(August 15, 2017 at 5:03 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Did Trump really have prosties pee on him or was that an unsubstantiated rumor? Fetishes intrigue me.

*shrug*

Who knows? (Aside from Putin, that is.)

It wouldn't really surprise me. Trump is said to be phobic about germs, among other things. That he might get his rocks off by indulging in (or at least observing) water sports doesn't seem that far-fetched to me. The sense of 'dirtiness or naughtiness' and the feeling of excited loathing he might experience at something he normally considers revolting might do it for him.

People often go for what appears to be the opposite of how they're usually perceived to be. At the cathouse, it was practically a truism that the shy, powerless types were more likely to exhibit sadistic tendencies, while the submissives and full-blown masochists were often people of stature and power who reveled in the feeling of release they got relinquishing control to another. Granted, that's a gross oversimplification.

(August 15, 2017 at 5:03 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Did Trump really have prosties pee on him or was that an unsubstantiated rumor? Fetishes intrigue me.

The republicans in the congress are also sufficiently intrigued to send a team to Britain to interview the British intelligence officer who claimed to have prepared the dossier that contained that tidbit.

One would think congressmen, particular republican congressmen, can get their kicks with less work.

Kim is a monster and if the news reports I read are real, he is also a pedo, don't make light of him.

Also Guam might be safe, but what I am still afraid of is the start of a new arms race... as long as Trump has access to twitter, it is a very strong possibility.

(August 15, 2017 at 5:16 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 5:03 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Did Trump really have prosties pee on him or was that an unsubstantiated rumor? Fetishes intrigue me.

*shrug*

Who knows? (Aside from Putin, that is.)

It wouldn't really surprise me. Trump is said to be phobic about germs, among other things. That he might get his rocks off by indulging in (or at least observing) water sports doesn't seem that far-fetched to me. The sense of 'dirtiness or naughtiness' and the feeling of excited loathing he might experience at something he normally considers revolting might do it for him.

People often go for what appears to be the opposite of how they're usually perceived to be. At the cathouse, it was practically a truism that the shy, powerless types were more likely to exhibit sadistic tendencies, while the submissives and full-blown masochists were often people of stature and power who reveled in the feeling of release they got relinquishing control to another. Granted, that's a gross oversimplification.

Wow, that is fascinating. Please start a "Ask a former brothel employee" thread lol.

(August 15, 2017 at 5:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 5:16 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: *shrug*

Who knows? (Aside from Putin, that is.)

It wouldn't really surprise me. Trump is said to be phobic about germs, among other things. That he might get his rocks off by indulging in (or at least observing) water sports doesn't seem that far-fetched to me. The sense of 'dirtiness or naughtiness' and the feeling of excited loathing he might experience at something he normally considers revolting might do it for him.

People often go for what appears to be the opposite of how they're usually perceived to be. At the cathouse, it was practically a truism that the shy, powerless types were more likely to exhibit sadistic tendencies, while the submissives and full-blown masochists were often people of stature and power who reveled in the feeling of release they got relinquishing control to another. Granted, that's a gross oversimplification.

Wow, that is fascinating. Please start a "Ask a former brothel employee" thread lol.

Been there; done that.  

(August 15, 2017 at 4:40 pm)bennyboy Wrote: A little less USA, USA and gloating, and a little more legitimate worry, might serve you better methinks.

I don't see much of that in this thread.

(August 15, 2017 at 4:20 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: I think it is no exaggeration to say not a single elective American military intervention, or overt and covert regime change efforts since 2001, has produced its desired direct result, or has failed to lead to unintended consequences many times worse for the US than the results it did achieve.

Thinking about it, the last time when the US was in a war where you could classify them as "the good guys" without severely distorting that term was Korea I. And even then they were willing to engage in very questionable practices.

(August 15, 2017 at 5:45 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 4:20 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: I think it is no exaggeration to say not a single elective American military intervention, or overt and covert regime change efforts since 2001, has produced its desired direct result, or has failed to lead to unintended consequences many times worse for the US than the results it did achieve.

Thinking about it, the last time when the US was in a war where you could classify them as "the good guys" without severely distorting that term was Korea I. And even then they were willing to engage in very questionable practices.

So you don't think we are the good guys against ISIS in Syria?

(August 15, 2017 at 5:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 5:45 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote: Thinking about it, the last time when the US was in a war where you could classify them as "the good guys" without severely distorting that term was Korea I. And even then they were willing to engage in very questionable practices.

So you don't think we are the good guys against ISIS in Syria?

ISIS arouse because of us,  ISIS gained its position in Syria because of us,   and Russia fought ISIS in Syria much more vigorously and effectively than we did.
In the abysmal Syrian episold, ISIS is our bastard child, even if we like to pretend it is someone else's.

(August 15, 2017 at 5:55 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 5:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So you don't think we are the good guys against ISIS in Syria?

ISIS arouse because of us,  and Russia fought ISIS much more vigorously and effectively than we did.

Ok, but that doesn't mean that our men and women who are out there fighting ISIS aren't "the good guys" against them.