Maturin

I had that yesterday mate. I thought they might have changed the duration, but it's back to around 20 minutes today.

Hmm, there might be something in that. My speculatoradar is pointing to the assumption that she might well be a friend of basketball coaching Adrianna. Not heard her speak but if she is Catalan/Spanish then the speculatoradar might start pinging like crazy.

You do understand that the terrorists that have smuggled themselves into Europe with the refugees are not refugees right?! ISIS has made it intolerable in Syria and Iraq for ordinary people to live their lives without fear of being killed, so these ordinary people leave their homes and flood to Europe. This has given the terrorists the perfect opportunity to smuggle themselves through, hiding among the victims they created like the cowards they are. If as you suggest, we start shooting refugees, how does that make us better than any terrorist? It makes us at best the same as them, but most probably it makes us worse as these refugees have nothing and need help - yet you say they need to be exterminated. Either we show we are better than them or we stop pretending that we're different. As Corboblanc says, the only way to stop this is to restore their homes and livelihoods - we in the West are as guilty as anyone for fucking up the Mid East.

I have never seen any anti-French sentiment in this forum and I am someone that has had battles with many people that are ridiculously anti-people-who-are-from-different-cultures. If there has been anti-French sentiments that I have missed then sorry, but to say that this forum is anti one of the most culturally significant countries the world has known, is a bit strong. We all stand by France, historically, now and in the future.

"That's a weird looking iPad, where's the volume switch for starters?"

Copied from the masturbating thread as thís is probably the better thread.

Her natural sitting position seems to be with her legs open, as she is in the sitting room right now (knickers on). I highly approve of this posture but realise it will lead to quite a few false alarms :D

it looks like she might be doing it now in the bedroom, from the tiny screengrabs.

He's still around, he goes under the handle of Hope85 and still posts amazing stuff.

Maybe that should be moved to Worldwide Poetical Discussions ...but not as dumb as Trump redited otherwise it dosn't make sense Incorrect quote corrected.

Of course RLC provid free cams in order to rope people into paying, what else would the free cams be there for?! They certainley didn't set everything up with a view to just giving freeloaders are a nice view. I think there is legs on the idea that they get paid some kind of bonus for performing in general and perhaps more on the free cams. But who knows for sure, you can't say it's definitely one way or the other but the signs do point out that it's more likely that there is a bonus system involved. For example, Zoya's guest is just a guest, she wouldn't get a bonus for getting naked so why should she take her clothes off. The guests at Nelly and Dasha's that have sex are usually drunk and do it after a party, they're young so they don't care if they get paid not. Masha and Sasha? Rarely have sex not in the living room - new couple ragging the tits off the bonus scheme I think.

I think she is leaving after all this time, if you look now there's a message saying "See you" on the table in front of the camera.

ALEX: Honey I'm home! What did you today? LERA: Hi! I cut up coke into various lines and then put them all with tobacco in one roll up and smoked it. ALEX: What? What the fuck? You smoked cocaine? Then what did you do? LERA: I sat on the sofa for three hours, it was mental. Smoking cocaine, I don't understand why nobody does it. Nobody at all does it, do they? ALEX: No they fucking don't, what a waste. Now come here and let's have sex for three minutes. LERA: Ooooh! I'm so high right now! ALEX: No you aren't.

She's hardly acting like someone that's done a line of charlie. Cocaine would be alright as it might give them a bit of life and us something to talk about but if it's marijuana then this will be one boring (chilled out) apartment.

Here's a chart of the number of robberies per capita. The USA is 20th on the list, beaten by countries such as Nicaragua, Columbia, Mexico and Belize. Interesting to note that it is 2 EUropean countries that top the list and win hands down, Spain and Belgium. I've lived in Spain and my house was actually broken into whilst I was at work and the fuckers stole literally everything, robbery is a massive issue in that country. I'm sure that the vast majority of that figure is street crime, purse snatches and pickpocketing fuelled by the tourist industry. The fact that the US is not towards the bottom of the list when it comes to robbery rates leads me to assume that its current gun laws are not effective in controlling robbery and are indeed detrimental to the country when taking into account the fact that 10% of all deaths occur at the wrong end of a gun. http://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/robery/#USA Even as a person who grew up with an unarmed police force, I have no problem with officers of the law carrying weapons (even though I'd hate to see UK culture degenerate to a level in which the police feel they need to be armed in the carrying out of their routine duties), that's not the issue. The issue facing the US is that the wrong sorts of people can get guns easily yet no one is willing to do something about that because of their own personal beliefs or fear that they would have to give up their own weapons for the good of everyone. Weird.

Can you point to evidence submitted by other states or nations that do publish a record of how many guns have saved lives? That would be the killer statistic right there.

Why would you assume that pretending every murder in the statistics was with a gun is a valid point? It's not at all! Obviously the statistics are going to be screwed in favour of the countries that have more guns - there is no useful ratio here unless you want to post the actual ratio per capita of gun related homocide. The only thing that is useful from what you have posted is the apparent corroleation between the UK and Aus with tighter gun controls having a 1/4 of the homocide rate than the US. Based on the actual data you've posted (not the odd assumption that all the murders were committed with guns) then it shows that looking into the gun crime statistic would perhaps yield some actual evidence. I'll do that now... Percentage per 100,000 deaths that were caused by guns, including suicides, accidental fatalities, and justifiable homicides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate Australia 0.86 United Kingdom 0.26 United States 10.5 So yeah, laying that strange assumption aside it seems like you're onto something that the figures above agree with and that the argument about gun ownership isn't irrelevant.

Yes, but does being signed up for selective service mean that males that are of the age automatically recieve weapons training? I'm willing to bet it doesn't and therfore I'm willing to bet that the majority of men on selected service (even if they own a gun or not) have not recieved anything near the type of weapons training needed to mount an effective resistance against the US Army or any other aggressor- so what's the point? My batshit crazy neigbour was hypothetical but if I did have an issue with a neighbour then, I'm sure any of the European commentators on here would agree, that the first step to sorting it out would be to meet with them and talk about the grievance to see if it coud be resolved. Going to the authorities without even talking it through with the guy, because you're not sure if he would use his gun on you or not, is thankfully something we don't have to deal with - and I'd hazard a guess that communities are stronger and safer because of this than in America.

I think the only hope for Zoya would be if she strapped an iPad to the back of her head, that might get the gimp interested!

Thanks for breaking it down Linked. So if I understand correctly then the National Guard is not regarded as the 2nd amendment's militia because the majority of its funding comes from the federal government, is that right? If that is the case, then where else is the organised militia that gives the right to bear arms? I can't see any other type of organisation that regulates statewide militias that can justify such an easy access to weapons in the US. If the US government did become totalitarian then who and what would organise ordinary gun owners into a resistance movement - and what practicable use would handguns, sport rifles and shotguns be against the weight of the professional US Army? I've got absolutely no problem with trained soldiers, regular, reserve or indeed a structured militia, having weapons in their homes in case of need but I fail to see how having guns so easily available to people like the high school murderers, gangs and other criminal elements is supposed to make people safer. You've got an AR-10, you're a National Guardsmen, I'm fine with that. My neighbour on the other hand is a batshit crazy (non-military) alcoholic and I think very soon him and I may come to blows - now if I was in the US I'd be worried about whether he has a battle rifle propped up behind the door when I knocked on it and if it would it be sensible for me to bring my firearm just in case he was drunk and didn't take too kindly to being told to clean his shit up. That potential to turn a neighbourly dispute into a potentially fatal firefight is insane. Surely the 2nd amendment needs to be looked at to stop the batshit crazy people getting access to guns?

As a European I'm confused as to why certain sections of the US quote and refer to the Constitution as if it is some kind of political bible that details the best way for society to organise itself. Surely a document written 100s of year ago should not be slavishly adhered to? But then, as I understand it, that's what the various amendments are for, is that right? The amendment process is a way of updating the document in order to keep it current, to better reflect the needs of a changing society? My question is, why are these amendments taken to be incontestable rules, when they are actually just amendments that should be open to, well, amending? For example: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This was written before the US had a well organized military and also how do today's gun ownership laws in the US equal a "well regulated militia"? It seems to me that people who reference the constitution just pick the pieces they can use and ignore the rest, as in this one sentence - "A well regulated militia," - nah forget that bit, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," - yes that's the part I can use. Just like the Bible it appears open to interpertation by either side and it was never intended to lay down the law for ever and ever amen - as the amendments themselves prove.

I'd bet the farm on it being a problem on their end. Too many people, who have widely different pc specs, are reporting the same. Here's a quick test to assure you that it's not an issue on your side; go to youtube and find any video that's in 720 or 1080p definition, these will be way higher than the resolution RLC streams at. Can you watch those types of video without buffering, or stuttering? I reckon you probably can - if so then you can be assured that the issue is with RLC and they are giving you a shit reply. Youtubes servers are probably the best in the business for streaming so you get no issue - RLC's are probably the bare minimum standard which is why a lot of us have this issue!

I didn't resurrect this thread from months ago but yeah, if I'm reading you correctly, I should just answer him with the silence he deserves. Done.

In a thread that I created to chastise the mods for their previous preferential application of their own rules towards me and the people I've disagreed with - that has not mentioned you in anyway? You have literally no idea how stupid the things you write are, do you?!

Stop being ridiculous and showing yourself up for the fool that you are. You commented about me on a dead thread created by me, of course you were (pathetically and indirectly) talking to me. Twat.