Should a rule be added regarding spamming threads/posts? I'm seen one user post multiple times in a row on the same thread when he could have modified the original post.
If possible, perhaps the forum system can be changed so that posts are merged if they are both by the same user and posted one after another.
Only child molesters blindly stalk people and "angry face" all their posts, regardless of content.
Alright, I can't resist. I'll just leave this here.
:-X
Your constant hypocrisy, bigotry, and mental gymnastics are why debating with you would be a waste of my, or anyone's, time.
I wasn't defending any genocides by the way. ??? I think any genocide is indefensible.
If you disagree with anything I've posted here though, that's perfectly fine.
I'm gonna head back to lurking and uploading stuff now, since that's a much better use of my time.
Bless your heart and have wonderful day~ ;D
I use a trimmer with different attachments.
Before that, I used an electric razor that didn't have any attachments and a comb to keep the razor from getting to close to my face and shaving off the facial hair completely.
I have those on my dick too, but I always assumed they were a normal thing?
They're actually pretty common and nothing to really worry about.
As mentioned earlier, they are probably cysts.
Welcome to the site!
If you download a torrent, open it and it will download through Tixati.
It will seed as long as you hang onto it.
If you are still confused, the FAQ tab may help, and you can also contact someone through the Helpdesk.
I hope that helps!
Reputation and post voting are both being manipulated.
Liberals have been using the down vote against their enemies for quite a while now. They do not care what is said, they look for the name of the poster and down vote it.
The conservatives pretty recently started doing reputation manipulation.
Maybe we should just get rid of both voting and reputation. They seem to just add to the toxicity of the forum rather than anything positive.
When it comes down to it, this is the ENTIRE reason you vote one way or the other, whether you would have sex with someone. Deep down, that's what it's all about.
You really shouldn't speak for all of us.
It's easy for the media to make Trump look unsexy as an older gentlemen, and easier still, to make Obama look sexy because he's charming and younger.
The media does not make these people sexy or the opposite. People have their own physical preferences.
It really has nothing to do with politics, this is why Macron won.
No it isn't. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which you don't have.
You don't care about right and wrong when you hate on Trump. You just don't think he's sufficient enough to be a sexual partner, and so you are automatically deposed to think negatively about him.
I don't think Bernie Sanders is anywhere sufficient enough to be a sexual partner to me, but that didn't stop me from voting for him in the primaries.
This is what I really despise about people on the left. They think with their dicks.
A bit ironic at least, given that you are the one bringing up this topic, no?
If it was twenty years ago and he was younger you would have jumped for him no matter what he said. It's really sad, but it is the basis for which most of you vote. You want young and sexy and you hate him just because you wouldn't suck his dick.
Completely false. I find O'Malley attractive, but I find him to be another corporate politician that I will never vote for.
It's all you base your life on, like this website. Yes, no, to the left, to the right. It's unfortunate but it's reality.
No, that's your perception of reality.
It's like me going around telling people how horrible smoking and drinking and eating meat is for you. You just don't care.
I care. :hug:
The only thing that matters is sex, it has nothing to do with actual issues. That's how people work.
False, as I have explained earlier. I vote based on the candidate's positions and past actions, not their physical appearance. If they look attractive to me though, that's just a side bonus. 
I don't really think people get the ways that they are manipulated at this point.
like putting a big fat black woman judge up there who doesn't even have a clue, but because of your past, you just accept what she says.
No I don't.
It's really sad that people can't get past their indifference and their judgements based on physical perceptions.
I agree that indifference and judgments (not "judgements") based on physical perceptions are a problem, but this issue is across political parties.
To address your topic question, I would rather have sex with neither. I don't find either physically attractive, and I don't like who they are as people, as dishonesty is a huge turnoff for me. I find Obama less unattractive, but I still wouldn't want to have sex with him or Trump.
Actually there was already case law on that from the early 1800's. A prisoner did the same thing (minus the phone of course) to another prisoner in jail.
I wasn't aware. Thank you for pointing that out to me. 
Those same things are illegal in Europe/Canada. So it's not really a big deal.
I wasn't claiming whether or not it was a big deal; I was refuting your claim that US did not have restrictions on free speech like the rest of the west.
Several EU countries ban holocaust denial.
Several EU countries and Canada ban racist speech.
Could you explain the problem with these ones? I'm not saying there isn't one mind you, I'd just like to know more about your views regarding this.
Several EU countries and Canada ban criticism of Islam.
Regarding Canada, no they didn't. Bill M-103 states that the government should combat Islamophobia, systematic racism, and religious discrimination (towards any and all religions). The bill doesn't ban criticism of any religion, though I can see how it would be interpreted that way.
For example, it is okay to address and speak out about the religion. It is not okay, however, to, for instance, discriminate against someone in the workplace, classroom, etc. due to their race and/or religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Could it lead to limiting freedom of speech and even bringing in Sharia law? Possibly, but that hasn't happened due to this bill.
As for the EU countries, I don't know which ones you are referring to. Any specific sources, etc. would be very helpful. 
The UK's libel/slander laws are guilty until proven innocent.
I agree that being found guilty until proven innocent is a serious issue.
Causing offense is a criminal act in most of the EU, and probably Canada.
I would like to know more, like the specific bills regarding this and which EU countries made offense a criminal act.
Canada criminalizes speech that misgenders a person, even if the person doesn't present as that gender. It also forces people to use made up words (pronouns) as chosen by the individual.
The purpose of C-16 is to make it illegal to deny someone a job or discriminate against them in the workplace based on the gender they identify with or outwardly express, as well as protect transgender and gender non-binary peoples from being a targeted group in an act of genocide. I severly doubt you're going to be punished if you misgender someone by accident. If, however, you purposely misgender the person as a way to harass, discriminate, etc. that would be a different story. Also, the bill doesn't criminalize misgendering someone. Violating C-16 is illegal, but you wouldn't go to jail. Therefore, misgendering is not being criminalized. Here's a great resource for understanding the bill better.
http://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-correct/
Only the US has freedom of speech. The rest of the west has all kinds of bans and restrictions on speech.
The US has restrictions as well.
Certain false statements are unprotected.
False statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.
Knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished.
Negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.
Some implicit statements of fact—those that may just have a "false factual connotation"—still could fall under this exception.
It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that lies about the government may be protected completely. However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed.
Miller Test: Speech is unprotected if (1) "the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the [subject or work in question], taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" and (2) "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, contemporary community standards, sexual conduct defined by the applicable state law" and (3) "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".
Secondly, it is irrelevant whether any part of the speech meets the Miller test; if it is classified under the child pornography exception at all, it becomes unprotected.