100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > heavenlyboy34
|
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Fri 12/28/12 10:37 AM
|
|
I'll ask if I see him. Can you find me somebody to love?
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pMM4iwC-ag
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Male Birth Control
|
|
The best birth control is to keep it in his pants Abstinence is a perversion. It's an unnatural state of being. Being clothed is also not a natural state of being. So? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
END THE FED!! It's a criminal cabal even worse than congress.
  Don't think it'll happen soon...too many special interests involved. Always good to keep the pressure on, though! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Happy b-day to me!
|
|
I'm so sorry I missed your birthday.  Hope it was a good one!   
It's ok-better late than never!  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Happy b-day to me!
|
|
You are getting younger by the day!!! Hope you had a great birthday. Have a wonderful Christmas and New Year!! Take care.
Ya, it was pretty fantabulous as far as birthdays go in my experience. My folks bought me dinner and I got cards and greetings from a bunch of people. Also got some good sparring shoes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Conservatives in Government
|
|
True conservatives, those of the school of Goldwater and Rockefeller, don't necessarily believe in the maintenance of the status quo. What we believe is that there are a vast number of things that just are not and should not be the responsibility of government. The modern "Republican" movement - the Birchers, Tea Partiers, Neo-cons - just see government as evil, taxes as unnecessary and the military as untouchable. They wrap themselves up in the flag, wave the bible in your face and scream "unpatriotic" every time someone disagrees with them. They believe that fighting terrorism outweighs individual liberty, but educating the domestic populous is socialism. Us "old school" conservatives are actually in favor of education, it is essential to the "defense" of our nation, which is something the Constitution requires the government to do. However, health care is not, we still have a growing population rate, so it is not vital to national defense, and the cost to the people, in the form of taxation, makes it to great a burden on society. National defense, actually defending the homeland, can better be done by ensuring the rights of the individual to be armed, as the old saying goes, "bad neighborhoods are America's last line of defense." To keep a large standing army really isn't in Americas best interest, a navy yes, as trade upon the high seas must be defended. That is why in the original form there was a Department of the Navy and a War Department. We actually fought wars quicker and occupied countries for less time when we had to build an army at the start of the war, usually through a draft. See a true conservative would not just slash entitlements and close tax loopholes, we'd tackle defense spending, the drug war and other useless parts of government (OSHA comes to mind, with the over abundance of modern lawsuits, is it even necessary anymore?). Conservatives are willing to make changes to move the country forward. The changes we are willing to make are just usually very unpopular and sound, quite frankly, heartless. What they truly are are the difficult or "hard" choices that must be made to keep our debt low and our government efficient. They aren't the easy sell that the liberals make. It is the job of the conservative to say "no, we don't need that," while it is the job of the liberal to say "yes, we can do that for you." I've heard conservatives say that often, but the vast majority of conservative voters rejected Ron Paul TWICE, even though he best represented what conservatives claim to believe in the campaigns. That's one reason I don't take conservatism in general seriously. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Conservatives in Government
|
|
Campaigns & Elections: To be an effective political leader, a conservative must first run an effective campaign. Perhaps no other campaign has been as important to the conservative movement as the one run in 1964 between "Mr. Conservative" Barry Goldwater and Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson. Although Goldwater lost, the principles he fought for and the legacy he left have resounded with conservatives ever since. Nevertheless, conservatives who run campaigns today often appeal to social conservatives, using abortion, the second amendment, the sanctity of marriage, school prayer and the War on Terror as the key planks in their political platforms. War on Terror: In the 20th Century, the Vietnam war stiffened the resolve of conservatives to never again suffer defeat at the hands of a foreign enemy. The War on Terror began with the attack on 9/11, and conservatives remain largely divided about what the battle parameters should be. Most believe the War on Terror must be won at all costs. The decision to invade Afghanistan to search for Osama bin Laden found favor with many conservatives as did the invasion of Iraq to find al Queda operatives. Despite liberal opposition, conservatives see victory in Iraq as the key front in the war against international terrorism. What is a Conservative? And What is Conservative Bias? By Grace Fleming, About.com Guide I have asked that question repeatedly from what I observe, conservative equates to retaining a stagnant and unwavering population, keeping things eternally the same in all political and social aspects while liberal equates to constantly adapting to every new lifestyle, desire, culture, I dont know though, been alot of gun talk lately and by the above standards, I would think the view that guns be regulated be less liberal than conservative,,,, Ill never fully understand the use of the labels,, there, I admit it,,lol Yes, the word "liberal" has entirely lost its original meaning in America and several other places in the English speaking world like Britain. Partly due to semantic shift, partly due to propagandists and demagogues of all sorts. I have long lamented this bastardization of the word and what it originally meant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Conservatives in Government
|
|
Things got all screwed up when ideological marxists infiltrated and co-opted the conservatives, becoming what came to be known as the "neoconservatives". This created a rift amongst conservatives which still exists to this day, but the net result is that you often have diametrically opposed attitudes evident between the two groups. As a result, many traditional conservatives left the Repuglican party, which is now almost entirely neoconservative, at least in its policies. The Democrats fared little better. They were taken over by marxists too, so in effect, aside from the cosmetic differences, there is little difference between the parties today. They are both owned by the same banks & corporations, and they both stand for large oppressive government. The philosophical libertarians (voluntarists) are actually more like the conservatives & liberals of old. People like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader are at opposite ends of the economic spectrum in many regards, but they also have many similarities in that they believe the people should be the masters of the government and both would favour the noninterventionism and separation of church an state that America used to stand for. The neocons are Trotskyites. Neoconservatism was most eloquently described by Irving Kristol, the father of modern neoconservatism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(links at site)
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12...-citizens.html There are several documented cases where armed citizens have stopped mass attacks by gunmen. Let me list a few: The Pearl, Mississippi school shooting was stopped by the vice principal Joel Myrick with a Colt .45, The Appalachian School shooting was stopped by two students with handguns. Both of the above incidents were stopped by the armed citizens threatening the shooter without firing. Pearl High School Link Appalacian Law School Link Plans to slay everyone in the Muskegon, Michigan, store and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their "gnawing hunger for crack cocaine" fell apart for a band of would-be killers after one of their victims fought back. Muskegon Shooting Link The mass church shooting in Colorado Springs was stopped by the shooter being shot by a church member with a CCW permit. New Life Church Link The Santa Clara gunshop shooting in 1999 was stopped by an armed citizen after the shooter declared that he was going to kill everyone. Police found a list of intended victims in his car. Only the perpetrator, Richard Gable Stevens was shot. Santa Clara Gunshop Link The December, 1991, Aniston, Alabama defense where a CCW holder stopped armed robbers who were herding employees, customers, and his wife into a cooler. He shot both robbers, killing one. Aniston Shoney's Shooting Link July 13, 2009, in Virginia at the Golden Food Market: The gunman tried to shoot several people, was stopped by a CCW carrier. Golden Food Market Shooting Link Just recently, in Early Texas, armed citizen Vic Stacy shot and stopped a deranged man who had just murdered two neighbors and was firing at police with a rifle. Stacy made a very long shot with his revolver, three times as far as the perpetrator was from the police officer, who had an AR-15 type rifle. Early Texas Peach House Shooting Link That sounds like a very good story... but it never made the national news. I wonder who made the decision to spike that story. Of course, when a mass shooting is stopped by an armed citizen, there are not as many victims. This leads to the charge that it would not really have been a “mass shooting”. I have added this incident at the request of a reader: Abraham Dickman had a history of anger against employees of the AT&T store in New York Mills, New York. On May 27th, 2010, he walked into the store with a .357 and a list of six employees. He shot the first employee, but was stopped from further attacks when Donald J. Moore, an off duty police officer who was allowed to carry his own handgun when not on duty, drew and fired his .40 caliber, killing Mr. Dickman before he could fire any more shots. AT&T store Link Here is another likely candidate. College Park, GA, May 4, 2009. Two gunman entered a party and ordered the men separated from the women. Then they started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey. When one of the assailants prepared to rape a girl, a student was able to access a handgun and engage the two attackers in a firefight, driving one off and killing the other before the thug could rape his girlfriend. “I think all of us are really cognizant of the fact that we could have all been killed,” said Bailey. College Park Link Another off duty police officer stopped the Trolley Square shooting with his personal handgun. He stopped the killing and contained the shooter until police reinforcements arrived and ended the situation. Trolley Square Shooting Link Winnemucca NV shooting, 25 May, 2008 The shooter, Ernesto Villagomez, entered the Players Bar and Grill and killed two people. He reloaded and was continuing to shoot when a citizen with a concealed carry permit shot him and stopped the killing. Winnemuca Shooting Link Parker Middle School Dance Shooting 14 Year old Andrew Jerome Wurst Killed one person and wounded three others when he was confronted by James Strand who subdued Wurst with a shotgun and held him until police arrived. Parker Middle School Dance Shooting LinK Destiny Christian Center Shooting, April 24, 2012 Kiarron Parker rammed his car into another in the church parking lot, got out and attempted to kill multiple church members. He was only able to kill one before a member of the congregation, the nephew of the lady killed, and an off duty police officer, drew his handgun and shot Parker, stopping the killing. Destiny Christian Center Shooting LinK Tyler Courthouse shooting, 2005 While police officers were involved in this shooting before and after Mark Alan Wilson intervened, no more people were killed after he shot the shooter, who had body armor, and who was able to return fire and kill the CCW holder, Wilson. Tyler Courthouse Shooting Link Dean Weingarten |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The answer is no.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/it-true-armed-civilians-have-never-stopped-mass-shooting_690808.html?page=1 In response to last week's massacre in Connecticut, Mother Jones has put together a "study" on mass shootings that makes a pretty bold claim: In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. There are a couple of major problems here with arguing that armed civilians don't stop mass shootings. One is that when armed civilians are present, they often stop mass shootings before they can become mass shootings. One of the criteria Mother Jones used to define mass shootings is that "the shooter took the lives of at least four people." So then, consider the following: – Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero. – Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.) – Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three. – Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two. – Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two. – Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One. These are just a few examples of mass shootings being prevented. I'm sure there are many more that meet this criteria. But, as you can see, in every incident, the would-be shooters were stopped short of killing four people because an armed civilian—or in some cases, an off duty cop—was present. The individual circumstances of some of the shooting incidents don't always suggest that armed civilians would not have stopped the mass shootings that have taken place. For instance, the Luby's cafeteria shooting in Kileen, Texas that killed 23 people and is the third deadliest in U.S. history is well-known among gun rights activists. That's because one of the women in the restaurant, Suzanna Hupp, whose husband was wounded and mother killed by the gunman, reached into her purse to retrieve her .38 before realizing she'd left it in her truck. The circumstances surrounding the Nidal Hasan shooting—which occurred at Ft. Hood in Kileen just a few miles from Luby's—also raise questions. Despite the fact that nearly everyone on the Army base was extensively trained to use guns, soldiers at Ft. Hood were not allowed to carry them. While planning his attack, Hasan must surely have been aware of this fact and soldiers at Ft. Hood understandably questioned this policy after the shooting.* Secondarily, aside from being fallacious, their claim that "not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun" also raises a host of issues being that it is a conditional claim. Notice the word "civilian"? It's true that mass shootings are often stopped by police. But is that because they are uniquely qualified to stop mass shootings or that they stop killers simply by virtue of the fact that they are generally the first people to arrive on the scene carrying guns? Again, Mother Jones provide no data on this. Here's the sum total of their argument on this point: Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, says Hargarten, "given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances." A chaotic scene in August at the Empire State Building put this starkly into perspective when New York City police officers confronting a gunman wounded nine innocent bystanders. There are some terrific, heroic police officers out there and I don't want to diminish their service. But there are also some terrible cops, as well. The fact that police would wound nine innocent people when confronted by a gunman doesn't mean we can assume that armed civilians would have somehow managed to shoot even more people. It might just be the opposite: Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%). I suppose the assumption that cops are better equipped to carry guns than civilians hinges on the fact that they are trained to handle guns. But so are military veterans, and there are millions of them who have likely as much or more firearms training as the average cop. Finally, it's also true that there are many people who have never had any law enforcement and military training yet are skilled and responsible firearms owners who are temperamentally well-suited to handle potential threats. Mother Jones makes no serious argument that arming more civilians wouldn't effective in preventing mass shootings. I understand the impulse to do something in the wake of the horror that we witnessed in Connecticut last week. But Mother Jones's "study" is little more than a series of ideological fallacies propped up with cherry-picked data. If Mother Jones is serious about having a debate on guns, they had better hold themselves to much higher standards than this. *UPDATE: I originally wrote that Mother Jones study was problematic because the list of shooting incidents did not include the Luby's shooting. It turns out that they did include the shooting, but it was only visible after zooming in multiple times on their map of shooting incidents. The article has been revised to reflect that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
nuts...
|
|
What do you call nuts on a wall?
Walnuts What you call nuts on a chest? chestnuts What do you call nuts on a chin? A blowjob  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Happy b-day to me!
|
|
Happy birthday Tomorrow is my birthday. Im planning on naked tag team wrestling with two girls. Alot more fun than sparing.
Jealous, totally.  Doesn't sound like more fun per se, just a different kind of fun. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Happy b-day to me!
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Fri 12/21/12 03:10 PM
|
|
You don't look a day over 13. Happy Birthday big guy :-) Awwww, thanks! You aren't just trying to get into my pants, are you? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Happy b-day to me!
|
|
As a belated gift, my friend Joe agreed to spar with me today. Lotsa fun!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like the title says, I'm curious as to what you think of skeletoes shoes if you've tried them. They're designed for runners, but I want to use them for sparring and practicing kung fu forms and such. Thanks!
barefoot barefoot barefoot but as long as they are lightweight and flexible u should be fine (hello HB) BTW I did wear a pair of nylon "mary janes" to kick in because the bag bruised my instep a few times so there are times that footwear can help only problem was that I lost some speed on spinning kicks cuz the soles hugged the floor Barefoot isn't an option for me at the gym. (I really wish it was, though) The floor is too unsanitary, as it is used by all sorts of people in all sorts of shoes which carry in bazillions of germs-many of which can cause various skin infections, athlete's foot, etc. That's why if you train in a dojo, no shoes are allowed in the training area. exactly. a shower never hurt anyone either. glad to hear you like your new shoes! that's awesome! honestly I did not know there were places that one could not train barefoot.....sheltered life, I guess
Technically you can train barefoot anywhere...if you want to get athlete's foot or some funky infection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Update: I got a pair for my b-day. I really like them!
They will be really comfy for practicing forms and sparring in places that aren't designed for bare feet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
likes to party on my b-day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Happy b-day to me!
|
|
Yay! It's my birthday today! 31 going on 15.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like the title says, I'm curious as to what you think of skeletoes shoes if you've tried them. They're designed for runners, but I want to use them for sparring and practicing kung fu forms and such. Thanks!
barefoot barefoot barefoot but as long as they are lightweight and flexible u should be fine (hello HB) BTW I did wear a pair of nylon "mary janes" to kick in because the bag bruised my instep a few times so there are times that footwear can help only problem was that I lost some speed on spinning kicks cuz the soles hugged the floor Barefoot isn't an option for me at the gym. (I really wish it was, though) The floor is too unsanitary, as it is used by all sorts of people in all sorts of shoes which carry in bazillions of germs-many of which can cause various skin infections, athlete's foot, etc. That's why if you train in a dojo, no shoes are allowed in the training area. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
