On 2025-01-09 00:29, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 1/8/25 8:18 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>>
>>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>>
>>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark hasn't
>>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland
>>> feasible.
>>>
>>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who
>>> knows. The
>>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>>
>> There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have
>> traditionally seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't
>> want to be a part of the "inferior" culture. In reality, there is
>> nothing better here except for the women in Quebec. They look better
>> than what the US produces, but they're just as dim.
>
>   Talk/jokes/etc aside, Canada will not be joined with
>   the USA any time soon. The culture/system/history is
>   just too different for a good fit.

Loyalists vs rebels, yes. However, most of Canada is still Protestant so
there is already similarity there. The United States has also been a
melting pot traditionally, but now it is more of a multicultural society
like Canada. Clearly, that's a bad thing, but it means that there is
similarity.

>   Trump makes these statements For EFFECT ... not because
>   he's really serious. He mostly wants Canada to deal with
>   all the immigrants coming down. He's a native salesman
>   and thus creates grand illusions - intending to deal
>   somewhere to the middle.
>
>   With Greenland, for example, it was barely a week after
>   he talked about buying/occupying that Denmark suddenly
>   put a LOT more money into defense efforts there. This
>   is more what he really wanted. As an actual territory,
>   Greenland would be a huge money-loser. SO, real world,
>   expect more EU and US military watch bases there. That
>   is 'good enough'.

Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
everywhere else.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Jan 2025 20:16:09 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> The underage girls aren't yet mature enough to realize how much of a
>> loser the pedophile that was hitting on them is.
>
>Anyone who knows, knows this.
>
>There are two groups of "underage" girls:

Oh boy. You put it in quotation marks.

>1) Those that you pick up.
>
>2) Those that pick up you.
>
>Quiz:
>
>Which of the two aforementioned groups is the larger?
>
>Times's up!
>
>Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

I guess you know ...

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-09 03:40, RonB wrote:
> On 2025-01-08, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:59:22 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Nah, we're not thinking in terms of race with that accusation, we're
>>> thinking in terms of *bigotry* as expressed by denigration of a whole
>>> group of people based on race.
>>
>> But race doesn't exist. Or does it? The liberals are fine with giving a
>> group of people special privileges based on race.
>
> The Woke seem confused on that issue. Of course the Woke aren't having a
> very good time right now, so they may a little constipated. Ford, McDonald's
> and Walmart are the latest to drop (or curtail) the DEI BS.

I was just talking about Ford with my wife yesterday. If I remember
correctly, they were the _only_ American automotive company strong
enough in 2008 not to require a bailout from the government. Since then,
they have jumped on the electric vehicle train which has cost them a
fortune since nobody wants those cars, at least not from them. Even
worse, their F-150 has just gotten a recall affecting several hundred
thousand vehicle, exacerbating the damage. I imagine that they'll be
requiring government assistance very soon.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On Thu, 09 Jan 2025 09:58:07 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

>
> Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
> would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
> everywhere else.
>

Jesus F. Christ! This idiot shows his idiocy yet again!

Ever hear of Thule AFB? Dumb question.

The US built Thule as a major SAC AFB during the beginning of
the Cold War.

Thule was also the site of a famous Broken Arrow incident
when a B-52 crashed and the conventional explosives in the
H-Bombs went off.

Camp Century is also nearby but is long defunct.

I hate idiots, and this idiot is at the top of my list.

--
Hail Linux! Hail FOSS! Hail Stallman!

On 1/9/25 9:58 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2025-01-09 00:29, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 1/8/25 8:18 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>>>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>>>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>>>
>>>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>>>
>>>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark
>>>> hasn't
>>>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>>>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland
>>>> feasible.
>>>>
>>>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who
>>>> knows. The
>>>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>>>
>>> There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have
>>> traditionally seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't
>>> want to be a part of the "inferior" culture. In reality, there is
>>> nothing better here except for the women in Quebec. They look better
>>> than what the US produces, but they're just as dim.
>>
>>    Talk/jokes/etc aside, Canada will not be joined with
>>    the USA any time soon. The culture/system/history is
>>    just too different for a good fit.
>
> Loyalists vs rebels, yes. However, most of Canada is still Protestant so
> there is already similarity there. The United States has also been a
> melting pot traditionally, but now it is more of a multicultural society
> like Canada. Clearly, that's a bad thing, but it means that there is
> similarity.
>
>>    Trump makes these statements For EFFECT ... not because
>>    he's really serious. He mostly wants Canada to deal with
>>    all the immigrants coming down. He's a native salesman
>>    and thus creates grand illusions - intending to deal
>>    somewhere to the middle.
>>
>>    With Greenland, for example, it was barely a week after
>>    he talked about buying/occupying that Denmark suddenly
>>    put a LOT more money into defense efforts there. This
>>    is more what he really wanted. As an actual territory,
>>    Greenland would be a huge money-loser. SO, real world,
>>    expect more EU and US military watch bases there. That
>>    is 'good enough'.
>
> Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
> would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
> everywhere else.

The US already HAS at least one active base there now.
Used to have more during the Cold War.

Saw a docu recently about a base they embedded deep in
a glacier - complete with its own nuke reactor. Soon
found out that ice was not nearly as stable as they
imagined ... the whole thing kinda sunk in and fell
apart.

Then a couple weeks ago there was a tourist photo of
that glacier ... bits of the mil base were now oozing
out the side of the ice.

There are a number of micro-settlements all around
the Greenland coast. Hard to say how many are US
or EU radar stations - they won't tell.

My grand-daddy visited Greenland in the late 1800s to
see if there were any farming prospects. Answer - NO !
Can't even put in roads, gotta hop from fjord to fjord
by boat and the glaciers are too unstable to try and
drive on top of.

On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
> Joel wrote:
>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>
> >
> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt

Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
>> Joel wrote:

>>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>>
>> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt
>
>Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
>ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.

You gotta let go of that macho BS, and just realize being a bottom
simply feels good. One need not lose "manhood" over it. That's in
the mind.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-09 10:20, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 1/9/25 9:58 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> On 2025-01-09 00:29, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>> On 1/8/25 8:18 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>> On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's)
>>>>>> desire to
>>>>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>>>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>>>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>>>>
>>>>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark
>>>>> hasn't
>>>>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>>>>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland
>>>>> feasible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who
>>>>> knows. The
>>>>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>>>>
>>>> There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have
>>>> traditionally seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't
>>>> want to be a part of the "inferior" culture. In reality, there is
>>>> nothing better here except for the women in Quebec. They look better
>>>> than what the US produces, but they're just as dim.
>>>
>>>    Talk/jokes/etc aside, Canada will not be joined with
>>>    the USA any time soon. The culture/system/history is
>>>    just too different for a good fit.
>>
>> Loyalists vs rebels, yes. However, most of Canada is still Protestant
>> so there is already similarity there. The United States has also been
>> a melting pot traditionally, but now it is more of a multicultural
>> society like Canada. Clearly, that's a bad thing, but it means that
>> there is similarity.
>>
>>>    Trump makes these statements For EFFECT ... not because
>>>    he's really serious. He mostly wants Canada to deal with
>>>    all the immigrants coming down. He's a native salesman
>>>    and thus creates grand illusions - intending to deal
>>>    somewhere to the middle.
>>>
>>>    With Greenland, for example, it was barely a week after
>>>    he talked about buying/occupying that Denmark suddenly
>>>    put a LOT more money into defense efforts there. This
>>>    is more what he really wanted. As an actual territory,
>>>    Greenland would be a huge money-loser. SO, real world,
>>>    expect more EU and US military watch bases there. That
>>>    is 'good enough'.
>>
>> Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
>> would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
>> everywhere else.
>
>
>   The US already HAS at least one active base there now.
>   Used to have more during the Cold War.
>
>   Saw a docu recently about a base they embedded deep in
>   a glacier - complete with its own nuke reactor. Soon
>   found out that ice was not nearly as stable as they
>   imagined ... the whole thing kinda sunk in and fell
>   apart.
>
>   Then a couple weeks ago there was a tourist photo of
>   that glacier ... bits of the mil base were now oozing
>   out the side of the ice.
>
>   There are a number of micro-settlements all around
>   the Greenland coast. Hard to say how many are US
>   or EU radar stations - they won't tell.
>
>   My grand-daddy visited Greenland in the late 1800s to
>   see if there were any farming prospects. Answer - NO !
>   Can't even put in roads, gotta hop from fjord to fjord
>   by boat and the glaciers are too unstable to try and
>   drive on top of.

My favourite depiction of Greenland is the one in the TV show Vikings
where Kjetill Flatnose and others get there and immediately create
borders for each family. They quickly get to starving and fight over the
carcass of some whale that washed up ashore. In the end, Flatnose is all
that's left and he's overjoyed that he's the king of this vast,
uninhabited wasteland.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

186282@ud0s4.net wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On 1/9/25 9:58 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> On 2025-01-09 00:29, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>> On 1/8/25 8:18 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>> On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>>>>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>>>>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>>>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>>>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>>>>
>>>>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark
>>>>> hasn't
>>>>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>>>>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland
>>>>> feasible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who
>>>>> knows. The
>>>>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>>>>
>>>> There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have
>>>> traditionally seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't
>>>> want to be a part of the "inferior" culture. In reality, there is
>>>> nothing better here except for the women in Quebec. They look better
>>>> than what the US produces, but they're just as dim.
>>>
>>>    Talk/jokes/etc aside, Canada will not be joined with
>>>    the USA any time soon. The culture/system/history is
>>>    just too different for a good fit.
>>
>> Loyalists vs rebels, yes. However, most of Canada is still Protestant so
>> there is already similarity there. The United States has also been a
>> melting pot traditionally, but now it is more of a multicultural society
>> like Canada. Clearly, that's a bad thing, but it means that there is
>> similarity.
>>
>>>    Trump makes these statements For EFFECT ... not because
>>>    he's really serious. He mostly wants Canada to deal with
>>>    all the immigrants coming down. He's a native salesman
>>>    and thus creates grand illusions - intending to deal
>>>    somewhere to the middle.
>>>
>>>    With Greenland, for example, it was barely a week after
>>>    he talked about buying/occupying that Denmark suddenly
>>>    put a LOT more money into defense efforts there. This
>>>    is more what he really wanted. As an actual territory,
>>>    Greenland would be a huge money-loser. SO, real world,
>>>    expect more EU and US military watch bases there. That
>>>    is 'good enough'.
>>
>> Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
>> would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
>> everywhere else.
>
>
> The US already HAS at least one active base there now.
> Used to have more during the Cold War.
>
> Saw a docu recently about a base they embedded deep in
> a glacier - complete with its own nuke reactor. Soon
> found out that ice was not nearly as stable as they
> imagined ... the whole thing kinda sunk in and fell
> apart.
>
> Then a couple weeks ago there was a tourist photo of
> that glacier ... bits of the mil base were now oozing
> out the side of the ice.
>
> There are a number of micro-settlements all around
> the Greenland coast. Hard to say how many are US
> or EU radar stations - they won't tell.
>
> My grand-daddy visited Greenland in the late 1800s to
> see if there were any farming prospects. Answer - NO !
> Can't even put in roads, gotta hop from fjord to fjord
> by boat and the glaciers are too unstable to try and
> drive on top of.

Not to mention they're a mile or two deep!

Been reading an interesting book "Climate Crash"; it starts out discussing
exploration etc. of Greenland in the first 4 chapters. It's a little
out-of-date (2005).

--
X windows: The ultimate bottleneck. Flawed beyond belief. The only thing you
have to fear. Somewhere between chaos and insanity. On autopilot to oblivion.
The joke that kills. A disgrace you can be proud of. A mistake carried out to
perfection. Belongs more to the problem set than the solution set. To err is
X windows. Ignorance is our most important resource. Complex nonsolutions to
simple nonproblems. Built to fall apart. Nullifying centuries of progress.
Falling to new depths of inefficiency. The last thing you need. The defacto
substandard. Elevating brain damage to an art form. X windows.

On 2025-01-09 10:38, Joel wrote:
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
>>> Joel wrote:
>
>>>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>>>
>>> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt
>>
>> Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
>> ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.
>
>
> You gotta let go of that macho BS, and just realize being a bottom
> simply feels good. One need not lose "manhood" over it. That's in
> the mind.

Look at it this way: boys get raped by older men all the time and are
irreversibly traumatized by the experience. If it felt good, they
wouldn't become such damaged people in life. I imagine that this has
happened to you too in youth.

Don't feel bad about it, it almost happened to me after I watched my
good friend get raped by the neighbourhood pedophile when I was a child.
I must have been eight at the time. He got assaulted, I ran away. I
still think about how close I came to being damaged in that way and
wonder what happened to him since we moved from that area soon
thereafter. I don't think I ever saw the poor kid ever again. In fact, I
don't recall him ever leaving the house and he lived two doors from me.
I would not be surprised to discover that he's a homosexual today.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On 1/9/2025 10:38 AM, Joel wrote:
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
>>> Joel wrote:
>
>>>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>>>
>>> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt
>>
>> Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
>> ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.
>
>
> You gotta let go of that macho BS, and just realize being a bottom
> simply feels good. One need not lose "manhood" over it. That's in
> the mind.

It's grotesque.

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>On 2025-01-09 10:38, Joel wrote:
>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
>>>> Joel wrote:
>>
>>>>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>>>>
>>>> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt
>>>
>>> Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
>>> ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.
>>
>> You gotta let go of that macho BS, and just realize being a bottom
>> simply feels good. One need not lose "manhood" over it. That's in
>> the mind.
>
>Look at it this way: boys get raped by older men all the time and are
>irreversibly traumatized by the experience. If it felt good, they
>wouldn't become such damaged people in life. I imagine that this has
>happened to you too in youth.
>
>Don't feel bad about it, it almost happened to me after I watched my
>good friend get raped by the neighbourhood pedophile when I was a child.
>I must have been eight at the time. He got assaulted, I ran away. I
>still think about how close I came to being damaged in that way and
>wonder what happened to him since we moved from that area soon
>thereafter. I don't think I ever saw the poor kid ever again. In fact, I
>don't recall him ever leaving the house and he lived two doors from me.
>I would not be surprised to discover that he's a homosexual today.

I probably was molested as a toddler but I don't have a memory of it,
if so. I was sexually assaulted once at 17, but it was oral on me,
not anal rape.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>On 1/9/2025 10:38 AM, Joel wrote:
>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
>>>> Joel wrote:
>>
>>>>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>>>>
>>>> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt
>>>
>>> Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
>>> ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.
>>
>> You gotta let go of that macho BS, and just realize being a bottom
>> simply feels good. One need not lose "manhood" over it. That's in
>> the mind.
>
>It's grotesque.

You may think so, not everyone would concur.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-09 11:34, Joel wrote:
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2025-01-09 10:38, Joel wrote:
>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>> On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
>>>>> Joel wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>>>>>
>>>>> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt
>>>>
>>>> Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
>>>> ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.
>>>
>>> You gotta let go of that macho BS, and just realize being a bottom
>>> simply feels good. One need not lose "manhood" over it. That's in
>>> the mind.
>>
>> Look at it this way: boys get raped by older men all the time and are
>> irreversibly traumatized by the experience. If it felt good, they
>> wouldn't become such damaged people in life. I imagine that this has
>> happened to you too in youth.
>>
>> Don't feel bad about it, it almost happened to me after I watched my
>> good friend get raped by the neighbourhood pedophile when I was a child.
>> I must have been eight at the time. He got assaulted, I ran away. I
>> still think about how close I came to being damaged in that way and
>> wonder what happened to him since we moved from that area soon
>> thereafter. I don't think I ever saw the poor kid ever again. In fact, I
>> don't recall him ever leaving the house and he lived two doors from me.
>> I would not be surprised to discover that he's a homosexual today.
>
>
> I probably was molested as a toddler but I don't have a memory of it,
> if so. I was sexually assaulted once at 17, but it was oral on me,
> not anal rape.

In the same way that people who were victims of a car crash often
suppress the memory as a defence mechanism, it is quite possible that
you did the same with the molestation. There is no way a man becomes a
proponent of anal sex being performed on him without there being some
sort of assault.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, rbowman wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 11:27:32 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> You're racist for even talking about it! :-D
>>
>> "Coloured folks?"
>
> Who came up with BIPOC? Or NAACP for that matter? By the time I was a kid
> 'colored' was out and 'negro' was in. Now we're back to 'people of color'?
> That means they're colored, right?
>

This is the truth! I remember when I was in school, the english teacher
liked negro, while the german teacher said that was racist and preferred
colored.

I stuck with the negro. I've made my choice! ;)

On 2025-01-09 11:47, Joel wrote:
> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>> On 1/9/2025 10:38 AM, Joel wrote:
>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>> On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
>>>>> Joel wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>>>>>
>>>>> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt
>>>>
>>>> Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
>>>> ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.
>>>
>>> You gotta let go of that macho BS, and just realize being a bottom
>>> simply feels good. One need not lose "manhood" over it. That's in
>>> the mind.
>>
>> It's grotesque.
>
>
> You may think so, not everyone would concur.

Actually, everyone who isn't psychologically damaged would concur.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025, rbowman wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>
> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>
> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries... Historically, Denmark hasn't
> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland feasible.
>
> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who knows. The
> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>

I don't understand why the US doesn't just bribe their way to greenland?
Promise every inhabintant 1 MUSD in subsidies or some kind of government
money, and then have a "vote".

Since the EU is bound by democratic values, and, since greenland legally
is allowed to vote for independence, they would be forced to accept a yes
to greenlandish independence.

Once independent, it is then up to them to discuss joining the US.

Argument over, and the EU would not be able to criticize a democratic vote
by the people.

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 1/8/25 8:18 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>>
>>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>>
>>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark hasn't
>>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland feasible.
>>>
>>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who knows. The
>>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>>
>> There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have
>> traditionally seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't want to
>> be a part of the "inferior" culture. In reality, there is nothing better
>> here except for the women in Quebec. They look better than what the US
>> produces, but they're just as dim.
>
> Talk/jokes/etc aside, Canada will not be joined with
> the USA any time soon. The culture/system/history is
> just too different for a good fit.
>
> Trump makes these statements For EFFECT ... not because
> he's really serious. He mostly wants Canada to deal with
> all the immigrants coming down. He's a native salesman
> and thus creates grand illusions - intending to deal
> somewhere to the middle.
>
> With Greenland, for example, it was barely a week after
> he talked about buying/occupying that Denmark suddenly
> put a LOT more money into defense efforts there. This
> is more what he really wanted. As an actual territory,
> Greenland would be a huge money-loser. SO, real world,
> expect more EU and US military watch bases there. That
> is 'good enough'.

This is the truth. The way to understand Trump is to look at what the man
does, and not listen to what the man says.

Europes politician still need to learn that lesson.

On 2025-01-09 11:56, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 11:27:32 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> You're racist for even talking about it!  :-D
>>>
>>> "Coloured folks?"
>>
>> Who came up with BIPOC? Or NAACP for that matter? By the time I was a kid
>> 'colored' was out and 'negro' was in. Now we're back to 'people of
>> color'?
>> That means they're colored, right?
>>
>
> This is the truth! I remember when I was in school, the english teacher
> liked negro, while the german teacher said that was racist and preferred
> colored.
>
> I stuck with the negro. I've made my choice! ;)

They want us to believe that simply saying "black" is racist now. I
assume that's part of that white privilege I keep hearing about, having
my language be double-checked for political correctness.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On 09/01/2025 14:58, CrudeSausage wrote:
> Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
> would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
> everywhere else.

I think they have one already.

"The first airports in Greenland were built by and for the United States
defense. The first and largest was Kangerlussuaq Airport in 1941,
followed by Narsarsuaq Airport in 1942 (and now-abandoned USAAF
airfields Bluie East Two and Marrak Point, both in 1942) and Pituffik
Space Base in 1953 (although Pituffik is not operated as a civilian
airport) and Kulusuk Airport in 1956. Due to their distance from major
settlements, these were not initially used for civilian travel."

--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 07:40:40 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 13:03:40 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Race isn't a nature concept, its obviously a sociological and
>>> political construct, and fluid to some extent.
>>
>> If you have a E-V38 Y chromosome I'm guessing you can't pass for a
>> Swede.
>
> Which race of dog have you owned?
>
> There's far more variation between dog breeds than between human
> "races".

You really want to go there? Would you rather have a lab or a pit bull
minding the kids? Humans have had their thumbs on the scales but their
breeding attempts have resulted in a wide range of breeds with differing
characteristics. In the case of humans, it was natural selection for the
most part although in many cultures a preference for lighter skin
prevailed.

Would you prefer 'breed' to race? Then you could call people breedists.
How about subspecies?

Let's look at the keeper of absolute truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

"Races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the
same species,[4] or they may be defined in other ways, e.g.
geographically, or physiologically"

On 09/01/2025 16:56, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 11:27:32 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> You're racist for even talking about it!  :-D
>>>
>>> "Coloured folks?"
>>
>> Who came up with BIPOC? Or NAACP for that matter? By the time I was a kid
>> 'colored' was out and 'negro' was in. Now we're back to 'people of
>> color'?
>> That means they're colored, right?
>>
>
> This is the truth! I remember when I was in school, the english teacher
> liked negro, while the german teacher said that was racist and preferred
> colored.
>
> I stuck with the negro. I've made my choice! ;)
Ive always felt colored to be more offensive than nigger, and negro
probably the least offensiive term, but its all stupid. Ive heard nigger
both used as a term of endearment and as a term to describe a stupid
black person as well - by blacks.
In this country as in Africa, if you want to refer to anything, you
probably use a far more detailed description. Like afro carribean, or
Pakistani, or Indian, or Chinese, or arab, or Welsh or Scottish, or
Irish...or Iranian...Because no way does one word cover everything that
isn't 'just like you'

--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

On Thu, 09 Jan 2025 06:56:46 -0600, chrisv wrote:

> Greenland would be a great place to put all the wannabe migrants. Let
> them prove their worth there, for a few years, before letting them into
> the mainland.

Norway tried that. "We're going to lodge you at a luxury resort -- north
of the Arctic Circle" .

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-sweden-
idUSKBN0U207Y20151219/

It's a paywall but you can see enough to get the idea.

On 09/01/2025 18:01, D wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>
>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>
>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark hasn't
>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland
>> feasible.
>>
>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who knows.
>> The
>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>>
>
> I don't understand why the US doesn't just bribe their way to greenland?
> Promise every inhabintant 1 MUSD in subsidies or some kind of government
> money, and then have a "vote".
>
> Since the EU is bound by democratic values, and, since greenland legally
> is allowed to vote for independence, they would be forced to accept a
> yes to greenlandish independence.
>
> Once independent, it is then up to them to discuss joining the US.
>
Greenalnd is not formally part of the EU any more. It is associated, only.

> Argument over, and the EU would not be able to criticize a democratic
> vote by the people.

Wanna bet? Criticising peoples votes is a global fashion these days.

--
“Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,”

– Ludwig von Mises

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 17:56:14 +0100, D wrote:

> This is the truth! I remember when I was in school, the english teacher
> liked negro, while the german teacher said that was racist and preferred
> colored.

Schwarzer.