Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

enhancement at the very least

 

i guess some dudes can have a full inch beard filled in with less than two weeks growth, he's not the right demographic though

 

his father lost his hair by his early 30s, i wouldn't be surprised if there's a ton of patch work going on with the son

 

 

 

image.png.9e37a6fe7e90413c68bf8d1f916bc1b6.png

The amount of hair is usually passed on through the mother's side and we all know Justin's mother had a carpet worthy of a Musk Oxen's coat. 

Posted
1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

The amount of hair is usually passed on through the mother's side and we all know Justin's mother had a carpet worthy of a Musk Oxen's coat. 

 

 

there's rules of thumb and then the randomness of reality comes into play, so the exceptions can be excused away, but it's not an exception when observation shows your hair potential is a flip of the coin.

 

actually this works on almost anything observable...  :D

 

 

 

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

 

there's rules of thumb and then the randomness of reality comes into play, so the exceptions can be excused away, but it's not an exception when observation shows your hair potential is a flip of the coin.

 

actually this works on almost anything observable...  :D

 

 

 

 

Well, good old Margaret certainly made it observable. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Well, good old Margaret certainly made it observable. 

 

it was the 70s doooooooooooooooooo.....

 

she had many moons to cultivate that display

 

i am in no position to posit theories for anyone else's situation.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by row_33
Posted
10 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

it was the 70s doooooooooooooooooo.....

 

she had many moons to cultivate that display

 

i am in no position to posit theories for anyone else's situation.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand that Pierre was not her favorite bush pilot.

Posted
5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I understand that Pierre was not her favorite bush pilot.

 

nobody knew what he was really thinking

 

 

Posted
29 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Were we closer to war now or then? 

Was Iran building a bomb now or then? 

Is the whole  situation more dangerous now or then? 

 

Now is the answer to all three question. 

 

Why am I suppose to be crying? 

because there is one less terrorist in the world and it has become exponentially safer as a result?

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Were we closer to war now or then? 

Was Iran building a bomb now or then? 

Is the whole  situation more dangerous now or then? 

 

Now is the answer to all three question. 

 

Why am I suppose to be crying? 

About the same 

probably both

about the same 

 

difference is - Iran is shitting it’s pants and they have one less killer of Americans on their staff. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Bakin said:

About the same 

probably both

about the same 

 

difference is - Iran is shitting it’s pants and they have one less killer of Americans on their staff. 

Difference is that Iran has been separated from its proxies and is now being held responsible for not only the proxies but their own actions. 

Posted
6 hours ago, anita_03 said:

here I've found some info regarding war

 

:wacko:

This is what you do with your first post?

You quote someone who made a post (must have been from another thread) which predates this entire thread  You don't even quote it -- you delete the content of it so that nobody knows what you're responding to.  And your response is to link a news site that's in Spanish.

:blink:

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Bakin said:

About the same 

probably both

about the same 

 

difference is - Iran is shitting it’s pants and they have one less killer of Americans on their staff. 

Being closer to war, hostility and no diplomacy is the same as before? No, no it is not. You guys will say anything 

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

because there is one less terrorist in the world and it has become exponentially safer as a result?

There is also one less airliner, too. 

 

Iran making a bomb makes us safer? 

 

You guys--YOUR GUYS (politicians)--need to be thrown out of office. I hope this demographic shift taking places seriously causes the GOP to shrink and become impotent. You guys screamed Hillary is a warmonger while electing a clueless clown who is getting us back into the hot war game. The GOP must go! 

 

 

Posted
1 minute ago, row_33 said:

been making a bomb for 40 years now

 

 

 

i still remember in 1985, when Iran was "five years away" from having a nuclear bomb.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

Who paid for it? 

 

Image result for obama pallets of cash

What do you care? You just want a war, right? And that won't pay for a nuke, anyway 

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

 

i still remember in 1985, when Iran was "five years away" from having a nuclear bomb.  

I remember 2017 when international inspectors where in Iran certifying they were in compliance with the Obama deal. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

 

i still remember in 1985, when Iran was "five years away" from having a nuclear bomb.  

 

reset the prediction it all the time, just like the glaciers melting away

 

and they never learn....

 

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I remember 2017 when international inspectors where in Iran certifying they were in compliance with the Obama deal. 

HMMMM

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/09/13/549217764/should-nuclear-inspectors-be-demanding-access-to-irans-military-sites

 

FTA:  "Nobody is allowed to visit Iran's military sites," Ali Akbar Velayati told reporters in Iran recently, calling the push for such inspections a threat to its national security. Velayati is an adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...