Stain92: forum

Exactly how far can you put your arm up a woman's vagina before it kills her?

Emotional and Scientific responses both have their places in Politics. Pretty much every major political event always has a major emotional aspect to it, e.g. desegregation, even the fall of the Berlin wall. There's also been points in history where if data and statistics were to be the one absolute base of decision making, billions of people would have died (I'm thinking mainly of Ronald Reagan being advised the USA could "Win" a nuclear exchange with the USSR).

I think with the amount of information people are bombarded with in the modern world is just making people disillusioned with Politics to be honest. Anybody can easily just use Google to find some form of data backing up their view point. There's a ridiculous amount of spin present in the media, on every issue. People then align themselves to their favored viewpoint, and with the internet, everyone can now project their voice, and you just have contention.

So if you're impartial, what/who are you supposed to listen to? There's absolutely no modern political issue that you can read for five minutes without having read that all the political players involved are liars, and at some point, in some way, they're going to bring the country to it's knees, and we're all going to be living in a third world, desolate hellhole.

My view is similar to Steve's. You should try and understand all sides, but ultimately make a decision based on your own principles, and observations.

In pure military terms China would likely never be able to strike US soil with anything other than Nuclear Missiles. The US military probably has the most capable all round logistical force in the World, and would quite easily be able to move resources and manpower close to China.

I think Air superiority would be gained over China, air supremacy would be hard to attain over that much land mass though, which would have a significant effect on strategic bombing, as B52's, B1's, and B2's would likely be limited to a standoff role.

The thing that would be most problematic would be launching the ground invasion. A 1 million strong Army in peace time isn't a force to be considered a joke, and with a population over 1 billion, and their manufacturing capabilities, I think China would become the Country with the most heavily armed populace in the world. It's a common thought in the US, that any invading force would be overwhelmed because of the armed populace. US forces would face much the same problem.

I think the largest struggle would be gaining the support of other nations, China and the US are two of the three largest traders in the World, even a hint of War between the two would be horrendously financially destabilising alone. Nobody is going to back anything that leads to those circumstances.

Yeah mostly. It goes down out of the Rugby season as I don't start as early.

About £150 in the UK.

In Kenya at the moment, so only about £70.

Emotional and Scientific responses both have their places in Politics. Pretty much every major political event always has a major emotional aspect to it, e.g. desegregation, even the fall of the Berlin wall. There's also been points in history where if data and statistics were to be the one absolute base of decision making, billions of people would have died (I'm thinking mainly of Ronald Reagan being advised the USA could "Win" a nuclear exchange with the USSR).

I think with the amount of information people are bombarded with in the modern world is just making people disillusioned with Politics to be honest. Anybody can easily just use Google to find some form of data backing up their view point. There's a ridiculous amount of spin present in the media, on every issue. People then align themselves to their favored viewpoint, and with the internet, everyone can now project their voice, and you just have contention.

So if you're impartial, what/who are you supposed to listen to? There's absolutely no modern political issue that you can read for five minutes without having read that all the political players involved are liars, and at some point, in some way, they're going to bring the country to it's knees, and we're all going to be living in a third world, desolate hellhole.

My view is similar to Steve's. You should try and understand all sides, but ultimately make a decision based on your own principles, and observations.

It seems to me Politics in the US just swing to extremes, probably indicative of it being a fairly new nation.

Traditionally in the UK students lean pretty far left during education, which is compounded by teaching vacancies being advertised in left leaning newspapers. Once they leave education and get a few years into their careers, they tend to drift towards center over the years, especially if they start a family.

What's fortunate is they only have any power within their university's, so most of what they advocate never comes to fruition, and once they get into a position to actually make change, they tend to have grown out of their 'this country would be better as an anarchy' view point.

Jesus Christ what is actually happening here? I can't tell if this is trolling or the guy is actually mentally unhinged.

I'm not going to get into a debate about Gun control, as it's a subject that's been done to death over the years.

What I find concerning regarding this subject is just the level of negligence some gun owners display, especially around children.

Whether it be this particular story. I believe a few months ago a toddler shot his mother in a supermarket with a weapon he took from her purse. There's plenty of youtube videos of kids firing high caliber/gauge weapons, and unsurprisingly being defeated by their recoil, much to the adults delight.

Given this particular story, and this woman's stance as an advocate for the ownership of firearms, it really puts her in zero position to argue with anybody who might question her. She's massively open to critique over how safe she is with her weapons, given she's left it next to her child, whilst made ready. She's extremely hard pressed to argue the line she's carrying the weapon for self defence, given that it is in the back seat of her car, largely out of reach. Most concerning, given she evidently leaves firearms out in the open, she clearly hasn't educated her child in proper safety/handling, and has probably installed an attitude that guns are things to play with.

In any sensible persons opinion, this level of negligence should lead to intense scrutiny of an individuals eligibility to carry a firearm in the public domain. To my knowledge (I'm really hoping to be proved wrong) most cases like this do not carry any particularly strict penalty.

Personally I agree with Turkey on principle for this particular issue, Russia are lately violating sovereign territory and behaving as though they should be able to act with impunity. Besides that Russia doesn't have the best reputation when dealing with airspace violations itself. Korean Air can attest to that.

I'd say it's coincidence and your brain has committed that woman and car model to memory as the imagery of your dream. Try and recall things like the Number plate of the car, any conspicuous damage, did she brake at all? How many times, and for how long? I'd wager you won't be able to recall any of that.

Without more context, that doesn't sound like they're impoverished. I mean I grew up on a 3 bedroomed house with 6 people living there, done 13 years of education, and have a job, and could afford my own place if I had to. But unlike the properly impoverished, I haven't spent my life deciding if I'd like to eat or have the lights/heat on tonight, having a useless education from a failing school and the worst teachers available.

Semi-socialist societies have their issues, but in the UK we don't have baron cities like Detroit, with an insane crime rate, and the majority of the populace is in poverty (figure that). In that kind of situation working your ass off and gaining nothing is purely going to demotivate you to do anything. Why would you want to contribute to a society that couldn't care less whether your starving, cold, or going to end up behind bars? No matter how hard you work.

From the sounds of it, this is pretty much every Western military's standard ROE other than theatre specific rules. You are allowed to respond with deadly force, if you believe your life, or the life of others are in danger. However you are to respond with the minimum applicable force to end the threat e.g. you could fire at your target until they drop, you couldn't then however approach them and then empty your magazine into them. This is fully in line with the Geneva convention.

The simple answer is don't throw rocks at Police, soldiers, or civilians near police and soliders, their job is to defend citizens of their country, and they are well within their rights to do it.

Edit: You are also required to shout for a perpetrator to stop what they're doing UNLESS doing so is likely to cause yourself or others harm.

Necrophiliac bestiality...probably pretty tame by Uni standards tbf. By any rate, I'd rather hear this than hearing he f**ked kids.

You are definitely on crack.

Aside from Prisoners, those on food stamps, universal healthcare in invaded countries...

He's not all that inaccurate though, the mujahedin were (as is common knowledge) trained by Western Special Forces, sects broke off and formed 'effective' military organisations like Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The Kurds SHOULD be being armed directly from NATO countries, that way the West has at least some semblance of control over where munitions are moved to. That way when this inevitably ends up with boots on the ground, soldiers aren't being brassed up by their own weapons.

As much as I agree the Kurds need arming, I agree that they shouldn't be getting armed directly from the Arab nations. They're already heavy financiers to a lot of terrorist organisations, I don't consider it the smartest move to allow them free reign to move heavy weapons around the region.

Paris police are armed.

Other energy sources will be invested in, and any fuel that is produced from the refining of Oil can be synthesized, just more energy intensively than drilling for and refining it. I believe the US Navy are set to start trialing it on an Aircraft carrier to give them a limited self sustained operational capibility.

Curiosity.

Exactly how far can you put your arm up a woman's vagina before it kills her?