Squrlz4Ever

Registered bored user

You lookin' at me?

squrlz4ever wrote:
Gerry1of1 I was going to keep it a surprise, Gerry, but I looked her up on Facebook so I could schedule one of her "Gay Conversion Therapy" sessions with you. She'll be on your doorstep sometime in the next week or so, with a suitcase filled with handcuffs, a leather riding crop, lubricant, and a video camera. I told her you'd be using "schadenfreude" as your safe word. You're welcome.

~imagines Gerry and Martina on a water bed: "COME TO MUTTER!"~
squrlz4ever wrote:
irk LOL! It's like a bad car wreck... I find it hard not to look.
squrlz4ever wrote:
The plot thickens. I just went over to her Facebook page, and she's gone full African, complete with wig (photo below). She's getting a lot of criticism for the new look, with many people saying that it's tantamount to blackface.

squrlz4ever wrote:
Hoo. Let's see... how can I put a positive spin on this? I like her voice and accent.
squrlz4ever wrote:
With a few exceptions, most of this strikes me as "Trash from the Trash." Who would want to save other people's discarded fake Christmas trees? Or a falling apart, taxidermied dog? ~shudder~
squrlz4ever wrote:
casaledana ~eyes Casa suspiciously~ And just how do you know so much about polygamy, hmm?
squrlz4ever wrote:
Checking the link, I find there's less to this story than the headline suggests. First, most of the 5,700 troops are not going to Afghanistan: 1,700 are going to Afghanistan and 4,000 are going to Europe. Second, these troop movements are part of regular, scheduled rotations. Per the article: "The troop rotations will not increase the size of the U.S. force in either location, Pentagon spokesmen said."

Posting this article with this headline and the "Breaking" sticker is misleading. ~Squrlz throws an acorn at Fancy~
squrlz4ever wrote:
I see no basis for any complaints. Everyone in that house appears to be happy and thriving, both children and adults. In fact, they seem happier than most families I've met. Also: I think both women are not only attractive, they're downright pretty.

Actually, I'm going to take this comment of mine a step further. You could make the argument that the 3-adults-plus-children model is more sensible today than the traditional husband-wife-kids family. Back in the 1950s, it was possible for a family with 3 children to do well on just the husband's income alone. This left the wife available for making a home that provided lots of love and attention for the children. Today, one salary is seldom enough to raise a family on. This family's found a solution: Two incomes keep the household's finances in good order and the 2nd wife takes the lead on homemaking and childcare. It sure is better than having two working parents who are so exhausted that the children don't get the love and attention they need.

Everyone looks happy here, particularly the children. And I think I'm beginning to understand why (aside from the adult's sexual fulfillment, which is also important). 
squrlz4ever wrote:
Applying makeup with scrotum is funny and brings to mind the importance of essay writing service by polite Indian staff trained to meet your academic requirements.
squrlz4ever wrote:
Next year they're just going to have done with it and start wearing wifebeaters and gray sweatpants. "Welcome 'Donalds. What the fuck you want?"
squrlz4ever wrote:
~Squrlz places paws around his nuts~ Nobody's using my nuts for makeup application. Nobody. You hear me, ladies?!
squrlz4ever wrote:
johncourage Fair enough; after all, no one can expect you to refute points I'm not making. I just threw a placeholder into the thread here, so to speak. I have to take a break and get some dinner, but I'll try to return later tonight with something more substantive.
squrlz4ever wrote:
waldo863 Sorry. I'm sure your humor was fine. It's probably me. I'm a bit off today as I didn't get much sleep last night.

When I first learned of it, I myself was surprised that the Brits use pencil, thinking like you, "Why use something erasable?" But their logic is sound. Once the paper ballot is marked, it's dropped into a box and not touched again until it's emptied out onto the counting table, where four or more people, some representing candidates, some independent election officials, are all watching. Ergo, erasing pencil marks isn't likely to occur and would take so much time it's impractical. Ink that disappears by itself, however, is more of a threat, so that's the danger they guard against.

(You can imagine the scenario: Three or four poll workers conspire together and give "special pens" to voters they judge are the wrong sort (lower-income, upper-income, minority, non-minority, or whatever). They take the pens back from the those voters and give regular pens to the voters they judge to be the right sort. They repeat the process for the entire time the polls are open. At the end of the day, when the votes counted, lo and behold, 15% of the ballots are found to be blank and are discarded, and the candidate the poll workers were in favor of wins the election.)

If you're interested, YouTube has some videos of the ballot counting process in the UK and it's inspiring to watch. Here's one. The basic idea is that if everything is done manually, it drastically lowers the incentive to commit election fraud because a lot of people would have to be involved and a lot of paper ballots would have to be changed or gotten rid of (and the police carry them around in locked boxes). By contrast, when things are computerized, a single programmer can change 10,000 or 20,000 votes--or more--instantly, effortlessly, and invisibly.
squrlz4ever wrote:
johncourage I should let holygod address this, but I have to observe: Every single one of your four points above is either wrong, illogical, or misguided.

Also, it doesn't surprise me that you had to resort to Prager University for both your videos. If you aren't aware of it, PragerU is infamous for being a purveyor of borderline batshit crazy far-right propaganda. Some of their more interesting videos include "Fossil Fuels: The Greenest Energy" (I'm not making that up, I swear), "The Truth About the Vietnam War" (a bizarre, right-wing, revisionist fantasy where America was winning that war, doing just great, but the damned liberals ruined everything); and "If There Is No God, Murder Isn't Wrong" (so I guess that means we should just lock up all atheists today since they're obviously going to run around killing people).
squrlz4ever wrote:
normalfreak2 Thanks. Yes, I didn't even touch the sources of money, which is a whole other can of worms. What really gets me upset is the inaction on the part of our elected officials. Most of these things are straightforward and fairly easy to accomplish. It isn't rocket science. And you could argue that ensuring the integrity and sensible execution of our elections is one of the most important responsibilities of our elected officials.

We pay them a minimum of $174,000/year and are giving them cushy retirement plans and gold-plated healthcare. And they are not doing a damn thing to address any of this. They are sitting on their hands like a bunch of jackasses.

As the saying goes, if you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention.
squrlz4ever wrote:
waldo863 Thanks. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks we can and should be doing a lot better with our elections.

And ditto regarding Columbus Day. I lost all enthusiasm for it when I read Columbus's letter back to Spain where he comments on the high prices prepubescent Taino girls are getting in the sex-slave trade created by the Conquistadors.

Interesting factoid about why the Brits use pencils for voting: They were concerned that dishonest poll workers might give voters pens that write in disappearing ink, which would cause the ballots to appear blank (and be discarded) when the polls closed. They've thought of everything over there. We could learn a lot from them.
squrlz4ever wrote:
DrCribbens I know, I know. :)  You've reminded me, though, of an anti-Moon-hoax article I want to submit, so thanks.
squrlz4ever wrote:
waldo863 I'm a bit squirrelly when it comes to U.S. elections, at least in comparison to most of the nation. The entire process is seriously screwed up and needs a thorough overhaul. The task of making sure the elections are intelligently run should be the FEC's and the effort should be paid for with tax dollars. Honestly, spending money to ensure that our elections are fair and sensible--and not the ridiculous clusterfuck they are currently--would be one of the best possible uses of tax dollars. If only the darned elected officials would get their heads out of their asses and fix the mess.

What changes, aside from some basic screening of candidates, ought to be made? I'd start with the following:

  • Remove all computers and technology from the voting process. Just as they do in the United Kingdom, ballots should be marked in pencil on paper and handcounted. (I develop software for a living and love technology. But technology is the last thing you want for tallying votes. Most people don't get this. And that's because most people don't know how easy it is to flip tens of thousands of votes electronically with lines of code that self-delete without a trace once the votes have been counted.)
  • The election should be conducted, start to finish, in three months time, not a day longer. No one should be able to campaign for office outside of that 90-day window. Many countries conduct elections in much less time. Our two-year-long election sagas are absurd.
  • The Electoral College should be abolished. It's an archaic holdover from a time when our Founding Fathers felt the average citizen couldn't be expected to vote intelligently because he probably knew nothing about politicians outside his own state. Those people today who think the Electoral College prevents "the tyranny of the majority" don't understand how it works. It does no such thing.
  • Columbus Day should be renamed Election Day and used as a federal holiday where virtually everyone gets the day off to cast their vote.
  • Gerrymandering needs to be exterminated. Where deemed necessary, districts should be redefined on a sensible basis by the FEC.
squrlz4ever wrote:
DrCribbens Now, now... that was the other thread. :) Every thread is its own fresh start. I like to think so, anyway.
squrlz4ever wrote:
waldo863 The cost of those exams would be trivial, probably well under $1,000 for each test. Consider that New York City, which will almost certainly be reimbursed by the U.S. taxpayer, is currently spending $500,000 a day to protect Trump Tower whenever President Trump visits.

The advantage in having the FEC in charge of, and paying for, the tests is that you could have unbiased FEC-selected doctors rather than the personal physicians of the candidates, who might or might not be impartial.
squrlz4ever wrote:
These faux dirty jeans actually piss me off. I know, I know. Life's too short to get offended by stuff like this. But still. Grrrr.

I just checked the Nordstrom website and found that these jeans are made in Portugal, no doubt in some sweatshop. Can you imagine what the workers are thinking?

"No, no, Diego. You need to apply more faux dirt and mud. The Americans who are going to spend the equivalent of our combined month's wages for these pants really want to experience what it feels like to have dirty clothes."

"Si, si, boss. More faux mud. Right away!"
squrlz4ever wrote:
I'm not sure where this video was taken, but I'm guessing China since I found two other YouTube videos of Chinese firefighters doing the same maneuver. Apparently, it's standard operating procedure over there. It certainly worked well in this video.