you might be a democrat if...

[binö]

1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of the Chinese and the moslems.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.
6. You have to be against capital punishment (putting murderers to death) but support abortion (killing innocent unborn babies) on demand (federally funded of course.)
7. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments and unions create prosperity.
8. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but loony activists from Seattle do.
9. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
10. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution while the ACLU is good because it supports the destruction of certain parts of the Constitution.
11. You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.
12. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger , the communist who created the PP abortion system for black babies, and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Edison.
13. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist but racial quotas/AA are not.
14. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because you ran out of other peoples money and the right people haven't been in charge.
15. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail but liars and sex offenders in the White House are OK.
16. You have to believe that homosexual parades should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
17. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the U.S.
18. You have to believe that gasoline priced at $1.59 per gallon is too expensive but accept bottled spring water at $1.09 per quart as reasonable.
19. You have to believe the purpose of government is to take money from people who earned it and spend it on people who did not earn it.
20. You have to believe in Democracy but demand only liberal Democratic victories in elections.
21. You have to believe that people who disagree with you are stupid and backward while believing people who agree with you are "progressive" and "enlightened."
22. You have to believe that a "B" average economics major from Yale University with a MBA from Harvard Business School is too stupid to be President of the United States.
23. You have to believe that a "C" average history major from Harvard University, who then dropped out of Vanderbilt Law School and was a failure at Vanderbilt Divinity School, is brilliant and should be President of the United States.
24. You are proud to have Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Bill Clinton in the Democratic Party.

 

[EnderJE]

lmao...now find the opposite

 

[CoBra666]

i like darwin

 

[binö]

lmao...now find the opposite

oh no doubt it exists and makes just as many good points and provides lols.
i'm sure one of the obamatrons will post something like that up to counter this if they haven't already.
but as far as this goes, 21 has a lot of truth to it

 

[EnderJE]

oh no doubt it exists and makes just as many good points and provides lols.
i'm sure one of the obamatrons will post something like that up to counter this if they haven't already.
but as far as this goes, 21 has a lot of truth to it

I've seen #21 more from the other side recently...

If you love the country, then you're this way...if you hate the country and want to delve into communism then you're that way. Very black and white...too bad the world isn't that way...Ah well.

 

[ismaele00]

I've seen #21 more from the other side recently...

If you love the country, then you're this way...if you hate the country and want to delve into communism then you're that way. Very black and white...too bad the world isn't that way...Ah well.

AMEN.

If someone thinks his ideas are the only right ideas, the only ideas that deffense the country, the truth... there is no difference between him and the worst communist.

 

[AFeedz]

I've seen #21 more from the other side recently...

If you love the country, then you're this way...if you hate the country and want to delve into communism then you're that way. Very black and white...too bad the world isn't that way...Ah well.

+1

Maybe not more, but #21 can be seen on both sides equally at the very least.

Please, Bino.

 

[rnch]

 

[likemystatus]

lolz

 

[-SD-]

What is the PP abortion system for black babies?

 

[bigpokey]

What is the PP abortion system for black babies?

That one also struck a nerve with me bein a chocolate lover myself..

 

[smurf2]

I really really like #19
lolz

 

[-SD-]

Binos list was Federally funded lol

 

[binö]

+1

Maybe not more, but #21 can be seen on both sides equally at the very least.

Please, Bino.

diasgree, backwards and stupid is liberal speak for blue collar white rural folks like myself.
yuppie, hippie, limo liberal, welfare queen, etc is used by the right to denote libs.

 

[-SD-]

diasgree, backwards and stupid is liberal speak for blue collar white rural folks like myself.
yuppie, hippie, limo liberal, welfare queen, etc is used by the right to denote libs.

Seems the labels libs give cons are more harsh. I would much rather be called a yuppie then stupid redneck, irregardless of my political leaning.

 

[mrplunkey]

Outstanding poast!

 

[binö]

Seems the labels libs give cons are more harsh. I would much rather be called a yuppie then stupid redneck, irregardless of my political leaning.

lib retalation and their justification for it is because
"bush lied!" and was so evil only return fire of a larger caliber will wrong the terrible right.
that's what i gather from my libtard friends on FB anyway...

 

[Dial_tone]

diasgree, backwards and stupid is liberal speak for blue collar white rural folks like myself.
yuppie, hippie, limo liberal, welfare queen, etc is used by the right to denote libs.

Yet in this thread you call Liberals libtards.

 

[binö]

Yet in this thread you call Liberals libtards.

then maybe i should have added that to the list?
otherwise i don't know what to tell you, it is the perfect name though

 

[mrplunkey]

Yet in this thread you call Liberals libtards.

Let's be fair though -- it is a good term.

Liberals who cannot get off Huffington Post talking points = Libtards

Conservatives who cannot get off American Family Association talking points = Jebus Freaks

Both are fitting terms IMO.

 

[AFeedz]

diasgree, backwards and stupid is liberal speak for blue collar white rural folks like myself.
yuppie, hippie, limo liberal, welfare queen, etc is used by the right to denote libs.

Funny. If I were to call someone backwards and stupid, it's because what I think they're saying is backwards and stupid. It has no foundation in employment or neighborhood type. If I thought a 'yuppie' lib was saying something backwards and stupid, I'd say so too, and I have.

Even if some libs do use those terms to mean what you said (I know they do, I'm not delusional), what's your point? Do the names really matter that much? What a stupid (no blue collar...lol) distinction for one to make.

You're saying it's more ok for one party to dismiss and name call someone that doesn't share their views because their names are in your opinion less offensive? Ooook.

How ridiculous that adults can't have a discussion without name-calling, no matter the degree of it.

 

[binö]

Funny. If I were to call someone backwards and stupid, it's because what I think they're saying is backwards and stupid. It has no foundation in employment or neighborhood type. If I thought a 'yuppie' lib was saying something backwards and stupid, I'd say so too, and I have.

Even if some libs do use those terms to mean what you said (I know they do, I'm not delusional), what's your point? Do the names really matter that much? What a stupid (no blue collar...lol) distinction for one to make.

You're saying it's more ok for one party to dismiss and name call someone that doesn't share their views because their names are in your opinion less offensive? Ooook.

How ridiculous that adults can't have a discussion without name-calling, no matter the degree of it.

the point i was trying to make is that stupid and backwards are terms typically applied to white blue collar folks via left leaning folks, and thus point 21 is a very relevant statement.

 

[AFeedz]

Let's be fair though -- it is a good term.

Liberals who cannot get off Huffington Post talking points = Libtards

Conservatives who cannot get off American Family Association talking points = Jebus Freaks

Both are fitting terms IMO.

I'll agree with that.

 

[-SD-]

Am gonna agree for maximum love fest in thread

 

[Mr. dB]

lmao...now find the opposite

1: You’re irate over the president taking so many vacation days on the taxpayer’s dime (61 thus far), but you thought George W. Bush earned every minute of his leisure time (196 days at the same point in his presidency).

2: You’re happy with your 40 hour work week, paid vacations and company-provided healthcare, but you’re strongly anti-union, because those commies haven’t done anything for you lately.

3: You strongly support the First Amendment and its guarantee of religious freedom to all, but you don’t think Muslims have a right to build an Islamic Community Center in Manhattan.

4: You believe Ronald Reagan was a devout Christian, even though he hated going to church, but any president who spends twenty years going to the same Trinity United Church in Chicago must be a Muslim.

5: You believe when a Republican governor creates a healthcare package with an individual mandate for everyone in his state, that’s a good idea. But when a Democratic president does it, suddenly it’s unconstitutional.

6: You’re so enthused about demonstrating your Second Amendment rights, you can think of no finer place to brandish your pistol in public than at a presidential rally.

7: You believe Bill Clinton was responsible for Osama bin Laden’s escape ten years ago, but thankfully George W. Bush caught up with him and killed him in Pakistan.

8: You believe in putting American jobs first, except when president Obama rescued 1.5 million GM and Chrysler autoworkers, because that was socialism.

9: It angers you that you can’t communicate with the Mexican busboy at your local Olive Garden, but when you took a vacation to San Francisco’s Chinatown, you thought it’s quaint that so many Chinese-Americans are holding fast to their traditional language. Because that’s America!

10: You deny that the lunatic who tried to murder Gaby Giffords was a conservative, even though he targeted a Jewish, pro-choice, pro gay rights, Democratic Congresswoman.

11: You thought it was perfectly normal that every president in history had an untethered right to raise the debt ceiling when warranted, but when Obama asked the GOP held congress to do it, you thought it only natural that it be tied to cutting Social Security and Medicare.

12: When the new 112th Congress was sworn in, you swooned as they promised to focus on “Jobs, jobs, jobs.” But when they pivoted, and went after NPR, Planned Parenthood and gay rights, you cheered.

13: You accuse president Obama of raising your taxes to the highest point ever, even though they’re lower today than at any time since 1950.

14: You believe the wealthiest Americans are “job creators,” and they are — but it doesn’t bother you that all the workers in those positions are in India, China and Malaysia, and they’re doing the jobs that our fathers once did.

15: You believe gays are anti-American, because their lifestyle is a threat to the children… unless they’re married to Tea Party-backed presidential candidates from Minnesota.

16: You strongly defend individual freedom, but that freedom doesn’t include a woman’s right to decide her own healthcare needs.

17: You believe corporations are people too, and are deserving of the same rights as the rest of us. Just not the same obligations to pay personal income tax free of corporate loopholes, or penalties for massive criminal behavior and tax evasion. In these matters, corporations are deserving of special rights.

18: And since corporations are now people too, you must believe in their right to a driver’s license, the right to marry, to adopt children, etc. These rights shall not be denied to Exxon, Halliburton and BP (but still immune from the right of the People to try, convict and sentence to death any corporation that conspires to commit a felony… because at that point, they’re suddenly not people again.)

19: You still believe Climate Change is a myth, and the recent record highs, lows, floods and droughts around the world coinciding with climate scientist’s predictions are all an amazing coincidence. Oh, and Al Gore is FAT!

20: You believe when George W. Bush took the national debt from $5 trillion to $11 trillion, it was necessary for him to do so to keep America safe. But when Barack Obama added to it by trying to rescue the country from a second Great Depression, he was deliberately trying to destroy America!

21: You believe America is a God fearing country, and that the Almighty protects those who believe just as you do. But it’s never crossed your mind that the majority of tornados, hurricanes and floods all occur in the Bible Belt.

22: You believe that no matter who’s in the White House, the office, if not the man himself is deserving of your respect. The only exceptions to this rule, are if his middle name sounds Muslim, and if he’s not at least as white as that black guy who works down in the mailroom at the office.

 

[EnderJE]

Wow. There are more for Bino's list then DBs.

It's always interesting when there's a left vs a right argument rather then the corporatism.

 

[EnderJE]

Oh...and Al Gore IS fat.

 

[mrplunkey]

1: You’re irate over the president taking so many vacation days on the taxpayer’s dime (61 thus far), but you thought George W. Bush earned every minute of his leisure time (196 days at the same point in his presidency).

2: You’re happy with your 40 hour work week, paid vacations and company-provided healthcare, but you’re strongly anti-union, because those commies haven’t done anything for you lately.

3: You strongly support the First Amendment and its guarantee of religious freedom to all, but you don’t think Muslims have a right to build an Islamic Community Center in Manhattan.

4: You believe Ronald Reagan was a devout Christian, even though he hated going to church, but any president who spends twenty years going to the same Trinity United Church in Chicago must be a Muslim.

5: You believe when a Republican governor creates a healthcare package with an individual mandate for everyone in his state, that’s a good idea. But when a Democratic president does it, suddenly it’s unconstitutional.

6: You’re so enthused about demonstrating your Second Amendment rights, you can think of no finer place to brandish your pistol in public than at a presidential rally.

7: You believe Bill Clinton was responsible for Osama bin Laden’s escape ten years ago, but thankfully George W. Bush caught up with him and killed him in Pakistan.

8: You believe in putting American jobs first, except when president Obama rescued 1.5 million GM and Chrysler autoworkers, because that was socialism.

9: It angers you that you can’t communicate with the Mexican busboy at your local Olive Garden, but when you took a vacation to San Francisco’s Chinatown, you thought it’s quaint that so many Chinese-Americans are holding fast to their traditional language. Because that’s America!

10: You deny that the lunatic who tried to murder Gaby Giffords was a conservative, even though he targeted a Jewish, pro-choice, pro gay rights, Democratic Congresswoman.

11: You thought it was perfectly normal that every president in history had an untethered right to raise the debt ceiling when warranted, but when Obama asked the GOP held congress to do it, you thought it only natural that it be tied to cutting Social Security and Medicare.

12: When the new 112th Congress was sworn in, you swooned as they promised to focus on “Jobs, jobs, jobs.” But when they pivoted, and went after NPR, Planned Parenthood and gay rights, you cheered.

13: You accuse president Obama of raising your taxes to the highest point ever, even though they’re lower today than at any time since 1950.

14: You believe the wealthiest Americans are “job creators,” and they are — but it doesn’t bother you that all the workers in those positions are in India, China and Malaysia, and they’re doing the jobs that our fathers once did.

15: You believe gays are anti-American, because their lifestyle is a threat to the children… unless they’re married to Tea Party-backed presidential candidates from Minnesota.

16: You strongly defend individual freedom, but that freedom doesn’t include a woman’s right to decide her own healthcare needs.

17: You believe corporations are people too, and are deserving of the same rights as the rest of us. Just not the same obligations to pay personal income tax free of corporate loopholes, or penalties for massive criminal behavior and tax evasion. In these matters, corporations are deserving of special rights.

18: And since corporations are now people too, you must believe in their right to a driver’s license, the right to marry, to adopt children, etc. These rights shall not be denied to Exxon, Halliburton and BP (but still immune from the right of the People to try, convict and sentence to death any corporation that conspires to commit a felony… because at that point, they’re suddenly not people again.)

19: You still believe Climate Change is a myth, and the recent record highs, lows, floods and droughts around the world coinciding with climate scientist’s predictions are all an amazing coincidence. Oh, and Al Gore is FAT!

20: You believe when George W. Bush took the national debt from $5 trillion to $11 trillion, it was necessary for him to do so to keep America safe. But when Barack Obama added to it by trying to rescue the country from a second Great Depression, he was deliberately trying to destroy America!

21: You believe America is a God fearing country, and that the Almighty protects those who believe just as you do. But it’s never crossed your mind that the majority of tornados, hurricanes and floods all occur in the Bible Belt.

22: You believe that no matter who’s in the White House, the office, if not the man himself is deserving of your respect. The only exceptions to this rule, are if his middle name sounds Muslim, and if he’s not at least as white as that black guy who works down in the mailroom at the office.

That's a noble effort!

But the content is a complete miss. For example:

"13: You accuse president Obama of raising your taxes to the highest point ever, even though they’re lower today than at any time since 1950."

No one I know is saying taxes are at the "highest point ever". US taxes are at a globally uncompetitive rate. Let me help you with an example: I used to sell disposable esophogeal stethoscopes (medical device) for well over $7 each. Today, I'm thrilled if I can get $3.25. Why? They've become a global product and that globalization has imploded the price. Now I could set my price to $5.00 tomorrow and it would still be 33% less than it was in 1994. And it would still be an incredible deal too, because customers would be getting a precision hand-ground thermistor, an insert molded connector, a number of plastic bonded components -- all in a sterile package shipped to their distributor of choice. Now I can either bitch about not getting $5 or even $7.50 for each device. I can even raise my price to what I think is "fair". But that doesn't change the fact that I'd lose customers in droves.

Do you understand that concept?

 

[Mr. dB]

So we should emulate China, India and Pakistan? We'll never be able to compete with them for the low-end. I think Germany is a better model of the direction the US should go.

 

[mrplunkey]

So we should emulate China, India and Pakistan? We'll never be able to compete with them for the low-end. I think Germany is a better model of the direction the US should go.

We shouldn't emulate anyone. First, should foster innovation (which regulation is killing). Second, we should keep out taxes, regulations and torts at a competitive level -- which doesn't mean "lowest". Mercedes are "competitive" with Lexus yet they are more expensive. But Mercedes isn't dumb enought to try to charge $400,000 per car either -- which is essentially what we're doing with our regulations, taxes. And torts. And then we act confused when people don't buy our car.

 

[EnderJE]

Another option is to change the rules of how imports work? America is still the largest consumer.

 

[mrplunkey]

Another option is to change the rules of how imports work? America is still the largest consumer.

There's a ton of evidence that restricting trade makes a country poorer.

It's not a bad idea in principle, but doesn't work in practice.

 

[EnderJE]

There's a ton of evidence that restricting trade makes a country poorer.

It's not a bad idea in principle, but doesn't work in practice.

The other countries that have restricted trade did not have the consumerism lifestyle that the US currently has.

Due to that, I'm not entirely sure that the other examples would provide a like for like scenario.

 

[ledhead]

The other countries that have restricted trade did not have the consumerism lifestyle that the US currently has.

Due to that, I'm not entirely sure that the other examples would provide a like for like scenario.

It does not matter.. Google: the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.. I don't feel like writing an essay today..

 

[mrplunkey]

The other countries that have restricted trade did not have the consumerism lifestyle that the US currently has.

Due to that, I'm not entirely sure that the other examples would provide a like for like scenario.

So America isn't comparable on a like-for-like scenario when it comes to protectionism, but people are free to compare nationalized health care on a like-for-like basis between the US and other countries?

 

[EnderJE]

So America isn't comparable on a like-for-like scenario when it comes to protectionism, but people are free to compare nationalized health care on a like-for-like basis between the US and other countries?

I never said that the US was a like for like scenario for nationalized health care. Given how people take care of themselves in Montana, I'm pretty sure that it's not a good idea. I thought we covered this scenario between you and I?

BTW, I still love you.

 

[EnderJE]

It does not matter.. Google: the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.. I don't feel like writing an essay today..

The world of (post market crash) 1930 is a little different then it is today.

I'm not sure that it's a good case study.

 

[mrplunkey]

I never said that the US was a like for like scenario for nationalized health care. Given how people take care of themselves in Montana, I'm pretty sure that it's not a good idea. I thought we covered this scenario between you and I?

BTW, I still love you.

Can we e-spoon?

 

[EnderJE]

Can we e-spoon?

Always.

 

[mrplunkey]

Always.

That made him twitch.

Just sayin'

 

[ledhead]

The world of (post market crash) 1930 is a little different then it is today.

I'm not sure that it's a good case study.

Lol. First, you are an asshole for cluttering my K box with that picture of them fat rats, you must be in cahoots with musclemom, flunkey!

Second, the Smoot-Hawley Act is an excellent case study for what not to do in a economic contraction.

History is always 20/20. Jefferson, implemented the Embargo Act of 1807, restricting American exports, while the Brits were allowed to export goods to America, horrible economic move, it crashed the US economy. We need imports to make certain goods, sometimes it is cheaper to import raw material to make goods. Simultaneously, after making the good the objective is to export the goods and make a profit (eco 101). In 1807-09, we were importing but not exporting, consequently, it created a surplus of goods, the usually route of pawning off the surplus was to Europe but the Embargo Act restricted that from happening. Therefore, farming, and textile industries,ect, had to eat their products. Moreover, they had to pay higher prices to make their products and could not make a profit by exporting them (scarcity, labor). Hence, these people were stuck with a surplus, and if anyone knows anything about economics, the more supply of a product and less of a demand makes the price of the good plummet (deflation), and people could not afford to make their products and people could not afford to buy products and the government was not able to accrue any captial via taxes then the economy crashed.

120 yrs later, the Great Depression hits in 1929 - causing a horrible economic contraction. Hoover who is probably one of the stupidest people to live implemented the Smoot-Hawley Act (highest tariff ever in US history), I think the act put a high tariff on over 3,000 imported items. Countries got pissed and passed retaliatory tariffs, this totally stymied trade, remember what I already mentioned about imports and exports? Anyway, that act brought us over the top and deepened and prolonged the depression... That was 73 yrs ago... If we try to put high tariffs on imported goods today, China and other countries will balk at us (lack of bargaining power), and trade somewhere else or implement retaliatory tariffs, consequently, our economy will really be in trouble. Contrary, to what some people might think, we still need imports for our industries especially automobiles... and we still need to export, even tho we had a trade deficit since the 70s.

Implementing high tariffs is bad economics especially in an economic downturn, that law holds fast even in today's standards.

Now, fuck off Pete Townshend, lol..

 

[EnderJE]

Lol. First, you are an asshole for cluttering my K box with that picture of them fat rats, you must be in cahoots with musclemom, flunkey!

Second, the Smoot-Hawley Act is an excellent case study for what not to do in a economic contraction.

History is always 20/20. Jefferson, implemented the Embargo Act of 1807, restricting American exports, while the Brits were allowed to export goods to America, horrible economic move, it crashed the US economy. We need imports to make certain goods, sometimes it is cheaper to import raw material to make goods. Simultaneously, after making the good the objective is to export the goods and make a profit (eco 101). In 1807-09, we were importing but not exporting, consequently, it created a surplus of goods, the usually route of pawning off the surplus was to Europe but the Embargo Act restricted that from happening. Therefore, farming, and textile industries,ect, had to eat their products. Moreover, they had to pay higher prices to make their products and could not make a profit by exporting them (scarcity, labor). Hence, these people were stuck with a surplus, and if anyone knows anything about economics, the more supply of a product and less of a demand makes the price of the good plummet (deflation), and people could not afford to make their products and people could not afford to buy products and the government was not able to accrue any captial via taxes then the economy crashed.

120 yrs later, the Great Depression hits in 1929 - causing a horrible economic contraction. Hoover who is probably one of the stupidest people to live implemented the Smoot-Hawley Act (highest tariff ever in US history), I think the act put a high tariff on over 3,000 imported items. Countries got pissed and passed retaliatory tariffs, this totally stymied trade, remember what I already mentioned about imports and exports? Anyway, that act brought us over the top and deepened and prolonged the depression... That was 73 yrs ago... If we try to put high tariffs on imported goods today, China and other countries will balk at us (lack of bargaining power), and trade somewhere else or implement retaliatory tariffs, consequently, our economy will really be in trouble. Contrary, to what some people might think, we still need imports for our industries especially automobiles... and we still need to export, even tho we had a trade deficit since the 70s.

Implementing high tariffs is bad economics especially in an economic downturn, that law holds fast even in today's standards.

Now, fuck off Pete Townshend, lol..

lmao...I can't actually remember what I put up in people's K box...at least I'm not puds and putting up the lemon party or ...good god...

The mass consumerism of the 80s and onwards is the difference from the 1930s. Sure, China can go somewhere else, but no consumer spends as much as the US does. Wouldn't going somewhere else will also hurt them in the long run? On a similiar vein, if we use old test cases for modern situations, then wouldn't there be a problem because times change and people are different?

In the end, you can think want you want...and I can pose the question. We're not likely to have a test case in the near future.

 

[Mr. dB]

 

[binö]

whatever happened with his child molestor case?
i recall his excuse for having/seeking kiddie pron was it was for research.

 

[EnderJE]

whatever happened with his child molestor case?
i recall his excuse for having/seeking kiddie pron was it was for research.

I still can't believe that he didn't go to jail.

 

[motorcyclegiant]

my opinion is to limit or increase taxes for corporations that use the shelter of the us to become corpirate giants, then flip the bird to the economy when they move shop oversees. Reduction of taxes based upon modified levels of income. Return social security to what it was designed for...its absurd that some of the wealthiest still collect from it...it was designed to support the older, less "fortunate" citizens. Stipulate rules that put criminals to work instead of the slammer. Mandatory service for non contributors. Capitol punishment sentences carried out within 24 months. Criminal charges with severe penalties for ripping consumers off.
sales tax tiers based upon category of goods. Natural resource banks, funded with tiered levels of % contribution based upon businesses profits. State funding by national government based upon performance in education, economic success, and reduction of crime.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using EliteFitness

 

[mrplunkey]

my opinion is to limit or increase taxes for corporations that use the shelter of the us to become corpirate giants, then flip the bird to the economy when they move shop oversees. Reduction of taxes based upon modified levels of income. Return social security to what it was designed for...its absurd that some of the wealthiest still collect from it...it was designed to support the older, less "fortunate" citizens. Stipulate rules that put criminals to work instead of the slammer. Mandatory service for non contributors. Capitol punishment sentences carried out within 24 months. Criminal charges with severe penalties for ripping consumers off.
sales tax tiers based upon category of goods. Natural resource banks, funded with tiered levels of % contribution based upon businesses profits. State funding by national government based upon performance in education, economic success, and reduction of crime.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using EliteFitness

Actually the only way they got social security passed in the first place was with assurances that it would be equally offered to all and would NOT become yet another welfare/lower-income benefit.

 

[Mr. dB]

whatever happened with his child molestor case?
i recall his excuse for having/seeking kiddie pron was it was for research.

He was completely exonerated. Problem is the US news media didn't pick up the story because we were distracted with 9-11 and Afghanistan stuff.

 

[ledhead]

whatever happened with his child molestor case?
i recall his excuse for having/seeking kiddie pron was it was for research.

Yeah, that is the excuse Ender gave the police...lol, no, he did say he was doing research on child porn and they bought it, probably literally bought it because he is filthy rich. They should throw his ass in jail for calling himself a guitarist - I call him an imposter with a guitar, he is fuckin' awful...

 

[EnderJE]

Yeah, that is the excuse Ender gave the police...lol, no, he did say he was doing research on child porn and they bought it, probably literally bought it because he is filthy rich. They should throw his ass in jail for calling himself a guitarist - I call him an imposter with a guitar, he is fuckin' awful...

I wouldn't care if he is a fucking Rock God. He should have done jail time or worse.

 

[Mr. dB]

I wouldn't care if he is a fucking Rock God. He should have done jail time or worse.

You're both morons then.

He was trying to expose the child porn, not get off on it. He had written about it several times before he was arrested. He was completely exonerated.

 

[binö]

You're both morons then.

He was trying to expose the child porn, not get off on it. He had written about it several times before he was arrested. He was completely exonerated.

without knowing shit about the case other than the intial charges, his research excuse sounds mighty suspect you have to admit...to catch a predator suspects often said the same sorta BS.

 

[Mr. dB]

without knowing shit about the case other than the intial charges, his research excuse sounds mighty suspect you have to admit...to catch a predator suspects often said the same sorta BS.

Except that he had gone public with it long before he became a subject of police investigation.

 

[mrplunkey]

You're both morons then.

He was trying to expose the child porn, not get off on it. He had written about it several times before he was arrested. He was completely exonerated.

So I can order all the illegal juice I want as long as I publicly declare I'm trying to expose suppliers first?

 

[binö]

smokinggun doc. on the bro, he is shady imo:

MAY 7--After a four-month investigation, London police today cleared Pete Townshend of kiddie porn charges. But the rock star will still spend five years on a U.K. register of sex offenders because the co-founder of The Who visited a web site containing child porn images. Townshend was nabbed in January on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children, though no such photos were found following a search of his home and computer. At the time of his arrest, Townshend admitted using his credit card to visit a web site offering child porn, but told cops he was just conducting research. Along with being placed on the sex offender registry, the performer had to submit a DNA sample to police and have his fingerprints and mug shot taken. As part of his "research project," Townshend drafted the below six-page treatise on the easy availability of child pornography on the Internet. So easy, in fact, that Townshend, 57, wrote that he accidentally discovered a photo of a two-year-old boy being raped when he typed the words "Russia," "orphanages," and "boys" into a search engine. Townshend claimed that he reached for his telephone and "intended to call the police and take them through the process I had stumbled upon--and bring the pornographers involved to [jail]," but that he decided not to contact authorities after discussing the issue with an attorney. Townshend's paper, which he once posted on his official web site, also notes that the "pathway to 'free' paedophilic imagery is--as it were--laid out like a free line of cocaine at a decadent cocktail party: only the strong willed or terminally uncurious can resist." In the January 2002 porn treatise, Townshend notes that since 1997 he has been working on "some kind of document" relating to Internet porn, but that he feared being arrested by police who were on a "witch hunt" to catch anyone who visited illicit web pages: "Those vigilantes who research these pathways open themselves up to internet 'snoops.'" (6 pages)

he is on the sex offender registry, good enough for me to damn his gai ass music for eternity

 

[ledhead]

You're both morons then.

He was trying to expose the child porn, not get off on it. He had written about it several times before he was arrested. He was completely exonerated.

It appears, you followed his case extensively, did he inspire you to continue downloading child porn? What a ridiculous statement... If the authorities knew he was trying to expose child porn then why did they file charges on him? You justified him being a pedo... Maybe, he was using red herring tactics, did you ever think of that??

 

[Mr. dB]

So I can order all the illegal juice I want as long as I publicly declare I'm trying to expose suppliers first?

More like signing up for a Platinum Membership on a jooser board if you don't joose.

Anyway, the four of you are wrong. Townshend's explanation, as implausible as it sounds on the surface, has been sufficiently vetted. His methods were imprudent and he got a warning for it, but it's been shown his intentions weren't prurient, and there was a paper trail and a time line to support it.

 

[mrplunkey]

More like signing up for a Platinum Membership on a jooser board if you don't joose.

Anyway, the four of you are wrong. Townshend's explanation, as implausible as it sounds on the surface, has been sufficiently vetted. His methods were imprudent and he got a warning for it, but it's been shown his intentions weren't prurient, and there was a paper trail and a time line to support it.

Translation: He's rich and popular so he got off.

Outstanding!

 

[-SD-]

Translation: He's rich and popular so he got off.

Outstanding!

Joe Blow from Gary Indiana definitely goes to jail

 

[mrplunkey]

Joe Blow from Gary Indiana definitely goes to jail

Oh hell yes.

 

[Spartacus]

if you don't look very good
axelrod
looks like he should be bagging groceries

 

[Spartacus]

he is.

yeah I know
the foodstamp president's advisor