Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Preppy · act like you're used to it · admin

Don't post on my wall. Send me a PM by clicking the "Message" button above.

About

Username
Preppy
Joined
Visits
6,511
Last Active
Roles
Registered, Administrative, Moderators, Premium
Points
5,392
Posts
14,170
  • Re: SRK Lounge: Say No To Fake Booties

    Looks like a surprise mod broke the SRK back end too, so that's tight. Guess I'll get Vanilla support on the horn today. :lol:
    Aye i was sleeping. The OlderGod demands @RockBogart posts that we're deleted come back! Shit...I wanna see titties and pussy too!!
    go to your browser

    type "the internet"

    done, ass and titties as far as the eye can see

  • Re: The Marvel Studios thread | Black Panther's new trailer own ya!!

    New Mutants trailer looks great:
    *

    This seems like a ballsy movie.
  • Re: The Ameяican Government Thread

    Wasted wrote: »
    Nope.
    I was referring to the specific IHV study that was being discussed. Your article doesn't correlate in any fashion.

    As re dark's points re: understanding... that's why in theory experts can help craft better laws as opposed to hogging all their wisdom. Consider the NRA response here.

    anyways, as far as I'm concerned the gun debate is dead, as the Tom Tomorrow comic pointed out. Science doesn't matter because the gun nuts immediately run to slippery slope fallacies and the only thing that happens is gun sales go up. yay? w/e. this is the reality we live in: I accept it.
  • Re: The Ameяican Government Thread

    Starhammer wrote: »
    Preppy wrote: »
    Yeah, it's clear shorthand that you understand and I know you understand. The policy I've seen is gender neutral: it'll be "used against" men and women who fuck up. :coffee:

    You yourself have continued saying,"don't beat your wife" in the previous post. Gender neutral policy?
    Are you gay? Lemme know if so. Doesn't matter to my life concerns. I didn't mean to trigger you by using words that I (evidently incorrectly) thought applied to you and to the majority of members on this web site.


    More saber-rattling towards North Korea:
    * http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/354389-trump-only-one-thing-will-work-with-north-korea
    That'll go well. :rolleyes:


    Maclean's with a brutal article on Trump: History won't be unkind to Trump - it will be cruel. I keep hoping he'll turn it around - his success is (generally) our success, but ... he keeps finding new ways to be breath-takingly stupid. North Korea, for example. :bluu: On the "plus" side the hurricane devastation maybe helps kick the next job report up a notch. Sigh.
  • Re: The Ameяican Government Thread

    Starhammer wrote: »
    Anti wife-beating. :rofl: You just inadvertently admitted that it is going to be used against men.
    Yeah, it's clear shorthand that you understand and I know you understand. The policy I've seen is gender neutral: it'll be "used against" men and women who fuck up. :coffee:
    For real though, It's not like we don't KNOW which way this law will be enforced.
    You mean like the active laws which are gender neutral...? :coffee:

    Laws are often old and often complicated things. They are ours. If there's some concern, fix it.
    Some hunter/guard/cop might lose his ability to do his job because the old lady decided to call the cops on him one night after a heated argument.
    I thought we just were talking about how using examples presuming masculine violence was sexist? No matter. "Heated argument" isn't typically what the law considers "domestic violence". If you're thinking that it does, get the laws fixed.
    Of course, if it turns into divorce the gun ownership thing will take a backseat to simply trying to survive. The next concern is how long before it's not just an intimate partner violence-related law? First it's Husbands. Will it be boyfriends next? guys she's dating? Maybe it'll end up being family members at some point too. I hope I'm just being paranoid, but I know better than to think it can't happen.
    ... I'm so confused. What's the narrative here? People who have recorded legal charges of violence against somebody shouldn't have restricted gun access... ? Maybe don't beat people up? Seems like a needless slippery slope argument, but even presuming that ridiculous implausibility I'm unclear as to what the problem is. Maybe don't beat people up once you're an "adult"?
    Now women are complaining about the lack of college educated men.
    Yeah, the mods here sometimes do the same thing.... jk
    Some guy who's been married or at least has a live in girlfriend for a few weeks, months, or years just got hauled out of his house on a domestic violence accusation and now his gun collection has been confiscated. He goes to his local bar and tells his story to some other guy(s) who repeat the story to their buddies. These guys are going to start adding two and two together and realize that it happened to him, and they can be next.
    Maybe don't beat up your wife? Maybe don't be in a relationship with somebody that you think is going to falsely claim that you beat them up? They have ready access to you when you are sleeping: giving somebody that level of access implies a fuckton of trust. This isn't a new concept.

    It seems like men (and everybody really) should realize that they should not be in a relationship with somebody that they are going to physically abuse and they should not be in a relationship with someone that is going to falsely claim abuse. I think your plan sounds brilliant and healthy for all concerned.