The one on the left is a younger version of Cher on steriods.usmarine2005 wrote:
I have no idea. If I had to guess, the one on the right is. The one on the left.......sergeriver wrote:
Sorry are those really women?
Poll
What is worse?
| Appeasement | 47% | 47% - 38 | ||||
| Millions of dead people | 52% | 52% - 42 | ||||
| Total: 80 | ||||||
They're most likely both females, or at least once were female.sergeriver wrote:
I agree, tbh the one on the left has a cock for sure. Disgusting.usmarine2005 wrote:
I have no idea. If I had to guess, the one on the right is. The one on the left.......sergeriver wrote:
Sorry are those really women?
God help us all
Think i'll join the marines
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
how strangely erotic
I actually met the one on the left about a year ago when I was staying at the Reunion Hotel in Dallas. They were having a female body building State Championship (Miss Fitness Texas or somesuch shit as that) there and she was there standing by me waiting for her car when I was waiting for mine. How fucking random is that? By the way, she was solid ass muscle in real life too and of all the chicks we saw that day she was the one we were all pretty sure used to be a man. She didn't have an Adam's apple, but damn she was macho. Unreal. That is one of the top 4 or 5 coincidences in my life. You see that chick in person and you'll NEVER forget it. I don't really remember the one on the right though she looks vaguely familiar. The one on the left I'm sure of though. Where were those pictures taken?
By the way, of the 200 chicks that were at that deal there were probably 20 who were just balls out smoking hot. They were usually the ones who didn't look like they had a chance to win, but they were easily the most fuckable.
By the way, of the 200 chicks that were at that deal there were probably 20 who were just balls out smoking hot. They were usually the ones who didn't look like they had a chance to win, but they were easily the most fuckable.
Last edited by Dersmikner (2008-01-28 16:11:00)
never called you mexican genius. maybe you need to stop thinking this forum revolves around yousergeriver wrote:
It's ok. He called me Mexican, anti-Semite working under the payroll of some kind of organization, nazi, anti-American, moron, geek, racist, bigot, asshole, pussy, little girl, so that's really nothing compared to those insults (not that being Mexican is an insult anyway, but I'm not that).Left_hand wrote:
I would be grateful if you could not post such vulgar comments please.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Ill let them bang my sister too.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-01-28 16:36:23)
Ill be gratetful if you shut upLeft_hand wrote:
I would be grateful if you could not post such vulgar comments please.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Ill let them bang my sister too.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-01-28 16:40:47)
Pay no attention to m3thod.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Ill be gratetful if you shut upLeft_hand wrote:
I would be grateful if you could not post such vulgar comments please.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Ill let them bang my sister too.
Ohright.usmarine2005 wrote:
Pay no attention to m3thod.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Ill be gratetful if you shut upLeft_hand wrote:
I would be grateful if you could not post such vulgar comments please.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
m3thods not a bad guy. I dig the battles USM and him have.
This is true.B.Schuss wrote:
boy, that's a tough one. I'd say it depends on the "concessions" that you would make. If they're are less important than the lives of millions of people, and appeasement was guaranteed to work, then I'd say the millions of dead people are worse.
It all depends on who you are dealing with, and what you give up for what you get. Appeasement may work, under the right circumstances.
out of principality, however, appeasement is worse. But as we have learned, different people have different views on what exactly appeasement is.
consequently, null vote for me.
It has also been shown by definition, that appeasement does not have to indulge an enemy.
Wait a fuckin' second!!! The semantics was started on your end Serge, Not mine. I also did not post 31 pages of semantics, I answered the questions posted to me, and defended my position. YOU fuckers posted all of the semantics. I just responded to what was postedsergeriver wrote:
The original post had no examples, I added them because people asked for them. Did you read the 30 pages threads about semantics and appeasement by Lowing? Well, the first example is just that. To me that is not appesement, but when people decided it is, call it appeasement if you want.SenorToenails wrote:
You trivialize the whole poll with the examples given.sergeriver wrote:
There's no need since most people would let millions die, you have your answer there.
Millions of dead people. Belisarius the famous Byzantine general showed that keeping your men alive is a good thing.sergeriver wrote:
You have to pick one of those options. Which one is worse in your opinion? My definition of appeasement is an attempt to pacify an enemy by granting some concessions, even at the expense of some principles. If you could avoid a war being an appeaser and save millions of lives, what would you do? If you could solve the terrorism problem being an appeaser and by doing this you could save millions of lives, what would you do? Again, appeasement doesn't mean you would let your enemy take control of your country or something. So, what is worse?
Edit: Ok, given the fact that everyone wants details on what concessions you are making, I'll present some scenarios:
A-You must call terrorism anti-Islamic activities.
B-You must remove some missiles from the border of a country far away from home.
C-You must recognize the independence of a Middle East state.
D-You must take your support to a Middle East state away.
E-You must set a bunch of terrorists free from jail.
F-You must give your liberty away.
Don't get mad my friend, what I meant is the thread was YOURS, not the semantics issue.lowing wrote:
Wait a fuckin' second!!! The semantics was started on your end Serge, Not mine. I also did not post 31 pages of semantics, I answered the questions posted to me, and defended my position. YOU fuckers posted all of the semantics. I just responded to what was postedsergeriver wrote:
The original post had no examples, I added them because people asked for them. Did you read the 30 pages threads about semantics and appeasement by Lowing? Well, the first example is just that. To me that is not appesement, but when people decided it is, call it appeasement if you want.SenorToenails wrote:
You trivialize the whole poll with the examples given.
But you did a fucking mess with the semantics there.
both ----case to case :d:
Since you posted the word Mexican after one of my posts twice...but it's ok if you say it wasn't directed at me, I believe you.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
never called you mexican genius. maybe you need to stop thinking this forum revolves around yousergeriver wrote:
It's ok. He called me Mexican, anti-Semite working under the payroll of some kind of organization, nazi, anti-American, moron, geek, racist, bigot, asshole, pussy, little girl, so that's really nothing compared to those insults (not that being Mexican is an insult anyway, but I'm not that).Left_hand wrote:
I would be grateful if you could not post such vulgar comments please.
Im with you on this one Jarhead but you can keep the WM's all for you. blah!!usmarine wrote:
There are female Marines serge.
Malloy must go
Did you see the girls (if they are girls, lol) he posted above?deeznutz1245 wrote:
Im with you on this one Jarhead but you can keep the WM's all for you. blah!!usmarine wrote:
There are female Marines serge.
After a couple weeks in the field, they look pretty damn good IMO.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Im with you on this one Jarhead but you can keep the WM's all for you. blah!!usmarine wrote:
There are female Marines serge.
Yet again a topic gets derailed into a convo about trannies
Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-01-29 10:17:15)
Well we did it for you...Mek-Izzle wrote:
Yet again a topic gets derailed into a convo about trannies
no uusmarine wrote:
Well we did it for you...Mek-Izzle wrote:
Yet again a topic gets derailed into a convo about trannies