At 12/9/09 06:37 AM, 64nailhead wrote: Hey, ill go for joining, I just hope you guys talk about others cars than imports. What About american muscle? ive got a hot rod heart

Yeah my favorite car is an American car, the Tesla Roadster. Other than that, imports are way more efficient, agile, safe, and quick.

At 12/8/09 07:51 PM, Life-Stream wrote:
You should have saved up a buck or two more and gone for an awesome aggressive looking body kit.

Well I figured if I was going to spend any extra money, it would be on Sony Explode amp, radio, and subs.

On a different note, am i the only one here that thinks the Lancer Evo 9 is sexier than the Evo 10?

Probably. The 10 is way more defined and fierce, but the 9 should be faster, due to the extra weight added to the 10.

I hate all the GPS/Nav systems and all the other useless electronics auto companies are slapping onto cars these days. Unnecessary weight and complications, what ever happened to the basic, compact, and lightweight car?

Oh and I finally got that Grillecraft cut-out grille installed, had to take off the whole front bumper and drill 3 holes in it. Now all I have to do is get an Apexi N-1 muffler, paint the engine block and brakes yellow, and buy a cold-air intake.

Oh and heres a picture. Mid-mounted motor, it is the size of a watermelon. The batteries are also place in the mid/rear in order to provide more traction and grip to the tires. Carbon-fiber body, Rwd, about 2,700 lbs. The roadster sport now accelerates faster than the little Tango 0-60, 3.7 < 3.8. Top speed, 144 mph (due to only 288 Hp). Oh and never-mind, its $19k more than the hard top now, I double checked the Hard-Top, its $101k not $108k, my bad.

At 10/11/09 08:05 AM, BobbaQ wrote:
So, how about that internal combustion engine then? Pretty nifty contraption if you ask me.

Yeah, a bit too intricate. Lets compare it to an electric car motor. For starters, only 35% of the energy produced by a combustion engine is actually put into moving the wheels, the rest is given off as heat. An electric car motor puts 85% of the power generated towards the wheels (It also requires a smaller liquid cooling system, which reduces weight). When you want to increase the horse power to weight ratio of a normal combustion engine, you either have to buy expensive and gas gulping superchargers, attach turbos which takes higher gears and revs to produce more power, increase engine liters, or replace heavy engine parts with expensive and lighter aluminum or alloy metals. All you have to do to an electric car is increase the size of the motor, or increase the amps flown out of the batteries. With Combustion engines take up a much larger amount of space than a electric motor and generator, requiring more car, reducing acceleration and efficiency. Electric motors produce 100% torque before you even touch the accelerator, combustion engines have to build up torque over switching gears. An electric motor revs almost twice as much as a gasoline engine, up to 14,000 rpm (more in electric dragsters). The are over 100 moving parts in a combustion engine, under the hood in an electric car there are only two, the motor and generator; 4 if you count the wheels and A/C fans. In countries like Switzerland, you can even recharge a battery faster than you can fill up a gas tank. There are companies that have set up charging stations that mechanically swap out an empty battery pack for a charged one, and you pay only a few dollars (around $3 U.S.). Electric motors are indisputably more reliable than a combustion engine, only requiring service every 100,000 miles (usually only to wind and lubricate the motor). When you purchase an electric car, some governments (Including the U.S.) may give you incentives or grants. These grants may be in excess of $5,000, depending on the type of vehicle you purchase. On average with gas around $2.50/gal, It costs $35 to fill a 14-gal tank, it costs only a little over $3 to fully charge a battery pack of the average electric car. Charging electric cars over night makes use of the wasted electricity provided by power plants, producing virtually no extra greenhouse gases. An electric car usually only has 3 settings with one gear (some with 2 gears for some reason), park, reverse (except for racing motors), and drive. There isn't any time-consuming gear-shifting in an electric car, nor any extra weight provided by a transmission (its all digital).

Now I know electricity has three setbacks (two of which are solved already in certain cases), miles on a charge, charge time, and lack of noise for some is a drawback. If you are loaded enough to buy a highly superb electric car ($108k before tax benefits and grants) , then the Tesla Roadster blows two of the setback out of the water. It gets 244 miles to the charge, and can be charged to 75% power in less than 3 hours, or in 8 with a normal charge. The average american worker puts in 8 hours of labor a day, so that settles nicely, just charge your car while your at work. Also, the average individual car trip in America is only composed of just 10 miles. This car travels 0-60mph in 3.7 sec (2010 Tesla Roadster Sport, it doesn't cost any more than the hard top) with only 248 horse power. That is impossible for a mass-produced gasoline car. As for the noise, electric cars do produce a sound, much like a power-drill hooked up to batteries that draw out enough amps to produce 14,000 Rpm. It sounds very intense, too intense for the majority of the population, and the noise is dampened a little under the bonnet (as there is no exhaust flow). Instead, why not turn up the radio instead? If that doesn't work for you, then you can always purchase a sound box that produces sounds similar to a Lambo or a Ferrari, and you'll have the speed to show for it. There, all cliche' electric car setbacks solved. Also keep this in mind, as technology advances, strides in electric automotive engineering will too. Battery technology grows rapidly every, along with computer processing power. All electronics are getting smaller, more powerful, more capable, and more efficient, with each passing year. Electric cars will in return, follow the same growth, as they are powered by batteries and motors, which are in every electronic device.

Once again, sorry for writing alot, just want to make my point.

Imma throw something out there. Doesn't it make sense to put the drive where the engine (nearly all of the cars weight) is? E.G. Fwd in a front engine car, Rwd in a rear/mid engine car, and of corse all wheel drive is nice in any case.

What I want to focus on though is Fwd (Front engine obviously as well). I have been noticing that a fair amount of people criticize moding a Fwd, and argue that putting more power into a Rwd (Engine in front) would be better. Lets look at the advantages of Fwd cars: higher traction, faster acceleration, stronger gripping on turns, lighter (due less metal being extended to turn the wheels), and over a more efficient car. The disadvantage is a "pull" while accelerating instead of the "push" provided by Rwd. You see it all the time in 1/4 mile races, the Hot Hatch beats the mustang almost every time.

Oh and so far I'm liking how my Integra is coming out. I'm working on the aesthetics and upkeep first. I got 4 new sony explodes, Xenon Yellow after-market headlights, a Zinc-crested stainless steel cut-out grille (From Grillecraft), new wiring, new belts, and high-traction tires, doing all except the tires and belts myself. I plan on putting in some interior lighting (yellow of corse), cleaning under the bonnet entirely and painting the engine block yellow, painting the brakes yellow, do a little bit of gutting (took out the spare tire already and riped out rusty metal from the trunk), either installing a short-ram or a cold air intake, and Apexi-N1 exhaust. I'm keeping the rims stock (they are heavy enough and provide excellent acceleration and grip) and I am not making any more engine modifications, as I do not want to spend the dough nor lose the mpgs.

Sorry I wrote so much, but if ya got the time tell me what you think. Its a 1999 Acura Integra Ls 1.8L DOHC Non-Vtec automatic. I'll update with pictures after the grille arrives and I put it on.

At 11/18/09 09:49 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:
No, we're a consitutional monarchy, where the Crown has restricted power of the law and parliament. Just because we have public health care doesn't mean our government is socialist.

Oh well thanks for informing us. Still doesn't sound much better than socialism though. Britain has public health care and it is not a socialist country. I just made a false assumption.

Anyway, I'm not too familiar with American politics and how things work, but I did find this article from today that Obama is warning of a possible double-dip recession for the US, unless action is taken to lower the debt. He also said, "Nobody's been more disappointed than I have to see how high the unemployment rate has gotten. And I spend every waking hour, when I'm talking to my economic team, about how we are going to put people back to work." The thing is when he said that on this interview, (4:55) he said it was a side issue. Nevertheless, he remained confident in the economy's recovery, so I dunno. :/

Yeah and what people don't realize is that spending U.S. in the right areas actually pulls the country out of a recession. FDR's new deal for example, that established social security, the CCC, the FERA, all were committed to improving the lives of Americans and creating more jobs.

A simple concept. Provide free healthcare, that is available to all Americans, and you raise the standard of living for the whole country. Individuals owning healthcare (both private and universal) pay less money due to increased competition and allow more consumer spending.

Why not raise the standard of living for all Americans? Imagine the heightened respect we will receive from the rest of the world, and the brighter image of America we will portray.

At 11/15/09 05:19 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
You can't possibly be serious.

Our healthcare dollars are with the U.S. and circulated only within the U.S, with a clear benefits for Americans. Our U.S. dollars are being blown up in Iraq, promoting no economic growth whatsoever, nor saving lives to say the least.

I mean, who the hell do people think they are thinking they should have the right to keep their own money

More selfish Conservative philosophy, gotta fucking looove it!! Durka durrr!!. It's mah Goddamn money and I'll piss myself if I have to give up even one penny towards the government, nevertheless people in dire need.

Irrelevant. I said explain how he was responsible for the problems you listed.
And how do you respond?

Extremely relevant. How the fuck is a retard suppose to managed the entire executive branch of government?!! Obviously and inevitably, problems from all ends of the economic, environmental, and social spectrum will arise if the president is a brainless bastard!! This should be common sense to the American people, HOLY SHITT!!!!!!

"BUSH IS AN IDIOT LOLZ!!"

Bush being a fucking ape is obviously no laughing matter to me.

At 11/16/09 05:46 PM, adrshepard wrote:
Giving up private healthcare? Do you honestly think that the public option won't run a deficit even though it has to insure nearly everyone? That they won't make up for it with taxes? That the mandate to insure people with preexisting conditions won't drive insurance premiums up and so drive them out of business?

According to the opposition (republicans/conservatives), lets say they make up about 45%-50% of America. Nearly all of them oppose the healthcare bill (and nearly all of the rich bastards have their own plush health-care), therefore if the healthcare bill is passed, they will refuse the offer of free healthcare. Now only 50%-55% of the U.S. population remains. Knowing that a little over 10% don't have healthcare, and are all nearly likely to accept it. Lets predict that 60% of the remaining population will decide to switch to the free healthcare. 52.5%-11% = 41.5%. 41.5% x 0.6 = 24.9% (amount of population who will switch to the government healthcare). 24.9% + 11% (amount of pop. without healthcare, accepting free healthcare) = approx. 35.9%. That is an inflated rough estimate of how many Americans we are funding healthcare for. That means the rest may still retain his/her own health care plans. Uniform healthcare is clearly affordable and reasonable to propose as it benefits the American people on the whole.

I'm sure increasing taxes on the few heavy industries we have left will make them much more willing to stay in the US. They would never outsource or anything.

Hey wake up. The majority of other nations are already doing this, nearly all except China, middle-eastern countries, most African countries, and some Central and Southern American countries (which are almost all third-world countries, with little global economic stance). The U.S. is already outsourcing jobs and currency at a steadily increase rates, thanks to Bushes decreased governmental regulation and global cooperation towards the issue. By imposing tariffs/taxes on big U.S. industries that outsource currency to China, we increase the cost of overseas production and shipment. As a result, more jobs will be shifted back into the U.S., while at the same time bringing in massive amounts of tax dollars and promoted domestic competition.

Yes, he cost us that over 8 years. Obama outdid him in less than a year with the stimulus package. I like the 100 million figure, too. You do realize that the estimated lives lost during all of WWII was only 50 million, right? And that the maximum estimates of the Rwandan Genocide are about 1 million over about four months? To be true, your figure would require the equivalent of the Rwandan Genocide to occur once every three weeks or so.

My mistake, 100million was a typo. 100 thousand deaths is the correct total, which is still no small number.

I know, lets just completely redistribute all wealth equally among all Americans!

There is that conservative ideology kicking in, you Goddamned, inconsiderate, selfish motherfucker!!! It's only about your money, taxation is clearly un-American, along with social security, Medicaid, civil rights/unions, and most of all healthcare! Healthcare is not about saving or improving lives, its all about boosting the economic gain! You people set the world back a thousand years and I am fucking sick of your self-centered beliefs!!

One of the most common traits of an extremist is that he completely denies the legitimacy of any attitudes or beliefs other than his own.

Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, ring a bell!?

At 11/15/09 12:16 PM, Chavic wrote:
Yeah, they voted against them becaus they are flawed, unsustainable systems. The idea is applaudable, but the execution is ridiculous. If you want to get into what history shows us about party voting records, lets take a look at the '65 Civil Rights act, which party was the majority on that hmm? Both parties are flawed, I have never said anywhere on here that the Republicans are superior. But you can only think along party lines.

The whole time I have been referring specifically to modern conservatives. Yes, both parties have had their flaws, because party lines and ideals switched just before FDR was elected for the first time. It is the selfish conservative idealism that has me steamed up.

I like how you ignore all the failing systems I listed, and try to jump on the Canadian healthcare, claiming its an 'exaggeration. look at the numbers. You can find articles on it everywhere. A public healthcare is unsustainable, private businesses are run more efficiently than government programs. They must compete or dissolve. But the government has no such forces to make it responsible. If we allowed healthcare to trade across state lines, just like car and life insurance, the prices would drop due to competition, making it more affordable and provide more services.

We shouldn't even been getting into the Canadian healthcare system, IT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Canada is a socialist country, America is a mixed government. Any right infringing qualities of the proposed healthcare bill, due to socialist qualities, would make the bill null and void. If anything, this healthcare bill will promote competition and adjust insurance prices to equilibrium.

My statement still stands. I never claimed Bush was a great president. Did you even read what I wrote? Why is Bush the only one held responsible? Do you even know how our government works? Congress is to blame. The Government as a whole is to blame.

OK. More people can be held accountable. How about Dick Cheney for promoting, illegal war tactics/conduct, reluctance towards peace or a shift in focus towards Afghanistan, and openly lying to the American people on the issues of weapons of mass destruction and illegal torture. Donald Rumsfeld for composing the Iraq war strategy and giving higher priority towards Iraq rather than Afghanistan. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, for augmenting Iranian, North Korean, Mexican, and Cuban hostility, by either failing to negotiate or even converse. I'll go out on a limb and declare the whole former White House as fucked up.

But according to you I should die. Put an ax in my neck, right? How liberal of you, somehow freedom of speech doesn't apply to me, and I should be killed for speaking out.
Good job just invalidating any claim at logic you had.

Drop this irrelevant argument or leave.

You can spare me your 'clever allusions'. You are the on who is blind. You are the one who is a dumbass.
Think for yourself. Do your own research.

Pointing out and discrediting another person's rhetorical strategies is a logical fallacy itself. Straw man and Slippery slope in fact.

Quit the irrelevant logical developments and stay on topic. I know its hard for short-minded conservatives like yourself to grasp concepts and stay on topic, BUT STICK TO THE FUCKING ISSUE!!

At 11/15/09 01:57 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
your definition of biased: blaming liberals when liberals are to blame

You're an idiot. Actually pay attention while your typing.

Okay you're a moron. I'm backing up my argument with an expert opinion, whereas you are like: "BUSH! IT WAS BUSH! EVERYTHING'S BUSH'S FAULT!" without a single scrap of evidence.

Were you alive 2000-2008? All you had to do was watch the National Debt increase throughout Bush's term. If you had put a little more effort into your life, you could have read about the budgets he was proposing and where he was providing tax breaks. The man cannot put two words together, he is a moron of a president, elected by a intellectually void America.

At 11/15/09 01:35 AM, Warforger wrote:
Andrew Jackson IIRC was not what you described. However he is in the same class as Hitler and Stalin, who work for the little guy, making more democratic ideas put into place, however if its any constellation, Hitler was a Conservative equivalent of a Liberal Radical, a Reactionary, who wanted to go back to the good ole' days of the German Empire, this is the same of Churchill, he also wanted to go back to the good ole days of the British Empire.

I was expecting someone to make an analogy to Hitler, and I'm glad you did. However, Hitler was not an open-minded radical, the opposite in fact (close-minded). Hitler was never satisfied by the past war history of the Germans, he was very upset with it. He wanted to make a new Germany in his eyes, not bring back the old one.

At 11/14/09 09:46 AM, Korriken wrote:
i thought he would be an ineffective president. I didn't know he would be outright detrimental to everything. first the economy, now the intelligence community, then healthcare if he can get it passed.

Everything is a conscious exaggeration to you guys. Tell me, which way is the economy moving right now? I'll give you a hint, it's not out coming out of the New York Post or Fox News. If you are still worried about terrorists attacking us right now, you fell into yet another pit of retards. Now healthcare, whats wrong with the universal healthcare bill he is proposing? Don't give me the cliche' bullshit; death panels, having to give up your private healthcare, tax increases. The first two are just clearly bullshit, I mean what kind of dumbfuck believes that? As for the issue of taxing, Obama definitely graduated from Harvard. In the bill he is proposing new taxes (possibly tariffs as well) and tax increases on unhealthy foods, removing the tax breaks from big industry (and begin taxing them as well), while providing tax cuts for the middle class.

Do some research on how much known profit big corporations (such as Exxon Mobile, McDonalds, etc.) get away with, and how little taxes and tariffs they have to pay. Then combine all those profits and imply a x>20% tax. See how easily you get the 1 and a half trillion that is required. Hah, how about someone just does the profits of oil companies, you will be shocked by the numbers. Add 700 billion to that. That is how much our little war in Iraq has cost us. No weapons of mass destruction, that was an obvious lie to the American people. The terrorists that bombed the twin-towers came from Afghanistan, that should be the only war to fight right now.

Thats how much President Bush cost us, over $700,000,000,000 and over 100 million lost lives, just due to the Iraq war. Obama wants to spend money to save and improve the lives of Americans, what the hell is wrong with doing that? Every time a health care proposal is brought up by a Democrat, it is shot down by Republicans, not because of what the bill proposes, but because of the fact that a Democrat proposed it. News flash, Democrats own the House, Senate, and the Executive Branch, this bill is going to be passed wether you selfish bastards like it or not.

At 11/13/09 10:28 AM, Chavic wrote:
I'm not saying Obama is a tyrant. I'm saying history shows unopposed (or weakly opposed) corrupt government often moves to tyranny.

Corrupt government... John Adams, Andrew Jackson, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Nixon, Bush. You know what? All of them favored the wealthy upper class, tax breaks, and big industry. Half retarded, half corrupt. How about all of you research these presidents and you'll start to notice how similar they are to modern conservatives.

At 11/13/09 09:18 AM, Chavic wrote:
Thank you yet again SadisticMonkey

See Saen, all I see from you are inane opinions while we show you evidence. I have asked for evidence how may times in this thread? But all I get is an attempt to change the subject or pass the blame without evidence.

Past history of Republicans voting against bills such as universal healthcare, Medicaid, social security, etc., is not my opinion. Stay on the track dumbass.

You say evil conservatives held us back from Social Security and Medicaid? You mean those flawed government systems that are running inefficiently and at a loss? Just like the USPS? Just like Tricare? Why should our government run healthcare be any different? Will it be successful like the Canadian healthcare system which is collapsing, or the British healthcare system that is also running at a loss?

In our country, healthcare is a business. If you can't afford healthcare, that's your problem. Thats the selfish conservative philosophy that has been pissing the rest of the world off. The Canadian healthcare system is not collapsing, that is a conscious exaggeration.

You say evil Bush put us into a mess? You mean with initial and continued congressional support? He was the president, not the god damned Emperor.

If Bush didn't put us into this mess then I ask you what on God's green Earth did!? The war in Iraq, ridiculous tax cuts for oil companies, supporting giant corporations (Enron). If he didn't allow these catastrophes to occur, who the fuck did?!!

So instead of your ridiculous threat of "join or die", I say:
THINK, or become the slave of tyranny.

God you are a fucking idiot. You missed the allusion didn't you? No wonder this world hates us, dumbasses like you are somehow allowed to live. How about instead of reading Republican blogs and absorbing words of Sean Hannity, put an ax in your neck. Mindless sheep, think for yourself.

At 11/12/09 11:43 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
Pretty sure it was your dumb liberal friends.

You have nothing to say. You only present me with a biased article, what an unpredictable response. If you can't argue for yourself then go fuck yourself.

At 11/11/09 07:21 PM, darkrchaos wrote: He trying to fix things but everyone keeps stopping his health care plans. If he could get stuff done he have most of it all finished.

His health care bill has passes through the house and is on its way to the senate. The truth is Conservatives are petrified by the progress we are making. They have repeatedly voted against uniform healthcare in the past. They also voted against the league of nations (if the U.S. was allowed to join, WWII could have possibly been put down quicker), Social Security, Medicaid, anti-trust laws, the list goes on. It is now a tainted mindset, and just as the corrupted Federalists have fallen, the Conservatives will lose their foothold. If anyone dares to draw an analogy of a modern Liberal to a Federalist, prepare to be shot down.

At 11/10/09 07:58 AM, ThePretenders wrote: Obama is a lying sack of shit like Bush, that's why. His first few months has confirmed what I thought of him before he took office. I knew he wouldn't pull of Iraq immediately, so that's no surprise to me.

There is a greater reason why we haven't pulled out of the Iraq war. Let me ask you a question, what do you think other countries remember the U.S. for? How about our thoughtless bombing of countries (e.g., Japan and Vietnam)? All we do is go in and destroy a country and leave. Sure, in some cases we eventually provide financial aid from a distance, only because it is the easier choice. After blowing up Iraq, for once the U.S. is trying to provide physical and financial aid in trying to turn a new leaf. That is why it is taking such a long time for us to pull out of Iraq. We need to obligate ourselves to clean up the messes we make.

At 11/9/09 07:59 PM, Chavic wrote:
lol, its not. I think we are pass that era now.

No we are not past that era. Bush created this radiating catastrophe, leaving us with no option, but to live in his mess. His mess that ruined the stock market, his mess that broke the real estate market, his mess that has killed thousands and wasted billions in the Iraq shitfest. The fucking retard threw away all of America's pride and wealth, in eight fucking years!!

It is November 2009. Ten months is all it took for Obama's stimulus plan to pull us out of a recession. That's right, news flash, the recession is over. The Republican Party is finally starting to crack and fault. It has no spokesperson. When the average American hears the word Republican, he/she remembers all the corruption, stupidity, failures Bush spat out. America has hopped onto the progressive pathway of the Democratic party. JOIN, OR DIE.

At 10/24/09 01:02 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:
I don't really find the conscience a particularly articulate element of the human psyche, let alone a reputable source for information not explicitly moral. I mean... if it's not a moral issue what's it doing effecting our sense of morality?

The conscience is a very reputable source for information. A great amount of governmental laws are based on morals filtered through the conscience.

Except inductive reasoning is by definition and logical convention indicative at best. I don't really see how inductively reasoning about God changes what inductive reasoning is.

I didn't ask you to look up what inductive reasoning meant. I asked if you would, use inductive reasoning to debate/determine the existence of God, instead of deductive reasoning.

conscience, the idea of choice, the will to survive, etc.) and work yourself up to the broad concepts.

What would be some broad concepts? Broad is obviously a relative term, but the aforementioned specific concepts seem rather broad to me, particularly if we're going to talk about induction.

Broad concepts: life and how it started (before the big bang), the paranormal, any that is a wide topic that is beyond human comprehension. Start at smaller concepts/ideas that we can analyze and understand and work our selves up to the big pictures to reach a hypothesis or conclusion.

-In these type of debates, wouldn't it be more productive to ask the questions of how, rather than why?

That's a tad unusual, as the religious folk tend to tout "why" rather than "how". I think "how" is looked at as mechanical, where as "why" is looked at as sentient directed-ness. I'm glad you didn't take that route, as it's a baited (and potentially circular) argument.

I'm not particularly religious. I don't believe in group worships, symbols for a whole meaning, non believers will perish, etc. My faith in God was not established, and is not sustained by the Bible, praying, or singing with white people.

Lack of a solution is no indication of a lesser reasoning ability. As I don't understand what distinction you're making between how and why, I obviously can't object, but only ask for clarification.

Why asks a question that doesn't work towards a solution.

At 10/23/09 11:06 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Also, hello everyone 8)

Good to be back. Kinda weird that we are usually the only two backing Christianity, and we have completely different political views and beliefs. Hah

Whew back for a little debating. Been working 24 hours a week plus school so I haven't had any free time on my hands, but I finally got my hours cut back. Few concepts I want to throw out there:

-God is a specialized and universal presence, possessing unrestrained power and infinite wisdom, incomprehensible by man. However, God may lower him/her self down to human comprehension through the conscience.
-In order to establish the existence of God, inductive reasoning (bottom to top, specific to broad) is absolute. Avoid jumping into the big picture, instead focus on certain phenomena (e.g., the concept of a conscience, the idea of choice, the will to survive, etc.) and work yourself up to the broad concepts.
-In these type of debates, wouldn't it be more productive to ask the questions of how, rather than why? Any kid can ask why and criticize, but asking and solving how demonstrates a much greater level of reasoning.

Go ahead, ramble on.

No more tears, Ozzy.

Lots of my posts are graphic or out there. I see others post things they can't and they are shown red and locked. Mine keep disappearing and are not shown as locked or shown at all. Why does this happen?

You can lock/fondle with this if you think it's inappropriate, but you already knew that.

Try sucking his dick. Might calm him down a bit. If you aren't into incest and gaydom, try massaging his prostate. You can do this by thrusting your largest finger up his rectum and wiggle it towards his ball sack.

At 7/26/09 02:59 AM, Adio wrote: Throwing words together is hardly original.

Those are insults in a nutshell.

Some one really twisting your nuts around? Instead of using those backwashed cliche' insults, try something new for a change.

Here are some of my favorites.

Dick lips, cunt nuts, boil balls, flaccid penis pounder, shit-dripping ass hair fondler, bloody-ass bastard, foreskin flexer, wrinkled pussy pounder, ass-fisting assassin, crusty ass fucker, nipple dick, pimple penis proliferator, oily ovary orchestrator, clit sniffer.

I want to keep the rest of mine to myself, but feel free to share yours.

Its the poor quality of Mcdonalds' food that Europeans make the analogy to America and Americans. Mcdonalds produces foods made entirely of hydrogenated oils (even their grilled chicken is injected with hydrogenated lard/vegetable oil) and other fatty and cheap ingredients. Simply put, Europeans (and the rest of the world, excluding Israel) believe that Americans are obese, cheap, and unthoughtful, while using Mcdonalds as a fitting icon for America and its principals.

Rolling over onto your dildo.

A beluga whale on my foreskin.