Trans Ladyboy Forum

Go Back Trans Ladyboy Forum > General Discussion
Register Forum Rules Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Bookmark & Share

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #301  
Old 05-21-2012
franalexes franalexes is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: indoors & outside
Posts: 1,416
franalexes has much to be proud offranalexes has much to be proud offranalexes has much to be proud offranalexes has much to be proud offranalexes has much to be proud offranalexes has much to be proud offranalexes has much to be proud offranalexes has much to be proud offranalexes has much to be proud of
Default

smc may be right. my computer doesn't have an automatic "snoopes" button.
Shun the gulability of being on someones forward list.

I blame George Bush. ( there! that should cover it)
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 05-21-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franalexes View Post
smc may be right. my computer doesn't have an automatic "snoopes" button.
Shun the gulability of being on someones forward list.

I blame George Bush. ( there! that should cover it)
There is so much of which one can be legitimately critical of Barack Obama's policies and his approach to governance. I hope, as the smart woman you are, that you will focus on these in the future, rather than the "talking points" that both conservatives and liberals use to diminish discourse and deflect attention away from their own failures and shortcomings.
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 05-21-2012
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
There is so much of which one can be legitimately critical of Barack Obama's policies and his approach to governance. I hope, as the smart woman you are, that you will focus on these in the future, rather than the "talking points" that both conservatives and liberals use to diminish discourse and deflect attention away from their own failures and shortcomings.
Seriously? You're suggesting she stick with a TLB moderator approved list of talking points rather than her own?
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 05-21-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
Seriously? You're suggesting she stick with a TLB moderator approved list of talking points rather than her own?
Of course that's not even remotely what I wrote, but you're such an inveterate fabricator that it doesn't matter ... so long as you can post something, right?
Attached Thumbnails
exercise-troll.jpg  
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 05-21-2012
franalexes franalexes is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: indoors & outside
Posts: 1,416
franalexes has much to be proud offranalexes has much to be proud offranalexes has much to be proud offranalexes has much to be proud offranalexes has much to be proud offranalexes has much to be proud offranalexes has much to be proud offranalexes has much to be proud offranalexes has much to be proud of
Default

Tracy ! That's a heck of a spin. Not exactly what smc said but I get the point.
I don't know what you were drinking but please save me some.

smc: cute doll, but I'm not the sauna mom. Got one in my skin shade?
And I would never wear florescent green top with a black bikini. I can't remember the last time I DID wear a top with a black bikini.
Next time I post, I'll try to stay focused on a couple of points of interest.
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 05-23-2012
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
There is so much of which one can be legitimately critical of Barack Obama's policies and his approach to governance. I hope, as the smart woman you are, that you will focus on these in the future, rather than the "talking points" that both conservatives and liberals use to diminish discourse and deflect attention away from their own failures and shortcomings.
Ok, well let me rephrase that then. If fran is going to criticize Obama, smc (a TLB moderator) advises her to stick with topics that are "legitimate" criticisms of Obama. Who determines what issues are legitimate? The moderator does, not the members. But she's good with that, so I'm sorry to interrupt.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 05-23-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
Ok, well let me rephrase that then. If fran is going to criticize Obama, smc (a TLB moderator) advises her to stick with topics that are "legitimate" criticisms of Obama. Who determines what issues are legitimate? The moderator does, not the members. But she's good with that, so I'm sorry to interrupt.
Again, that is not what I wrote. By counterposing "talking points" to other things one might write, I drew a distinction between -- to use the most recent example -- a discussion about Bush vs. Obama on praising the troops and a discussion about policy or the direction for the country or anything else that is substantive.

The "praise the troops" topic is the sort you often seem to like, TracyCoxx, I suppose because it lends itself to out-of-full-context sound bites simply to score points, not advance any genuine argument. To her credit, franalexes recognized that when the fuller context was provided. You, on the other hand -- based on how you have handled such things in the past -- would have been much more likely to ignore the correction and move on to something else, hoping no one would notice.

I understand, TracyCoxx, that absent having anything substantive to say, you would repost the same insipid thing about the "talking points" comment. Anyone who reads your serious posts knows that you are smarter and more articulate than you often pretend to be just so you can get in your "digs." That's why I will insist, until you prove otherwise, that most of the time you are nothing more than a troll.
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 05-23-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franalexes View Post
Tracy ! That's a heck of a spin. Not exactly what smc said but I get the point.
I don't know what you were drinking but please save me some.

smc: cute doll, but I'm not the sauna mom. Got one in my skin shade?
And I would never wear florescent green top with a black bikini. I can't remember the last time I DID wear a top with a black bikini.
Next time I post, I'll try to stay focused on a couple of points of interest.
fran, the troll wasn't meant be you, which is why it was attached to a response to someone else. To me, you are anything but a troll.
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 05-24-2012
tslust's Avatar
tslust tslust is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Federal District of Missouri, United Socialist States of America
Posts: 743
tslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franalexes View Post
The Difference


President George W. Bush's speech afterthe capture of Saddam Hussein:
"The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq . The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them!"


Obama's speech after the killing of Osama bin Laden:
"And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the Director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan . And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan ."



Obama did not once acknowledge our brave men and women who fight for our country....and that myfriends is THE DIFFERENCE !
True! Granted as smc points out, those are just snippets of those speaches. However one can not deny that there is a lot of, at the least, distrust between obama and the military. I have spoken with quite a number of military personnel, including dozens of officers. Almost all of them were extremely concerned and distrustful about having to serve under obama. obama has repeatedly promised to slash the military budget (Now mind you, I believe there is a lot of overspending in the military.) also he has shown blatant disregard to military decessions - for example, he wouldn't give the order for the Navy SEAL snipers to shoot the Somali pirates and it took obama about three months of "study" to approve a fraction of the requested troop increase.

A lot of the rank and file I've spoken to are concerned about the possibility of being ordered to engage in oerations against US civilians (hence NDAA). I have always refered them to the decesion that was passed down from the Nurrenberg Trials, that a soldier does not have to follow an order which is illegal.
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it.

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

DEO VINDICE
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 05-24-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
True! Granted as smc points out, those are just snippets of those speaches. However one can not deny that there is a lot of, at the least, distrust between obama and the military. I have spoken with quite a number of military personnel, including dozens of officers. Almost all of them were extremely concerned and distrustful about having to serve under obama. obama has repeatedly promised to slash the military budget (Now mind you, I believe there is a lot of overspending in the military.) also he has shown blatant disregard to military decessions - for example, he wouldn't give the order for the Navy SEAL snipers to shoot the Somali pirates and it took obama about three months of "study" to approve a fraction of the requested troop increase.

A lot of the rank and file I've spoken to are concerned about the possibility of being ordered to engage in oerations against US civilians (hence NDAA). I have always refered them to the decesion that was passed down from the Nurrenberg Trials, that a soldier does not have to follow an order which is illegal.
Hearsay evidence of a "distrustful" military aside, it seems to me that independent of whether it is Obama or someone else, having a president who does not routinely say or imply (as Bush did, and as Romney does) that he will simply go along with whatever the "commanders on the ground" advise is not only what the Founding Fathers intended by having a civilian-led military, but a good system of checks and balances. I state that without taking a particular side on shooting Somali pirates or increasing troop sizes, which are certainly questions about which thoughtful consideration could certainly be given.

As for operations against U.S. civilians and the NDAA, I think it's safe to say that Obama is simply continuing George W. Bush's terrible policies. For instance, the the Obama administration argues that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution permits the detentions of United States citizens. Bush and Obama applied AUMF to authorize their use of indefinite detentions around the world. The difference today? NDAA codifies this into law.
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 05-24-2012
tslust's Avatar
tslust tslust is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Federal District of Missouri, United Socialist States of America
Posts: 743
tslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Hearsay evidence of a "distrustful" military aside, it seems to me that independent of whether it is Obama or someone else, having a president who does not routinely say or imply (as Bush did, and as Romney does) that he will simply go along with whatever the "commanders on the ground" advise is not only what the Founding Fathers intended by having a civilian-led military, but a good system of checks and balances. I state that without taking a particular side on shooting Somali pirates or increasing troop sizes, which are certainly questions about which thoughtful consideration could certainly be given.

As for operations against U.S. civilians and the NDAA, I think it's safe to say that Obama is simply continuing George W. Bush's terrible policies. For instance, the the Obama administration argues that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution permits the detentions of United States citizens. Bush and Obama applied AUMF to authorize their use of indefinite detentions around the world. The difference today? NDAA codifies this into law.
I have heard it argued that the "Comander in Chief" title given to the Presidency is outdated and should be removed. That military decesions should be left to the military. As a student of Clausewitz, I believe the military should always be subject to the will of the political leadershi of the State. That being said, I could be open to discussions about whether that means giving one man (i.e. the President) with that power or give it to a board of oversight, the membership of which would be decided on by Congress.

I loved how these Civil Rights advocacy groups raised such a fuss about Bush's warrantless wiretapping when firstly that paticular program was never stopped. That means that it is still ongoing to this very day. Secondly, ever since the late 60's (if I rember the report correctly) all new telephone line that were installed to people's houses were automatically tapped.
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it.

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

DEO VINDICE
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 05-24-2012
ila's Avatar
ila ila is offline
Moderator
Shecock obsessed
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,294
ila has a reputation beyond reputeila has a reputation beyond reputeila has a reputation beyond reputeila has a reputation beyond reputeila has a reputation beyond reputeila has a reputation beyond reputeila has a reputation beyond reputeila has a reputation beyond reputeila has a reputation beyond reputeila has a reputation beyond reputeila has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
I have heard it argued that the "Comander in Chief" title given to the Presidency is outdated and should be removed. That military decesions should be left to the military. As a student of Clausewitz, I believe the military should always be subject to the will of the political leadershi of the State. That being said, I could be open to discussions about whether that means giving one man (i.e. the President) with that power or give it to a board of oversight, the membership of which would be decided on by Congress...
There must always be civilian oversight of a country's military. That oversight must be the government. As for decision making military decisions should be broken into two areas, strategic and tactical. Strategic decisions are for politicians to make whereas tactical decisions must remain in the hands of a military. Politicians are the ones that have to strategically guide a country and its policies and that is why they must make the strategic decisions. Most politicians have no idea of military planning and execution and that is why the military must be allowed to make tactical decisions without interference from politicians. In other words policiticians make plans (strategy) and the military carries out those plans (tactics). Neither is in a position to do properly do the other's job.
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 05-25-2012
GRH's Avatar
GRH GRH is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 531
GRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to behold
Default

I don't have the official source to back this up, because as I recall, I heard a snippet on some news program (may have been radio or television). At any rate, it said that in terms of polling, President Obama is actually leading Romney among the military demographic.

A number of comments need to be made regarding this, though. In terms of troops on the ground, Obama's policies are of course going to be popular. We've effectively withdrawn from Iraq (as opposed to indefinite occupation that some have suggested). We are also on a time table for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Whether these are wise decisions from a strategic standpoint, I will leave to others to debate. But in terms of being a troop on the ground who is putting your life on the line everyday-- how could these NOT be popular policy stances? Especially when the overall national sentiment towards these foreign misadventures is that we've spent too much time and money in these backward shitholes and that it's time to come home. Add to that the fact that Obama made the order to assasinate Bin Laden, and it just adds credibility to his role as Commander and Chief.

Now among military brass, I can certainly see Obama as being less popular. They are the ones tasked with trying to find cost savings in today's era of austerity. They are the ones who will see pet projects, platoons, etc. cut. My own opinion is that austerity should be shared at ALL levels-- including national defense. But in terms of talking points, military brass are probably going to lean towards the party that says they will spare the military any cuts (in favor of wrenching cost savings out of middle class "entitlements").
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 06-26-2012
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default Obama went "Soviet" on Arizona

I know you all hate Limbaugh, but what he says here is exactly right.

Limbaugh:
So the regime is using the Department of Homeland Security to punish Obama's enemies. I saw a great phrase at a blog post on PJ Media: Obama went "Soviet" on Arizona. Let me read to you from that post. "This is a political maneuver designed to punish Arizona, which" had the audacity... I mean, what is this really all about? Obama is not enforcing immigration law. Arizona is falling apart. A responsible governor says, "All right, well, we're going to write some laws to give us the ability to enforce the border ourselves."

So Barack Obama turned around and sued Arizona. "Who in the hell do you think YOU are? You want to enforce immigration law? Okay, let me show you what's going to happen to you. I'm going to tell you we're not going to enforce immigration law and I'm going to take you all the way to the Supreme Court, and I don't care what happens to your state!" And that is exactly what happens. And so Arizona is being punished. Now, they might want to say this is political punishment but it has real world consequences.

Crime. Property value loss. Economic calamity.

It's an absolute disaster. So while this may be traditional ol' political punishment, there are horrible real world consequences attached to it. Arizona is already reeling from the lawlessness on its border with Mexico. And as I said: It's abundantly clear now that Obama has given up winning Arizona. He doesn't care. He's written it off. Now he's going "Soviet" on it to make an example to every other state, by the way. And do not discount that. This is a message to every other state on the border: "The same can happen to you if you try this stunt!

"You go overboard defending your border or you challenge me and how I want to defend the border (or not), and this will happen to you too!" It's good old fashioned, political, Soviet-style intimidation. Barack Obama has kicked Arizona out of whatever is left of the federal government's border enforcement. And in the process, what has Obama -- in real world consequences -- just done here? Obama has sent a special delivery FedEx or UPS to smugglers and traffickers and criminals of all kinds that Arizona is wide open.

Come on in, gang!

Nobody here to stop you!

And not only that, if somebody wearing a police uniform in Arizona does try to stop you, guess what? We're gonna get a phone call from some of our buddies on the ground and guess who's going to jail? The cop! So come on in! Forget New Mexico. Forget California. Forget Texas. Make a beeline for Arizona. We have cleared the decks for you. In fact, we would encourage you to try to get picked up by a cop, because we want the cop punished.

We have people who are going to be spying, making sure that if a cop stops you for any reason whatsoever and demands your papers, he gets his. We're going to make sure we hear about it, and that cop is finished. So come on in! Arizona is wide open for all of you. That's the sucker punch. So this puts the law back on hold. It's a green light to anybody who wants to sneak into Arizona from Mexico all day long.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 06-27-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
I know you all hate Limbaugh, but what he says here is exactly right.

Limbaugh:
So the regime is using the Department of Homeland Security to punish Obama's enemies. I saw a great phrase at a blog post on PJ Media: Obama went "Soviet" on Arizona. Let me read to you from that post. "This is a political maneuver designed to punish Arizona, which" had the audacity... I mean, what is this really all about? Obama is not enforcing immigration law. Arizona is falling apart. A responsible governor says, "All right, well, we're going to write some laws to give us the ability to enforce the border ourselves."

So Barack Obama turned around and sued Arizona. "Who in the hell do you think YOU are? You want to enforce immigration law? Okay, let me show you what's going to happen to you. I'm going to tell you we're not going to enforce immigration law and I'm going to take you all the way to the Supreme Court, and I don't care what happens to your state!" And that is exactly what happens. And so Arizona is being punished. Now, they might want to say this is political punishment but it has real world consequences.

Crime. Property value loss. Economic calamity.

It's an absolute disaster. So while this may be traditional ol' political punishment, there are horrible real world consequences attached to it. Arizona is already reeling from the lawlessness on its border with Mexico. And as I said: It's abundantly clear now that Obama has given up winning Arizona. He doesn't care. He's written it off. Now he's going "Soviet" on it to make an example to every other state, by the way. And do not discount that. This is a message to every other state on the border: "The same can happen to you if you try this stunt!

"You go overboard defending your border or you challenge me and how I want to defend the border (or not), and this will happen to you too!" It's good old fashioned, political, Soviet-style intimidation. Barack Obama has kicked Arizona out of whatever is left of the federal government's border enforcement. And in the process, what has Obama -- in real world consequences -- just done here? Obama has sent a special delivery FedEx or UPS to smugglers and traffickers and criminals of all kinds that Arizona is wide open.

Come on in, gang!

Nobody here to stop you!

And not only that, if somebody wearing a police uniform in Arizona does try to stop you, guess what? We're gonna get a phone call from some of our buddies on the ground and guess who's going to jail? The cop! So come on in! Forget New Mexico. Forget California. Forget Texas. Make a beeline for Arizona. We have cleared the decks for you. In fact, we would encourage you to try to get picked up by a cop, because we want the cop punished.

We have people who are going to be spying, making sure that if a cop stops you for any reason whatsoever and demands your papers, he gets his. We're going to make sure we hear about it, and that cop is finished. So come on in! Arizona is wide open for all of you. That's the sucker punch. So this puts the law back on hold. It's a green light to anybody who wants to sneak into Arizona from Mexico all day long.
You've outdone yourself, TracyCoxx. This is some of the most asinine bullshit you've ever posted. I suppose you will now tell us that every individual state in the United States should conduct its own foreign policy.
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 06-27-2012
tslust's Avatar
tslust tslust is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Federal District of Missouri, United Socialist States of America
Posts: 743
tslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
So Barack Obama turned around and sued Arizona. "Who in the hell do you think YOU are? You want to enforce immigration law? Okay, let me show you what's going to happen to you. I'm going to tell you we're not going to enforce immigration law and I'm going to take you all the way to the Supreme Court, and I don't care what happens to your state!" And that is exactly what happens. And so Arizona is being punished. Now, they might want to say this is political punishment but it has real world consequences.

Crime. Property value loss. Economic calamity.

It's an absolute disaster. So while this may be traditional ol' political punishment, there are horrible real world consequences attached to it. Arizona is already reeling from the lawlessness on its border with Mexico. And as I said: It's abundantly clear now that Obama has given up winning Arizona. He doesn't care. He's written it off. Now he's going "Soviet" on it to make an example to every other state, by the way. And do not discount that. This is a message to every other state on the border: "The same can happen to you if you try this stunt!

"You go overboard defending your border or you challenge me and how I want to defend the border (or not), and this will happen to you too!" It's good old fashioned, political, Soviet-style intimidation. Barack Obama has kicked Arizona out of whatever is left of the federal government's border enforcement. And in the process, what has Obama -- in real world consequences -- just done here? Obama has sent a special delivery FedEx or UPS to smugglers and traffickers and criminals of all kinds that Arizona is wide open.

Come on in, gang!

Nobody here to stop you!

And not only that, if somebody wearing a police uniform in Arizona does try to stop you, guess what? We're gonna get a phone call from some of our buddies on the ground and guess who's going to jail? The cop! So come on in! Forget New Mexico. Forget California. Forget Texas. Make a beeline for Arizona. We have cleared the decks for you. In fact, we would encourage you to try to get picked up by a cop, because we want the cop punished.

We have people who are going to be spying, making sure that if a cop stops you for any reason whatsoever and demands your papers, he gets his. We're going to make sure we hear about it, and that cop is finished. So come on in! Arizona is wide open for all of you. That's the sucker punch. So this puts the law back on hold. It's a green light to anybody who wants to sneak into Arizona from Mexico all day long.[/I]
If I were Governor Brewer, I would send a leter to obama. Telling him that as long as his administration continues it's stance against the State of Arizona members of the Department of Justice (FBI, ATF, INS, ICE) are not welcome in the State of Arizona. Furthermore, all tax revenue from the State of Arizona, destined for the Federal government, will be withheald.
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it.

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

DEO VINDICE
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 06-27-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
If I were Governor Brewer, I would send a leter to obama. Telling him that as long as his administration continues it's stance against the State of Arizona members of the Department of Justice (FBI, ATF, INS, ICE) are not welcome in the State of Arizona. Furthermore, all tax revenue from the State of Arizona, destined for the Federal government, will be withheald.
Since making asinine suggestions and posting asinine political bullshit seems to be the order of the day, why not have Arizona secede from the union, compensate all of its residents who wish to move to the United States with a subsidy to help them get settled in a neighboring state that respects U.S. law, and be done with the craziness once for all?

Seriously ... the two of you support the idea of giving a law-enforcement agency the right to stop anyone, based on how they look, and demand to see papers? I know TracyCoxx will try to dodge answering the question, but the analogy cries out for it: what about stopping Jewish-looking people in Nazi Germany?
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 06-27-2012
tslust's Avatar
tslust tslust is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Federal District of Missouri, United Socialist States of America
Posts: 743
tslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Since making asinine suggestions and posting asinine political bullshit seems to be the order of the day, why not have Arizona secede from the union, compensate all of its residents who wish to move to the United States with a subsidy to help them get settled in a neighboring state that respects U.S. law, and be done with the craziness once for all?

Seriously ... the two of you support the idea of giving a law-enforcement agency the right to stop anyone, based on how they look, and demand to see papers? I know TracyCoxx will try to dodge answering the question, but the analogy cries out for it: what about stopping Jewish-looking people in Nazi Germany?
Far be it for me to allow something like facts to get in the way. Arizona's law does not empower law enforcement to stop people based on skin color. It simply says that the cops can check the immigration status of an individual who they have already pulled over or arrested. Furthermore, it is obama, not the State of Arizona, that does not respect U.S. law.
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it.

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

DEO VINDICE
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 06-27-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
Far be it for me to allow something like facts to get in the way. Arizona's law does not empower law enforcement to stop people based on skin color. It simply says that the cops can check the immigration status of an individual who they have already pulled over or arrested. Furthermore, it is obama, not the State of Arizona, that does not respect U.S. law.
You're correct; you didn't let facts get in the way. The provision of the law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court allowed PRECISELY what I wrote.
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 06-27-2012
tslust's Avatar
tslust tslust is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Federal District of Missouri, United Socialist States of America
Posts: 743
tslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
You're correct; you didn't let facts get in the way. The provision of the law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court allowed PRECISELY what I wrote.
The Supreme Court upheald the challenged portion that allows law enforcement to investigate the immigration status of persons allready stopped, detained, or arrested (wich means that law enforcement is only authorized to check the immigration status of people they are already dealing with) if there is a reasonable suspicion they may be here illegally.
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it.

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

DEO VINDICE
Reply With Quote
  #321  
Old 06-28-2012
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
If I were Governor Brewer, I would send a leter to obama. Telling him that as long as his administration continues it's stance against the State of Arizona members of the Department of Justice (FBI, ATF, INS, ICE) are not welcome in the State of Arizona. Furthermore, all tax revenue from the State of Arizona, destined for the Federal government, will be withheald.
Might as well. Obama has made it clear Arizona can not count on federal law enforcement. Why pay for it?

The notion that every state in the US should conduct its own foreign policy is ridiculous and can in no way be derived from the events in Arizona which seeks only to enforce federal immigration laws.

And the analogy of stopping Jewish-looking people in Nazi Germany is again ridiculous. It wasn't illegal jewish immigrants that Nazi Germany had a problem with, it was it's own jewish population they had problems with.

Apparently the opposition to the Arizona immigration policy is based on problems unrelated to Arizona immigration policy?

The real question is, why is the Obama administration actively trying to turn Arizona into a sanctuary state. I don't know, maybe it's happened before, but I can't recall... Has any other US president taken revenge on a state at anywhere near the level that Obama has against Arizona?
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 06-28-2012
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

The Mexican government says it?s disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld part of an Arizona law requiring police check the immigration status of anyone they stop. They have openly opposed Arizona?s immigration law since it was passed in 2010. Mexico says that enforcing parts of the law that were upheld by the Supreme Court would lead to violations of the civil rights of Mexicans living in or visiting Arizona.

Ok Mexico, perhaps we should just go ahead and implement your immigration laws:
Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
* Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
* The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
* Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
* A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
* A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
* Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
* Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
* Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
* Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
* Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
* "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
* Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
* Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
* A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
* Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 06-28-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
The Supreme Court upheald the challenged portion that allows law enforcement to investigate the immigration status of persons allready stopped, detained, or arrested (wich means that law enforcement is only authorized to check the immigration status of people they are already dealing with) if there is a reasonable suspicion they may be here illegally.
Yes. I was referring to the Arizona law pre-Supreme Court. Perhaps the confusion here is what people call "talking past each other."
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 06-29-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

No comment required.

Attached Thumbnails
corporation.jpg  
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 06-29-2012
Enoch Root's Avatar
Enoch Root Enoch Root is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 507
Enoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
No comment required.

And you will name it Romney Gates and it will have glorious hair.
__________________
Yo creo en el hombre.
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 07-03-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Lawrence O'Donnell so aptly calls the Affordable Care Act the Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act.
Attached Thumbnails
diminished-expectations.jpg  
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 07-03-2012
Enoch Root's Avatar
Enoch Root Enoch Root is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 507
Enoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Lawrence O'Donnell so aptly calls the Affordable Care Act the Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act.
I searched "Lawrence O'Donnell Insurance industry Profit Protection Act" and found this video: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-...89648#47989648
__________________
Yo creo en el hombre.
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 07-05-2012
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

I have some questions about Chief Justice Robert's ruling...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Justice Roberts
It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a ?penalty,? not a ?tax.? But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12?13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress?s taxing power. It is up to Congress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to any particular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress?s choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress?s constitutional power to tax.
...
We have similarly held that exactions not labeled taxes nonetheless were authorized by Congress?s power to tax.In the License Tax Cases, for example, we held that federal licenses to sell liquor and lottery tickets?for which the licensee had to pay a fee?could be sustained as exercises of the taxing power.
Ok, there is some precedent here. But it sure seems to be eroding the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.

Seems like he could have just as easily said "It is up to Congress whether to call the penalty a tax, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress's choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the statute." It just seems so arbitrary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Justice Roberts
the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more.8 It may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance, unlike the ?prohibitory? financial punishment in Drexel Furniture. 259 U. S., at 37.
It can't be more, but that's not saying it can't be equal to the price of insurance, which it eventually may rise to. Then people who wouldn't normally want to buy insurance would be paying for insurance. They would figure they might as well get the insurance since they're paying for it. In other words, as the penalty goes up, it will not be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Justice Roberts
Third, the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation?except that the Service is not allowed to use those means most suggestive of a punitive sanction, such as criminal prosecution. See ?5000A(g)(2).
Hmm... sounds like congress intended on calling it a tax then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Justice Roberts
While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. Indeed, it is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance. See Congressional Budget Office, supra, at 71. We would expect Congress to be troubled by that prospect if such conduct were unlawful. That Congress apparently regards such extensive failure to comply with the mandate as tolerable suggests that Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws. It suggests instead that the shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance."
Ok, maybe I'm still missing something. Is there somewhere else where Roberts explains how Congress has the power to tax people for NOT doing something? An amendment had to be made just so congress could tax income. How is this power automatically granted to congress?

And what about Article I Section 7 of the Constitution:
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

The Senate did not just propose a healthcare bill, they passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, on December 24th 2009. So it did originate in the Senate. The House then passed it on March 21, 2010. If it is a tax, it was enacted unconstitutionally. I don't see where Roberts explains why this is ok.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 07-25-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
I have some questions about Chief Justice Robert's ruling...

Ok, there is some precedent here. But it sure seems to be eroding the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.

Seems like he could have just as easily said "It is up to Congress whether to call the penalty a tax, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress's choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the statute." It just seems so arbitrary.

It can't be more, but that's not saying it can't be equal to the price of insurance, which it eventually may rise to. Then people who wouldn't normally want to buy insurance would be paying for insurance. They would figure they might as well get the insurance since they're paying for it. In other words, as the penalty goes up, it will not be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance.

Hmm... sounds like congress intended on calling it a tax then.

Ok, maybe I'm still missing something. Is there somewhere else where Roberts explains how Congress has the power to tax people for NOT doing something? An amendment had to be made just so congress could tax income. How is this power automatically granted to congress?

And what about Article I Section 7 of the Constitution:
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

The Senate did not just propose a healthcare bill, they passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, on December 24th 2009. So it did originate in the Senate. The House then passed it on March 21, 2010. If it is a tax, it was enacted unconstitutionally. I don't see where Roberts explains why this is ok.
NOTE TO ALL: I have been accused by TracyCoxx, in another thread, of letting the post just above languish for two weeks without answering the questions. Putting aside that the questions were not directed to me, TracyCoxx makes this accusation regardless of whether there is any proof of intent on my part specifically so he can try to paint a picture of me as not knowing about something and thus, by refusing to address the post, attempting to hide my ignorance. This method of "discussion" is something we have come to expect from TracyCoxx.

The truth is that I simply missed the post. Otherwise, I would have written my answer, quite simply, as follows.

I don't like the Affordable Care Act. I think it's a miserable compromise and that it's shameful that we don't have single-payer, universal healthcare like other advanced economies.

I do not pretend to be a Constitutional scholar. TracyCoxx raises some legitimate points for discussion regarding how the Supreme Court made its decision and how one might interpret this or that aspect of law, tradition, documents, and so on. For me, the bottom line is that the Supreme Court is empowered to INTERPRET, and I accept this interpretation as legitimate according to the Constitutionally mandated powers given to the Court.

Were I like TracyCoxx, I would demand an apology for inferring that I deliberately avoided answering the post above. But as I have written elsewhere, an apology from someone who deliberately concocts such inferences would be meaningless.
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 07-25-2012
GRH's Avatar
GRH GRH is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 531
GRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to behold
Default

The finalized bill that was passed in the Senate was actually a House resolution that was stripped of all its original language. The original House resolution was an unrelated bill dealing with VA benefits. The Senate stripped all the original language out of the House resolution, inserted the Affordable Care language, and passed a bill that first originated in the House. This is a tactic that is known as using a "shell bill." And it's completely Constitutional and has happened more frequently than many would care to admit.
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 12-16-2012
Enoch Root's Avatar
Enoch Root Enoch Root is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 507
Enoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to behold
Default

America's two tiered justice system:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ney-laundering
__________________
Yo creo en el hombre.
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 04-29-2013
Enoch Root's Avatar
Enoch Root Enoch Root is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 507
Enoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to beholdEnoch Root is a splendid one to behold
Default

Hundreds Die in Bangladesh Factory Collapse As Retailers Reject Better Safety Standards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP1cXvQKluA
__________________
Yo creo en el hombre.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Today's Favorite . . . kamsutra Freebies 1716 1 Week Ago 04:21 AM
How about political cartoons? randolph General Discussion 49 02-06-2012 10:41 AM
You're thoughts on these promising ImAlittleCurious General Discussion 12 03-11-2010 02:51 AM
Thoughts on UFO's?? violet lightning General Discussion 94 10-20-2009 10:21 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © Trans Ladyboy