patrick.net

I'd be happy with a middle aged hairy ear lobe...preferably outfitted with a couple of flattened wax frisbees intertwined with earphone sponge remnants...
I mean...really. I'm not greedy.

thunderlips11 says

Yeah, no vag shot. I call them "Roast Beef" pictures, reminds me of a roast beef being sliced at a buffet.

Never in a million years. It's just not pretty. It's up there with looking at laparoscopy photos of fallopian tubes.

A silhouette of a person's figure is much prettier.

Sexy, isn't it?

The hydro in one of tubes is especially hot (notice how one part of the tube is much bigger than the other... that's not normal.) This isn't my photo... I just quickly grabbed it off the web, but it's a great example of a hydrosalpinx. Interesting, but not hot.

I want to see a picture of Turtledove waterboarding Kim JongDong.

Flop those fuckers already

Dan8267 says

Btw, I would have made the same bet with my penis

never trust a man who uses the word penis.

turtledove says

I haven't decided yet what I will do if Trump actually wins.

NSFW suggestions:
https://i.reddituploads.com/ca435e64399e41db9e295798eaef6d96?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=d6052d0028feb7f2c4d02f733666683e

turtledove says

Brings up a good question. At what point does a vagina go from being sexually attractive to being icky? How far up the canal until that happens?

komputodo says

never trust a man who uses the word penis.

Trust is for idiots. I'm all about transparency.

I never realized how brilliant Turtledove really is.
I bet she's smokin' to boot. Gawd Conservative women are God's gift to the thinking man.

"I never realized how brilliant Turtledove really is.
I bet she's smokin' to boot. Gawd Conservative women are God's gift to the thinking man."

Word.

zzyzzx says

NSFW suggestions:

https://i.reddituploads.com/ca435e64399e41db9e295798eaef6d96?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=d6052d0028feb7f2c4d02f733666683e

Not to make a topless photo declasse, but this picture gives me a thought that might require a new photograph. Rather than body paint, what about a (temporary) cannibal anarchy tattoo? There are kits for such a thing.... @DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie , does artwork already exist?

Not suggesting switching from top to bottom, just thinking that I should consider a new pic that incorporates a cannibal anarchy tat.

turtledove says

Not to make a topless photo declasse, but this picture gives me a thought that might require a new photograph. Rather than body paint, what about a (temporary) cannibal anarchy tattoo? There are kits for such a thing.... @DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie , does artwork already exist?

Not suggesting switching from top to bottom, just thinking that I should consider a new pic that incorporates a cannibal anarchy tat.

How about a tattoo that says "Patrick.net is the best"

Strategist says

How about a tattoo that says "Patrick.net is the best"

Or "The best of Patrick.net" right on your breasts.

zzyzzx says

And we men are pigs for viewing women as "sex objects"? Are we not supposed to be turned on by such extravagant attempts to turn us on?

Women are definitely visual. Chicks in my office, if a built guy walks in or a built temp is around, it's like a gaggle of 12-year old teenyboppers in there, with ass remarks.

Turtledove needs to cover her flesh with cheeto-orange spray on tan before she bares all, with pale eye holes under the baby bottles.

Dan8267 says:
"At what point does a vagina go from being sexually attractive to being icky? How far up the canal until that happens?"
My dick doesn't have eyes or a brain.

ALRIGHT TURTLE DOVE, DROP THAT TOP!

Too early?

HEY YOU says

My dick doesn't have eyes or a brain.

That's strange. My dick has one eye and definitely thinks for itself.

HEY YOU says

ALRIGHT TURTLE DOVE, DROP THAT TOP!

Too early?

Yes, too early. The dates of the Republican convention are July 18-21st. The nomination should be final on the last day. I still haven't decided if I'm going to do a mass, 48-hour ignore of overt Hillary supporters.... Perhaps I should give them a chance to save themselves by making them say one bad, TRUE thing about Hillary's qualifications as president.

Show us you can be objective....

turtledove says

Here's your chance. Be objective. Say one bad, true thing about Hillary and I'll give you an ignore-pass.

Dan8267 says

And we men are pigs for viewing women as "sex objects"? Are we not supposed to be turned on by such extravagant attempts to turn us on?

Will it change your vote? C'mon.... You can't seriously vote for Hillary. She's insidiously flawed. Trumps is more in-your-face-flawed. That is so much better. Hillary is like a cancer that you don't realize until it's metastasized to your lymph nodes... Trump you can see coming from a mile away. Think about it.

CHEETO BREASTS FROM TURTELEDOVE!

turtledove says

Here's your chance. Be objective. Say one bad, true thing about Hillary and I'll give you an ignore-pass.

I've said bad things about Hillary, and even voted for Bernie in the primary. But most of the right wing knocks against her are 90% exaggerations. Take email-gate as an example. She was cleared by a Republican head of the FBI who has loads of prosecutorial experience. She fucked up. She admitted it. She was not completely honest about it during the campaign. These are problems, but they are somewhat typical of politicians, and are not disqualifying. The whole thing was mostly a political circus designed to help get the Republican elected. The people constantly wasting resources, time, and attention on personal attacks are the real villains.

So, if you want to put me on ignore, go ahead. That no more makes me gay than this whole thing makes your husband a cuckold.

turtledove says

Will it change your vote? C'mon.... You can't seriously vote for Hillary. She's insidiously flawed. Trumps is more in-your-face-flawed. That is so much better.

I agree. I've gone on the record stating I could never vote for anyone who voted for the USA Patriot Act or the NDAA.

Trump is a loose cannon and unpredictable, but that's far less dangerous than the systematic evil that Hillary has endorsed and enacted over the past 16 years. Trump is also better on most social issues despite being deliberately divisive and offensive. Trump is not a threat to liberty. He's a con man who has conned his way to the GOP nominee and may very well con his way to the White House, but he's not an ideologue by any means. Nor is he beholden to the established power base that has corrupted both parties like Hillary. Trump is the lesser of the two evils.

Trump will be a terrible president. Hillary will be worse. Furthermore, the damage Trump does will mostly be borne by the GOP whereas the damage Hillary does will be borne by the Democrats. It's better for the Democrats to let Trump take the White House and concentrate on keeping and getting as many senate and house seats as possible.

Of course, the best thing the Democratic Party could do is get the super delegates to nominate Sanders. This will not only ensure a White House victory but will also get a lot of people who would vote for Democratic representatives and senators into the polls. The more people who show up to vote, the better the Democrats do, and Sanders brings in a lot of people who hate Hillary and would just stay home if she's nominated.

turtledove says

Here's your chance. Be objective. Say one bad, true thing about Hillary and I'll give you an ignore-pass.

I'm a Hillary can do no wrong disciple?? You clearly have not read any of my posts. Just because I think Trump is an egotistical, lunatic with absolutely no business being President doesn't mean I think Hillary is good.

Hillary sucks. I've never voted for her and I wish I never have to. Her judgment is poor, she deceives, I don't trust her. She's probably more conservative than some Republicans. Shall I go on?

YesYNot says

The whole thing was mostly a political circus designed to help get the Republican elected.

If Hillary had been indicted, Bernie would be the nominee running against Trump. All the polls have him with a double digit lead over the narcissistic billionaire. So your statement couldn't be more false. I'd rank it as "pants on fire!"

We're phukked.

I just announced that we're about to see another economic collapse that is equal to or greater than that which we saw in the 2008-2010 period on my boat on July 3rd to about a dozen people.

The last time I made such a djre prediction was august of 2007.

I'm an attorney and a real estate developer (who also represents other real estate developers).

This downturn will be worse because there's more leverage baked into even more asset classes, most asset classes are stuffed full of way more debt (e.g. corporate bonds/indentures), there are political crises in many developed nations.

My comment was inadvertently interrupted -

China is about to enter a full blown economic depression (it's already contrasting in real GDP terms due to falling exports AND it even is suffering from declining real imports - which just illustrates how sick its economy is, despite their lying published statistics).

The EU is going to disintegrate (or become 1/2 its current size, which is effectively the same thing) within 2 years.

Americans and westerners are re-leveraged up their added in debt again (consumer credit card debt, auto loan debt and tuition debt is higher than 2007 and at all-time highs, while mortgage debt is 88% of the way to prior all time high in 2006 and rising quickly).

Central banks have the pedal to the floor, with interest rate policy at the zero bound already (actually negative territory in Japan and much of Europe in real terms), as they are the entities responsible for asset reflation (temporary) through ZIRP/NIRP) which has helped cover the banks/financial sector's cancer for the time being while crushing Main Street.

Corporations have all-time record debt loads (look it up) as do governments (through official channels and less-emphasized vehicles such as sovereign investment funds, not to even mention future entitlement obligations).

The U.S. is about to go through its most surreal general election in its history as are many western "democracies."

I officially now call another crash equal to or greater than that which we experienced in 2008-2010' and am on record as of July 3rd, 2016.

freespeechforever says

I officially now call another crash equal to or greater than that which we experienced in 2008-2010' and am on record as of July 3rd, 2016.

Wont happen.

Dan8267 says

Trump is a loose cannon and unpredictable, but that's far less dangerous than the systematic evil that Hillary has endorsed and enacted over the past 16 years. Trump is also better on most social issues despite being deliberately divisive and offensive. Trump is not a threat to liberty. He's a con man who has conned his way to the GOP nominee and may very well con his way to the White House, but he's not an ideologue by any means. Nor is he beholden to the established power base that has corrupted both parties like Hillary. Trump is the lesser of the two evils.

The great thing about Trump is his practical, pragmatic positions. This is in contrast to somebody deeply ensconced with Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, the Private Prison Industry, and Saudi Money. She is incapable of standing up to these interests as they are her core power base.

He's already destroyed the Republican Party - mostly by pointing out the crap decisions on Iraq, One-sided Trade, and Wanton Immigration.

tatupu70 says

Hillary sucks. I've never voted for her and I wish I never have to. Her judgment is poor, she deceives, I don't trust her. She's probably more conservative than some Republicans. Shall I go on?

Excellent. Trump has never shown outrageously poor acts (as in actual actions) of judgement; however his rhetoric may be. Hillary has a long record of going along with horrible policies despite warnings and cautions, because it suits her politically at the time, or her power-cash base wants it. Libya (and I mean the ultimate outcome, not Benghazi) and Syria don't speak to her ability to handle foreign affairs but the opposite.

Her desire to impose a no-fly zone over Syria is plain nuts, and her bellicose attitude towards Russia is literally Goldwater-level dangerous.

thunderlips11 says

Trump has never shown outrageously poor acts (as in actual actions) of judgement

Of course he has. Obama's birth certificate? Going bankrupt 4 times? His general election campaign has been a train wreck--if that is how he plans to run the country, we'll be in big trouble. He doesn't listen to criticism. He stays "loyal" to people that clearly don't deserve it for far too long. He shows all the signs of a leader that will surround himself with "yes" men.

They both suck.

tatupu70 says

Of course he has. Obama's birth certificate? Going bankrupt 4 times? His general election campaign has been a train wreck--if that is how he plans to run the country, we'll be in big trouble.

Obama's birth certificate is rhetoric, not a deed.

The Bankruptcy one is a PRATT at this point. He's involved with hundreds of ventures; he brought just before a host of Indian Casinos opened in Connecticut, and he wasn't the only Atlantic City Casino to declare bankruptcy in the time frame. They were also restructurings.

His general is not a train wreck, he is about 4.5 pts behind a world famous ex-Senator, ex-Sec. of State and lifelong "Public (Barf) Servant". Consider how controversial he has been and how media-shy Clinton has been (now 211 days since last press conference during a freakin Presidential Campaign, imagine how non-transparent in office). His nomination was masterful, pure shock and awe. Hillary has yet to put away Bernie, by the way.

Meanwhile, Huma admitted Hillary burned some of her daily schedules. Why some? Too many meetings with the Saudi or Goldman Sachs reps?
http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-daily-schedules/

thunderlips11 says

The Bankruptcy one is a PRATT at this point. He's involved with hundreds of ventures; he brought just before a host of Indian Casinos opened in Connecticut, and he wasn't the only Atlantic City Casino to declare bankruptcy in the time frame. They were also restructurings.

Stop. He didn't bankrupt one of his 100s of companies. He bankrupted the HOLDING company which controlled everything he owned. He would have been completely broke if the banks hadn't given him extremely favorable terms so they didn't have to recognize the default on their books.

thunderlips11 says

His general is not a train wreck, he is about 4.5 pts behind a world famous ex-Senator, ex-Sec. of State and lifelong "Public (Barf) Servant

It is a train wreck by any objective analysis. If you really think otherwise, you're not paying attention. He is running against the weakest candidate in history (save Trump himself) as you so often point out. The fact that he is still polling worse than Mittens (at the same point in 2012) speaks volumes.

tatupu70 says

Stop. He didn't bankrupt one of his 100s of companies. He bankrupted the HOLDING company which controlled everything he owned. He would have been completely broke if the banks hadn't given him extremely favorable terms so they didn't have to recognize the default on their books.

Bankruptcy professor disagrees:

It’s not fair to put all the blame on Trump for the four bankruptcies because he’s acting as any investor would. Investors often own many non-integrated companies, which they fund by taking on debt, and some of them inevitably file for bankruptcy, said Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University.

He added that people typically wouldn’t personally blame former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney or investor Warren Buffett for individual failures within their investment companies, Bain Capital and Berkshire Hathaway, respectively.

"The only difference is that Trump puts his name on his companies, which means people associate them with him, but he's not at all the leader in the bankruptcy space," Levitan said. "These bankruptcies were not defining moments for Trump and shouldn't color our view of him."

From an Anti_Trump site no less:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/

How many thousands of jobs has Clinton created as a private citizen? How many huge enterprises that pay big property taxes?

These were Chapter 11 Reorgs, not Chapter 7s. He gave up some ownership and sold some assets.

tatupu70 says

It is a train wreck by any objective analysis. If you really think otherwise, you're not paying attention. He is running against the weakest candidate in history (save Trump himself) as you so often point out. The fact that he is still polling worse than Mittens (at the same point in 2012) speaks volumes.

Romney was subjected to far less aggressive hyperbole from the Oligarch media. He was an acceptable globalist, corporate inversionist, and de facto wanton immigration supporter.

Bad Comparison: Mittens was running against an incumbent President - and Obama, not Hillary.

thunderlips11 says

Bankruptcy professor disagrees:

Not really. What does he disagree with exactly? Just that it wasn't "a defining moment for Trump"? I wonder if it would have been a defining moment if the banks had repo'd all his assets and taken the losses. Would that have been "defining"?

thunderlips11 says

How many thousands of jobs has Clinton created as a private citizen? How many huge enterprises that pay big property taxes?

That is not a qualification to be President, IMO. Business leaders turned politicians have a mixed record, at best. They are two very different skill sets

thunderlips11 says

Bad Comparison: Mittens was running against an incumbent President - and Obama, not Hillary

Exactly!! Obama was a MUCH tougher opponent. The fact that Trump is losing this badly to Hillary is damning evidence.