An excellent Muslim piece.

[quote name='judyjudyjudy']Huh? I hate to get into this discussion, but that statement makes no sense to me. How can the G-spot be "pushed so far back" for it to be felt, uh, back there?[/QUOTE]
I was expecting the "Bend over and I'll show you" response.
 
[quote name='judyjudyjudy']If it was further up, wouldn't there be a uterus in between the g-spot and anal cavity?[/QUOTE]

I dont really care about the technicality about it all, you do what works for you and go with it.

(I think you're a chick) - Get some Maximus and roll with the punches... it may be for you.

Most of the stuff surrounding anal is that its painful and messy... thats pretty much myth. As long as he doesnt double dip, you dont have to worry about an infection.

Try it out and see for yourself. I'm at work and I cant get too technical without consulting a website on it. Which I wont.
 
Tolerance for what?
Terrorism? Sin?

Those who's opinions differ from yours.

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
Matthew 7-1



Compassion for what?
Terrorism? Sin?

For all.

"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' 40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

Matthew 25-31



Tact is not a moral value.

But it is key to anyone wishing to have a meaningful, valid conversation rather than a shouting match.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']I dont really care about the technicality about it all, you do what works for you and go with it.

(I think you're a chick) - Get some Maximus and roll with the punches... it may be for you.

Most of the stuff surrounding anal is that its painful and messy... thats pretty much myth. As long as he doesnt double dip, you dont have to worry about an infection.

Try it out and see for yourself. I'm at work and I cant get too technical without consulting a website on it. Which I wont.[/QUOTE]
Okay, well, when you get the link, feel free to post it. I was seriously curious.

Edited to add: Maybe I should clarify what I don't get... since it sounds like you think what I don't get is how something like that would feel good or something? I just don't get how anal penetration could ever help with g-spot stimulation, since it's located on the front vaginal wall.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Distrust of a religion is not a call for genocide. Posting distasteful facts, note that word facts, about adherents and prostelytizers of Islam is not a call for genocide. Dislike of a religion or even overt hatred is not a call for genocide.

Cry me a river.[/QUOTE]
You're being a tad disingenuous.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']In the interim you can always bet that I'm of the school of thought that the more we can introduce to Allah the better off we all are.[/quote]

link
 
[quote name='JSweeney']Tolerance for what?
Terrorism? Sin?

Those who's opinions differ from yours.

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
Matthew 7-1



Compassion for what?
Terrorism? Sin?

For all.

"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' 40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

Matthew 25-31



Tact is not a moral value.

But it is key to anyone wishing to have a meaningful, valid conversation rather than a shouting match.[/QUOTE]

Damn, and I'm still talking about anal... at least someones on topic. I should open a "Do it Mook-style" sex thread.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Yes, I support a war on those that would kill us and destroy our country if given the chance. I have never advocated genocide but have advocated an overwhelming response to a nuclear attack on our soil. I have never supported torture.[/QUOTE]

So the question is, WWJK? (Who would Jesus Kill)

You want genocide of muslims. I think that's pretty obvious by now.

This post sounds like you support torture: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1009583&highlight=ghraib#post1009583

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']When have we EVER had a debate on helping the homeless or poor? There's no way you know my position on those issues as we never discuss them.[/QUOTE]


Wrong again. Try looking here: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=183645&highlight=homeless#post183645
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Distrust of a religion is not a call for genocide. Posting distasteful facts, note that word facts, about adherents and prostelytizers of Islam is not a call for genocide. Dislike of a religion or even overt hatred is not a call for genocide.

Cry me a river.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']As usual EZB can only get half the story right. Not attacked.... nuked. What do you expect though when he quotes Pakistani news sources as opposed to American news sources.

You're the same kind of liberal that would publish quotes from Izevstia, Pravda and Tass to "prove" how great the USSR was.

DENVER (AP) — A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.
Link

Mecca and Media are both in Saudi Arabia.

Finally someone says what I've been thinking. I love this guy. I'd start destroying holy sites immediately if we were nuked. I'd so enrage these animals that they'd no longer be able to exercise any self control hiding, planning and executing attacks. They'd take to the streets immediately and you'd be able to gun them down like a bunch of rock throwing Palestinian teenagers.[/QUOTE]

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59625

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Do you think I give a fuck? Do you really think there aren't 90% of Muslim's enraged with us anyways?

Fry them. Give them the wrath of 2,000 W-80 warheads. God knows we'd just have to dispose of them with another round of treaties with Russia. Better to actually cook off 700 million death worshipers in the process and get our money's worth. They weren't cheap to produce you know![/QUOTE]

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Labeling people has never stopped you before, why would it bother you now?

Self-defence and retaliation would not make you a monster. If we're nuked by Islamic terrorists the response should be to wipe out ever major metropolitan center in the world with a Muslim majority. You end the threat once and for all.

Their centers for religion, gone. Finance, gone. What passes in their countries for education, medicine, commerce and industry... gone. You leave them with nothing. No way to rebuild a society. No way to rise up again for 5,000 years. You salt the Earth of their lands and starve the survivors to death.

When it's all done you open up the lands to colonialization. I'm sure if we made this deal the Russians would want a warm water port. I'm sure the Indians would want Pakistan back. I'm sure the Chinese would like a large stable supply of oil. You think any of them would care if this were the backroom deal? You think they'd stop and say "Damn America, that's insensitive.". You've just placated the major nuclear powers in the world and Pakistan's warheads are neutralized.

The developed world and the emerging economies would gladly sacrifice this entire religion if the deal I put on the table was ever made.

You just don't understand, that's history. That's the role of conquest in mankind's existence. Just at this point it would be on a much grander scale.[/QUOTE]


http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59625&page=4&pp=20

There's that. Y'know, since you NEVER admitted that you were wrong when you trumpeted the success of Fox News' ratings, and it turned out that it was only referring to their primetime schedule, you never came back to say "Oops. Okay, I overstretched the results, and I could be wrong about their overall ratings trends." So I don't expect to see you back here, since the quotes above don't lend much credence to that horseshit you said about not advocating genocide. You may say that you prefaced all this with the guise of "nuclear attacks,' but that's horseshit, and don't tell me for a second that you wouldn't love to see every muslim killed right this instant if you had the chance.

Dig?
 
Why would I want every Muslim killed right now? In every form of warfare since the beginning of time there was a balance of terror. You didn't attack a neighbor out of fear of his retaliation or might. Now, that enemy has no such fear. They don't fear our retaliation as it is half hearted and half b aked.

They know that people like EZB, mykeyvermin and alazomourning are represented by cowards like Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin. They know our opposition leaders are pussies and cowards and hide behind alien things to them like "rights" and "dignity" when they exhibit none to their enemy. Their enemy is you. Despite your well intentions they wish you dead and don't care about your sensitivity. They know we will never tell the the consequences of their actions before hand and the Socialist pacifist left will hamstring us even in the shadow of a nuclear mushroom cloud over their capital.

The retaliation to a nuclear attack must be swift, without warning, without announcement and put an end once and for all to the death cultists known as Muslims. However it must not be pre-emptive. We have signed every treaty known to mankind against first use and I firmly believe in that policy. However if nuclear combat comes to our land the retaliation must be swift, overwhelming and total.

If it renders a religon impotent and kills hundreds of millions so be it. Early and mass admissions to paradise are welcome in preference to seeing another of our cities turned to rubble.

It's very sensitive that you would trade one American city for a trial, indictment or maybe some precision bombing. However that only gives your enemy more time to take down one more city from your inaction.

How many millions would you see dead before you finally say enough? 1 million? 10 million? 50 million? When do you finally see the threat that as long as you continue to ignore it gets stronger, more capable and more deadly? How many need to die?
 
Why fight hand to hand when you can reach out and bake someone with a few thousand W-80 warheads?

The tactical purpose in warfare is to do as much harm to your enemy while exposing yourself to the minimal amount of risk. Hand to hand combat is not desireable in any context. That's why we spend billions on newer, more improved and deadlier weapons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top