry faices. Cheap, easy to make, easy to sell to kids.
Stamper could endorse them.
At 1/27/09 04:49 PM, Al6200 wrote:At 1/27/09 01:06 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:Marijuana law is =/= abortion law.My point was that you can prosecute the supplier without prosecuting the consumer.
..to what ends?
I know you don't wanna say, but it's a tired old fact of life. Speaking of life, shouldn't it be protected in a manner conducive to critical thought?
About prosecuting clinics, why?I know that you're trying to draw this into a debate about the morality or ethics of abortion, but you have to realize that that's been discussed too many times to count on this forum.
I just want to know what the clinic did wrong by carrying out an abortion. If you say it's against state law, then you need to recognize federal law.
That's not a moral argument, it's actually a very very clean and succinct legal one.
If you want to refer to those arguments, feel free to do so.
A woman's health should be top priority when government displays interest (like a ban), especially over the non-person that a fetus is. A constitutional non-person, I may add.
Also note that, as I have already stated, I am not supporting any particular action on the part of the legislature, only their authority to make laws which are not unconstitutional.
And a blanket ban on abortion is, for the reason mortifiedpenguins pointed out.
Did you seriously not read my point about the marijuana laws, and not understand the context? I was pointing out that one could construct on abortion law that didn't violate due process.
I guess the context was so confusingly shockheaded, I assumed you knew how legal matters operate.
Where's your loophole again?
...what would you sue the clinics on the grounds of, again?Sue? You do realize that that's tort law, right?
So you'd incarcerate the clinic. Cool.
If you don't wanna work with me it's your loss.
I'm just glad Roberts made it in. There aren't enough like him or Thomas or Scalia.. haI see that you didn't try to address my point. Fair enough.
You don't have a point, as you've admitted time and time again. You say the court can't make a ruling. Prove it.
Meh, the SCOTUS is no more powerful than congress or the president. They just deal in spades. They get to say what MAY or MAY NOT as according to the constitution, and CASE LAW.My point is that if they can interpret laws beyond what's literally written in the constitution, then the population has a greater interest in trying to stack the supreme court.
That's a stupid point.
I think it's telling that you choose to fail to examine the causes and jump to condemnation over a sentiment.
It's people like you, sora, that are the problem with the world.
I'll take the rattlesnake over the water moccasin every time. "Fuck GAZA"? Fuck islam, nuke that shit.
i'm kidding you can't nuke a religion.
At 1/14/09 05:52 PM, Ericho wrote:At 1/13/09 03:18 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Sure, the Ayatollah is the supreme leader in Iran, but isn't even he supposed to abide by God's laws?Technically yes, but this is just an example of corruption in religion.
So I bet you're really pissed off that Hillary Clinton was appointed to an office where she'll be spokesman to some of the same people she's requested campaign contributions from.
And technically, endowing power to God [Allah] in deference to one's own judgement is about as uncorrupted as you can get. In the end, though, "it is what it is" and religious institutions can be made to check the corruptive abuses of power commonly found in the world today.
At 1/13/09 10:10 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: JASOWNED
Is that a full nelson, with the half-twisting backstab variation?
Whatever it is, I'm incorperating it into my next amateur shoot.
guest star?
At 1/14/09 11:01 AM, Earfetish wrote: only in religion could 'why is everything not perfect' make sense as a topic of discussion
I was thinking the same thing until I remembered our universe is supposed to harbor black holes more efficiently than life-sustainable habitats.
How much closer to perfection can you get?
Especially if everything dies.
At 1/13/09 03:14 PM, Neptunus wrote: Really? How about that Jesus Christ fellow? Is his birth/crucifixion/rebirth/whatnot a metaphor, perhaps? Why is Christianity based around a literal interpretation of the Bible, while the rest is just supposed to be metaphors or analogies?
Is Jesus only mentioned in Biblical works?
So what does it say about someone when they FAIL every debate they are invited to?
By the same token of control over populations, couldn't the concept of God be used to control the rulers of those same populations? By instilling a popular belief that there is an even higher authority that grants the joys the life, wouldn't the "control" facet also encompass those at the top as well?
Sure, the Ayatollah is the supreme leader in Iran, but isn't even he supposed to abide by God's laws?
The Preamble is just that, a preamble. Outlawing booze uses the same logic as outlawing sub-standard children.
So it's funny when nature throws the curveball and gives the genetically pure couple a child with pox's outward appearance and inward demeanor.
Then you'd have to grant them the retroactive abortion they were told by the government (SOCIETY!) they wouldn't have to have.
Makes sense to me.
I always thought it implied that, "you are not good enough!"
Which begs the question, "So who/what is?"
Thus, God.
