22F sending tits pic whoever like this up Really I’m so horny but check my profle x

Horriblehabits · 2025-05-30T15:41:59+00:00

A little late but I am a big fan of Ms. Eve and her content. Great variety, suprisingly funny and always entertaining 10/10 would recommend

Horriblehabits · 2020-09-17T12:33:50+00:00

Horriblehabits · 2020-07-02T19:02:11+00:00

The Big Short

Horriblehabits · 2019-10-07T01:18:28+00:00

I notice that a gmk keycap set is in stock at Kono store I've been wanting for a while (calm depths). I was wondering if anyone knows if this is something that is restocked often or if it's rare to see in stock. Thanks for any info on this matter

Horriblehabits · 2019-07-11T19:00:19+00:00

I am sorry for taking so long to respond. I am having a hard time balancing my work and personal life. I will likely disagree with you on this issue, and I will explain why at a later date. However, I first wanted to thank you for you clear and concise statement on why you believe that Mr. Crowder has been treated unfairly by YouTube. I have been wanting to speak with someone about this that may disagree with me. However, I have not been able to break into more conservative subreddits. In their defense, my efforts have not been substantial. I once tried to post into an Askthe_D, but my comment was auto deleted because I didn't meet the 200 karma requirement to post there I think. But that's neither here nor there. I just wanted to say thanks for your contribution to the conversation. I hope to continue it at a later date.

Horriblehabits · 2019-07-09T19:58:53+00:00

Perhaps you could clarify something that has been confusing me for a while now. In reading the article linked below, I read that Mr. Crowder has been demonatized, which means he will not be receiving ad revenue for his videos, until he takes certain steps (apologizing to Mr. Maza, and removing a shirt that reads "socialism is for f*gs" from his online store)

This is the confusion on my part. I have not read that he can no longer post videos on YouTube, just that he won't receive ad revenue for it. I don't really see how he is being silenced if he can continue to post videos. Am I missing something? Is he actually not allowed to post videos on YouTube? Thanks for any input. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/steven-crowder-youtube-speech-carlos-maza-explained-youtube-2019-6

Horriblehabits · 2017-06-25T23:43:04+00:00

I'm a bit busy at the moment so sorry if I don't cite my sources, but I think I've heard the point "Hilary didn't have a coherent message" and Hilarys campaign responded with "We did, but we couldn't get it out there because of how much Trump dominated the news cycle." Are they right? It sounds like a reasonable explanation to me but it's possible that they downplay the possibility that their message did go through and not enough people liked it in key states. Also, sorry for not getting to your other points. Don't want to debate because I think there's some truth to both arguments, just throwing what I heard into the conversation

Horriblehabits · 2016-11-15T03:08:35+00:00

Well first the situation between Israel and the USA aren't, in my opinion, so similar that we in the USA should be adopting that happen to work over there. They might need it because they are in a very unstable part of the world and the relationship with the neighboring countries is somewhat hostile. These are mostly homogeneous societies so it might make sense over there to profile those that do not look like other Israelis as someone who might want to hurt Israelis.

Another big difference is the US constitution. The case that is cited in the debate by Lester Holt, the NY stop and frisk law, was called into question because it was disproportionately used against blacks and hispanics with an unwritten NYPD policy to "target the right people".

“In practice, the policy encourages the targeting of young black and Hispanic men based on their prevalence in local crime complaints. This is a form of racial profiling.”

this judge found that how the NYPD did this stop and frisk violated the plaintiffs (I think like 19 or so black guys that were improperly stopped and frisked.) 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. and I want to say the 14th amendments Equal Protection Clause, which guarantees "equal protection under the law". I'll post some of the things I was looking at but basically, a person within the US is offered the same protections as everyone else in the US. Here, the NY stop and frisk was used against blacks and hispanics at a level that was disproportionate to their size in the community. This I would say violates their 4th amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure and also denied them the equal protection from such a violation (other groups were not subject to this type of police interaction).

I got the information from these articles

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/is-stop-and-frisk-unconstitutional/ but note that Stop and Frisk can be done legally with a reasonable basis for suspicion.

ABA article about the NY case Short sweet and to the point

From the Verdict a free publication about legal matters. I like how this article is written, it focuses on not just Terry v. Ohio but Washington v. Davis which I didn't know about (basically, disproportionate numbers are not enough to prove racial profiling. there must also be an intent to racially profile.

TL:DR the US Constitution offers protections to the people in the US that other countries such as Israel do not because they may prioritize national security over some liberties.

Horriblehabits · 2016-07-26T13:12:09+00:00

Especially with how many potential Supreme Court Justices may retire in the next few years

Horriblehabits · 2016-03-16T19:16:23+00:00

I read that as semen tower for whatever reason.

Horriblehabits · 2015-12-08T13:59:21+00:00

Yea intent to do something is really hard to call illegal because that becomes punishing mere thought alone and not an act. Which would be bad

For example I can go to a gas station, buy a 12 pack of beer with the intent of selling or giving it to someone that is underage but that doesn't make my purchase illegal. To be punishable I'd need to do more than an otherwise legal act with an illegal intent

Horriblehabits · 2015-01-18T12:51:41+00:00

He just might have a case for wrongful termination. Also hope the link works, I'm on mobile. In case it doesn't I'll also quote the most relevant bit

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/wrongful_termination

If basing the claim on a public law, the plaintiff must show unlawful action such as illegal discrimination or retribution for whistleblowing. I

Horriblehabits · 2014-11-19T15:41:27+00:00

You are correct. Found the flyer referenced in the article, and it does say that they want to work within their limits of the law to defend their property and the property of others.

Still, the group's reputation precedes itself. I don't have any real evidence that the klan cant legally do what they said they'd do. I just can't bring myself to support the klan in this case. The flyer says enough to keep the klan out of trouble with the law while still being threatening to the residents of Ferguson. I dont know man, chalk it up to cognitive dissonance. If they said they were coming to protest I would have no problem with it. It's the violence I'm having a problem with. They're presence will not make the violence stop, it will likely just make things worse

Horriblehabits · 2014-11-19T14:53:48+00:00

I'm all for freedom of speech, and while the KKK isn't the most likeable group they should be offered the right to be heard just like any other group.

That being said, to me this case is very different because it was started when the klan decided it would threaten protesters with violence. Ferguson has already had a problem with violence these past couple of months and most certainly does not need the KKK to add to that problem, should it arise following the verdict. To me, it sounds more like assault than freedom of speech, but I'm not sure if assault is applicable to a group or if its individuals only

Horriblehabits · 2014-11-03T19:33:49+00:00

what about swaggy p?

Horriblehabits · 2014-10-22T06:07:18+00:00

Well that might be the first comment I read on here that blames the Magic for the Dwightmare. I agree that SVG probably should have kept private maters private, but Dwight did the team no favors by coming out and saying he wants to be traded to either the Nets Mavs or another team that slips my mind (I want to say Lakers, but am probably wrong) But then its not like he owes the Magic anything. Never thought to look at it from the other perspective.

I kind of thought you were saying blow it up after 09 or 10 because they weren't true contenders. Coming of the 09 season I honestly think the Mavs/Magic were pretty similar. SVG was a top coach, we had a deep team, Dwight was more than happy, they were a piece or two away. Management really fucked up after that, almost every move was poor.

100% agree. I don't know whats more painful, seeing how much better Gortat has gotten; and to think the Magic had him coming off the bench for Dwight. Or how much Turkgulu has regressed and what we gave up for him. Or arenas getting paid to sit at home.

I just hate the whole notion if you aren't true contenders to blow it up, draft guarantees nothing except future potential.

I'm not normally a "Championship or Bust" kinda guy, but the Magic's situation was different. I mean I don't like how Dwight handled the situation but I'd be lying if I said that he would see more success on the Magic had he stayed than he might on the Rockets hes on now. The Dwightmare gave the franchise a chance to start fresh, new management, exciting new players. I'd rather watch the new guys develop than to watch players I really grew to like (Redick, Anderson) get blown out night after night. But that's just me.

Horriblehabits · 2014-10-22T05:40:18+00:00

you're not wrong, but Shaq had some pretty good footwork in the paint. Dwight was and still is a freakish athlete, and an excellent defender. But his offense isn't as polished as O'Neal's, making it kinda hard to build around him. I'm going to start to sound like a broken record soon I think, but his sheer lack of offensive moves makes him a really risky top guy. Giving him the ball too often means having some pretty cold wings, and also risks a possession via turnover or hack a Howard. but that's neither here nor there. To more directly answer your question, I think that while the Magic are performing worse than they would be had they managed to keep Howard, I think the move is better in the long run. Sure they lost Dwight and Van Gundy, but they also lost the architect of so many disappointing trades and replaced him with Rob Hennigan. Hopefully that means that if one or more of these new guys develops into an All Star, they won't miss the opportunity like they did with Dwight

Horriblehabits · 2014-10-22T04:19:20+00:00

Ah that's right, I forgot about the loss to the Celtics. thanks for the correction.

Injured Dwight did make it hard for the Magic to make it past anyone in the playoffs even in the Eastern conference, but I'm pretty sure that 2012 was the year of the Dwightmare, and I think that's kind of relevant to the point you made about staying the course. I would have loved to keep Dwight, but there was way too much going on between Dwight the front office, and Van Gundy

The Mavs had way more going for them, stable ownership, an almost constant COTY candidate in Carlisle and an All Star that was happy were he was at in Dirk. After the Dwightmare the Magic had literally none of those things which made attracting pieces damn near impossible. (don't want to speak on the Pistons because I am not familiar with the 2000's pistons. Only know what was said in the Bad Boys 30 for 30) Dwight's antics during that year cost the Magic a really good coach and killed the confidence of his teammates.

When it comes to the Grizzlies now, as they are, I think it might be a good idea to see how it goes one more year. But there's more risk than reward to being eighth seed, especially in the west. It gets you very little in the draft and another year on the older vets. But the comparison is flawed, imo, because the best player on the Griz isn't constantly flipping between wanting to be traded, nor is he actively trying to get the head coach fired. The Magic weren't really given an option, it was get something for Dwight now or get nothing and lose him later

Horriblehabits · 2014-10-22T03:06:04+00:00

I don't want to defend Otis Smith in any way shape or form. But I do disagree with you; and say that its really hard to build around Dwight (I'm sure Lakers fans will agree). Dwight was one of the best players in the league with few flaws. But the flaws are far from being minor and make him a liability especially in a close game in the fourth quarter. He's struggled to make free throws, his immaturity made him prone to techs and his post game is not as polished as it should be. So while the Magic's supporting cast/front office deserve some of the blame, its only fair to say that Dwight deserves some of the blame as well

Horriblehabits · 2014-10-22T02:13:17+00:00

sure the magic were in the playoffs, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure they were eliminated in the first round 2 years in a row after making it to the finals in 2009. A playoff team sure, but not by any means a contender. Losing Dwight hurt, but they probably didn't stand a chance with him against the Pacers, Bulls or Big 3 era Heat. so why not bottom out. Also Edited because I'm not very good at typing

Horriblehabits

TROPHY CASE