Huffington Post Blogger Charged With Incest
A Columbia University political science professor that blogs at the Huffington Post was charged Thursday with having a sexual relationship with his 24 year old daughter.
As the Columbia Spectator reported:
[David Epstein] was arrested Wednesday morning and charged with one count of incest in the third degree at an arraignment hearing on Thursday. According to police, the relationship appears to have been consensual.
Epstein declined to comment when reached on his cell phone Thursday evening.
His wife, Sharyn O’Halloran, chair of the executive committee of the University Senate and a tenured professor, also declined to comment when reached by phone.
The New York Daily News reports, "Epstein, who specializes in American politics and voting rights, has taught at Harvard and Stanford and often is quoted by news organizations."
Epstein was not a frequent contributor to the Huffington Post, but what he did write was quite liberal.
His September 2009 "The President's Health Care Speech: Elevating the Terms of the Debate" was practically a love letter to President Obama, Barney Frank Frank, and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow with a dash of Bush Derangement Syndrome:
Just listen to these two clips back to back; the first is the ending section of Obama's speech last night, and the second is Rachel Maddow interviewing Barney Frank about the speech and events surrounding it.
How long has it been in this country since we were able to have a president make a major speech with actual historical themes in it, analyzing today's issues in the light of long-running discussions in the American political and intellectual tradition? And then have a major talk-show anchor and an elected representative be able to not only pick out the major themes of the speech ("only timidity passes for wisdom"), but discuss them and elaborate on them as well?
Makes you want to reach for the airsickness bag, doesn't it?
But even better, his July 2009 "Palin Proves Voters Were Right in 2008" indicates that along with having very bad judgment involving sexual partners, this political science professor doesn't have a very strong grasp of politics:
President Obama was elected because he was smart, good on policy, and would bring hope to a dispirited country. He's performed exactly as advertised, with the single exception of his banking policy, which has been far more timid than circumstances warrant. But on the stimulus plan, the budget plan, his attack on health care, the environment and other issues, Obama has been forthright, substantive, and probably more politically savvy than would have been anticipated. [....]
Democrats gained seats in the House and (now, thanks to Biden) a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate because they were seen as more willing and able to work seriously on the problems facing the country. Here again the public was right -- the Democrats are making tough policy choices and even playing their role as a check on the administration, especially in economic and financial policy, while the Republicans have become not just an ineffectual out-of-power party, but a parody of an ineffectual out-of-power party, spouting mean-sounding nonsense on major policy issues ("Government spending doesn't work!" "There is no such thing as global warming!" "Hunger is a good motivator!"), and taking hypocrisy in their personal lives to new levels of self-indulgent weirdness ("It wasn't just an affair, it was a love story!"). It's as if they're trying to get a head start on another 40 years in the wilderness.
That's some crystal ball this political science professor has, huh? Bear in mind this was written as Tea Partiers were storming town hall meetings across the country and Obama's polls were plummeting:
But Palin's decision disappointed a lot of her supporters and even casual observers (my 9-year old daughter, rather out-of-the-blue, said "I didn't think she was a quitter, or a resigner"). She may well end up happier this way; she can make money on her book deal, give lots of speeches, and maybe even found a populist-PAC, supporting Republican candidates whom she approves of and be a player within party politics. But she will never hold elected office again, and voters can rest a bit easier with that knowledge, and the knowledge that they chose wisely in all respects last year.
Well, Mr. Epstein, the voters that went to the polls five weeks ago apparently don't agree with your view of the world.
This was particularly true in Pennsylvania, as Epstein in May 2009 told his readers that Arlen Specter's defection from the GOP was a winning move:
[G]iven that his erstwhile opponent Pat Toomey (whom Specter beat 51-49 in the 2004 primary) is now running unopposed and will probably get the nomination, Specter will indeed face off against Toomey again, but in the general election rather than the primary. And here, Spector seems right now to be odds-on favorite to retain his seat.
Specter of course lost his primary battle with Joe Sestak, and Toomey will be sworn in as Pennsylvania's junior senator next month.
One can only hope the students this man has been teaching all these years have been skeptical of his political forecasts.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Instinct
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 6:51pm.
...except that children, no matter the age, are NOT supposed to engage in sexual relations with their parents or other relatives, no matter the age.
What is scary is that I have having to explain a basic, common sense, virtually instinctive thing to another human being.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
They're also not supposed to
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 10:12am.
They're also not supposed to pick their nose or scratch their mosquito bites, but the government doesn't step in to enforce that behavior, because there is no victim.
What a very sick freak
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 10:54am.
The government steps in because there IS a victim. What a sick, disgusting freak you are!
Did you just get done f***ing your sister or your mother or what? Maybe it is a guilty conscience that is forcing you to defend incest rather than admitting it is wrong?
Why don't you go ask your rabbi how he feels about incest? I'm guessing you will not like what you hear.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
As you suggest, I'll ask my
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 12:57pm.
As you suggest, I'll ask my rabbi next time I see him. I'm pretty sure he doesn't like or approve of incest. Neither do I. If you think that anybody here is saying that incest is okay, they you need to read more carefully!
Then stop endorsing incest
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 2:33pm.
You are fully backing incest by saying that the government has no business enforcing laws against incest. Which, since laws against incest merely reflect what societies, cultures and religions have felt on the matter since time immemorial, laws against incest do not bother me in the least.
But then, I understand why humanity continues to bother with silly things like "government" and "society". Both things fill you with total, uncontrollable rage.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
No, I agree that incest is a
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 9:50pm.
No, I agree that incest is a very bad thing. But surely you will agree that not every "bad" thing is illegal. If a fellow wants to shoot staples into his eyes, poop in his umbrella stand, or yodel the Meistersinger Overture in the privacy of his home (or even in a public park), nobody will arrest him.
~Nah
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 9:59pm.
He'll just be hauled away in a straitjacket, that's all.
Probably in handcuffs.
Submitted by yutsnark on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:17pm.
Probably in handcuffs. Straitjackets are rarely used these days.
Nice try
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 7:35pm.
Nice try. Incest is bad enough - no matter the age - for arrest to occur.
And defecation in one's umbrella stand if done in public can certainly incur arrest.
But then, you are basically an anarchist anyway.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
yutsnark
Submitted by Trix Rabbit on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 7:50pm.
We can both agree that incest is a bad thing. I would go a step further and say that it is one of the most wicked and insidious crimes against humanity. So, for you and Satchmo to say that there is no victim demonstrates that either you are incredibly stupid or naive.
I have family members who were involved in this shit. And that's what it is: shit. The victims are messed up for life and the perpetrator is in Club San Quentin where he damn well should be.
Consensual? Doesn't matter if it was consensual or not. And if the government doesn't get involved then that leaves it to others in society to do it. Vigilantism may not be such a bad thing...
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
It matters if it's
Submitted by yutsnark on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:08am.
It matters if it's consensual, because in that case, there is no victim.
Sickness
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 10:40pm.
Keep right on endorsing and applauding incest, you sick freak.
You need to be barred from having anything to do with children, and have your testicles cut off. Only sick freaks type what you just typed.
It is a violation of INSTINCT. It is EVIL. It is DISGUSTING. And here you are constantly endorsing it.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Butsnark
Submitted by Trix Rabbit on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 12:16am.
Thank you proving to me beyond any shadow of doubt that you are both incredibly stupid and naive. What you know about societal norms can be put in a thimble and still have room to spare.
There is no damn such thing as a victim-less crime. Prostitution? Gambling? Incest? There will always be hell to pay. The consequences will always be greater to someone in the long run.
This son of a bitch boinked his DAUGHTER. If you can still stand there like an idiot and tell me that she is NOT suffering from any kind of mental illness and is NOT a victim as a result of her pos father then you are far more disgusting and filthy-minded than you lead us to believe.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
What happened to the good old days when moonbat professors
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 1:52pm.
just screwed their students?
The title of one of his Huffpo posts bashing Republicans: "It's the Abuse of Trust, Stupid"
Nothing will happen. He's "tenured."
$20.00
Submitted by NDanielson on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 2:25pm.
Says you wouldn't be able to comment at huffpo about it. The hall monitors must be working overtime there.
Why not donate that $20 you just lost
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 11:43pm.
Why not donate that $20 you just lost to your favorite charity. There are over 2000 comments on this item already posted at HuffPo, the reactions covering the gamut as usual--from outrage to shrugs.
Jer
Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 11:50pm.
Most interesting that with the variety of comments on this thread, you reply to the one involving "numbers". Have we not discussed this before?....;-)
Yes we have, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:10am.
But that was 19 days ago, and I'm allowed to continue my obsession after a minimum of 15 days..
#16 cajun...FYISubmitted by Jer on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 8:45pm.
In my 179 weeks at NewsBusters, that's the eleventh time [including your post above] I've been accused of such nonsense--which is over three times more! than at a similar stage when I was posting at FreeRepublic.
In case anyone's counting.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/21/eleanor-clift-equates-airport-scanners-cat-scans-what-are-we-conceali#ixzz17lwXyNfK
Jer
Meh!
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:11am.
Who's keepin' count? ; )
Jerster*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:27am.
Most rehab programs extend to 30 days( dependent on Ins coverage) but in your case that would mean we would again involve debating "numbers". Therefore, I will concede to the 15 day accord so as not to cause further acute increase of "symptoms"....;-)
cajun2 -
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:28am.
Video of Jer and his brother out for a bite to eat?
Raymond Babbit's precise diary entry sounds a lot like your quoted 11/21/2010 @ 8:45pm post.
You're starting to worry me, Jer.
strat*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:41am.
You are fun even at this time of night....;-)
In less than 8 minutes it
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:53am.
In less than 8 minutes it will be 12/11/10 ET and I'm granted relief from the 15-day interval requirement on dates comprised of sequentially descending numbers.
Jer
LOL Jerster*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:08am.
If I continue to willfully induce acute symptoms from the Jerster, I would probably lose my license to practice (access denied). To prevent further enumerations, I will say goodnight....;-)
ten four, cajun
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:13am.
ten four, cajun2...
Jerster
I have written
Submitted by NDanielson on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:10pm.
well reasoned arguments refuting many of the clowns that post at huffpo, and for no reason, other than proving some fool wrong over there, have had my comments removed. In fact, I have had comments removed that made mention of their tactics. THEY REMOVE any opposition that threatens their narrative. Period. No profanity involved just refuting and calling out their BS, and slant is enough to be censored at huffpo. It is a joke. Little monitors with badges. Are you kidding???
NDanielson...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 9:40pm.
I have read comments from HuffPo libs complaining about having their posts removed--or never posted--for undiscernible reasons. It's the occasional price paid for a fully moderated comment policy.
That said, I would be interested in a recapitulation of the specific examples you raise. Because "refuting and calling out" libs by conservatives occurs ALL THE TIME at the site. I've been reading enough of the comments long enough to know beyond any doubt whatsoever that contrarian and opposing viewpoints are plentiful.
How about submitting here a proposed "well reasoned [opposition] argument" regarding a HuffPo topic and then attempt to post it there, and let's see what happens?
Jer
Roasted Sasquatchmo, anyone?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 2:51pm.
Remember, safety first: remove all the hair before placing on the grill.
Observers Of Sexual Encounters
Submitted by morristhewise on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 2:57pm.
News reports of sexual abominations are never ending, they can disgust the most liberal minded reader. There is only one way to end these crimes, and that is to make it illegal to have sex unless a law abiding third party is present.
And Yet Another Big Government Liberal Weighs In
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:26pm.
Shut up Moochelle.
Stick to being the food police.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Like islam
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:41pm.
Yeah, good idea.
At least she is 24 and not 12
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:07pm.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Satchmo's logic...
Submitted by jimbo297 on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:10pm.
...is anything but logical.
Hey, Mohammed (that a##hole) did it, so there's no problem, right?
How do you guys feel about necrophilia?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:13pm.
As long as it's in the privacy of your own home and the corpse previously consented, of course.
Cool or not cool?
~Only if it's
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:17pm.
a relative.
Yer killin me
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:23pm.
And I'm not signing anything ;)
Hmm..well I did know a girl
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:33pm.
Hmm..well I did know a girl in college who was a bit of a dead lay...
Probably....
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:36pm.
because all your girls in college were inflatable. You had to be careful, the tiniest prick will pop those things....giggity (h/t family guy)
It was low-hanging fruit. I
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:38pm.
It was low-hanging fruit. I knew someone wouldn't be able to resist.
Open Net
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:40pm.
You should have pulled the goalie a lot earlier.
Bait, not low-hanging fruit
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:46pm.
Now I will release you so you may continue with the no-holds-barred seasonal rut.
~I hear that's what happens
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:40pm.
When you have to drug them.
Not cool....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 7:01pm.
preferably. More life--like without all the screaming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:12am.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp8mAcEHWzI
I cannot resist.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Not cool, but definitely a
Submitted by yutsnark on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:22pm.
Not cool, but definitely a victimless crime.
Oxymoron
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 5:02pm.
Victimless crime - a great oxymoron.
Especially in a case where a basic, common sense, virtually instinctive rule was so grossly violated.
If you have children, you need to have your custody of them stripped from you. Immediately.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
That isn't an oxymoron.
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 6:09pm.
That isn't an oxymoron.Only to you
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 6:53pm.
Only to someone like you, who I would call an anarchist if you didn't want the government dictating people's personal finances and issuing everyone allowance money every month for food and clothing.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
There you go again with your
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 1:46pm.
There you go again with your lies and deliberate misrepresentations. It's a shame.
Satchmo whining again. THAT's a shame.
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 1:52pm.
What lies? What misrepresentations? YOU, not me, is the one here who asked, of an incestuous relationship, "What if it was consensual?"
Making that one statement shows that you condone incest. You will not ever get yourself out of that hole. Ever.
Accept some responsibility. If you don't have children yet, you need you testicles cut off. If you do, you need to have your custody of them permanently stripped.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
There's been a multitude of
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 12:26am.
There's been a multitude of them, one of which is your stating that I think the government should dictate people's personal finances. I don't think you have the slightest clue what a libertarian is or else you would never say that. You have completely misrepresented the FairTax, including the prebate. Your latest would be to say that I condone incest.
http://boortz.com/more/newsletter/102110_fairtax_primer.html
Refutation
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 1:55am.
I can say this about libertarians - I'm not one, because unlike people like you, I know that there IS in fact a purpose for societies and governments.
You condone incest. You indicated you do by saying "What if it was consensual?" right then and there, you condone it. So shut the hell up and quit whining about how I misrepresented you. it is right there, plain for all to see.
And as for your beloved UnfairTax, your little "prebate" is exactly what i say it is: having the government dish out an allowance, like a Big Parent, every single month, for people to buy food and clothing. Here's an even more shocking idea: in this age of computers, have grocery stores and retail merchants who sell clothing NOT CHARGE YOUR BELOVED CONSUMPTION TAX.
But that idea makes you extremely uncomfortable. No, the government must have control of what people spend on food and clothing. And if the serfs DARE spend more than the government tells them to or thinks is okay, the government sill stick it to those stupid serfs by socking them with a 23% sales tax/8.25% state/local tax. That is not remotely libertarian. That is actually quite authoritarian.
And for being a libertarian, your faith in government knows no bounds. Let's just say tomorrow morning we all wake up in a world where we don't pay income taxes, but we merely pay a 23% sales tax on everything we buy, and the government gives us allowance money for the things the government says we need.
YOU tell ME, and don't link to anything. Let's see you critically think for a change. What is to stop Congress from tinkering with that rate? What is to stop them from jacking up the rate to 50% for some things and 10% for other things? You actually think that of that thing were to pass somehow, that Congress would suddenly stop having an appetite for power? Please. And you think that the government wouldn't just LOVE having control of the allowance money (what you stupidly call "prebate")?
What about the five states that do not collect sales taxes? Will they be compensated somehow for having to set up the infrastructure to collect sales taxes?
What about the war you wish to declare on consumption spending -which is exactly what this idea does? How will this benefit the economy after retail establishments and other businesses begin laying off workers left and right in response to consumers slamming their wallets shut as a tax dodge?
If this is such a great idea, why has no country adopted it anywhere?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yes, you do not know what a
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 10:55am.
Yes, you do not know what a libertarian or an archarcist are. Libertarians do believe there is a purpose for government. That purpose is to protect our freedoms and rights.
I do not condone incest no matter how much you wish I do. Saying that the government should not be involved in two people's consensual sexual business in the privacy of their home does not mean one condones that business. So yes, you constantly misrepresent this.
The prebate is not an allowance. The prebate is based upon the poverty level, and every household gets a monthly prebate. It is not based upon that household's personal income. This is beneficial for the poor - especially those below the poverty level - because the idea was that a family's basic needs should be taken care of before the government takes or collects one cent from a family. The government is not dictating that the people spend the money, nor would it dictate what they can spend it on. It is meant to cover the cost of basic necessities, but an individual could choose not to spend it at all or he could choose to spend it on something other than food and clothes if he wishes. The individual decides on his or his family's needs. That is not controlling fincances and that is not dictating finances or spending.
It would not be beneficial to not include the tax for groceries or clothing because: not everyone lives at or below the poverty level, and because people - including those below or at the poverty level - could spend beyond the prebate amount on those items. The prebate offsets the tax already in the goods. It doesn't just appear once an individual goes beyond the amount of their prebate. Government wouldn't be tracking that anyway. Can you imagine the scope of bureaucracy to do that if that were the case???
The federal government does not set or control local taxes and local tax rates, and it doesn't have the authority to do so. The FairTax replaces the federal income tax. Criticising the FairTax using local tax rates is dishonest. Additionally, the 23% tax rate is NOT an exclusive tax. That means, it is not added on top of the sticker price of an item. It is an embedded tax that would replace the current 22-23% embedded taxes that are in every good.
I don't have faith in government, and neither did our Founders. That's we have a Constitution. We won't be paying 23% ON everything we buy; the 23% rate is included in the price. Again, it replaces the existing embedded taxes in every good with a tax of the same amount. It is revenue neutral that way. As I've said before, if the price tag on an item is $100, then that's all you pay (minus local sales taxes). Your receipt will show that the retailer collects $77 and the federal government collects $23. The final price is $100, not $123.
As for the jacking of the rates or altering the rates for certain things, none of that is in the current legislation that was proposed in '07 or that will be proposed in the new Congress. That is not the FairTax. The tax rate is 23%. THAT is in the legislation.
What about the five states that do not collect sales taxes? What about them? Nothing. This is a FEDERAL tax to REPLACE THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
This is not a war on consumption spending. That's preposterous. It would actually encourage spending because everyone (save for those who pay state income taxes) would get 100% of their paycheck. They could save it and pay no tax. They could give it to family and friends and pay no tax. They could invest it and pay no tax. Do you think that's government control of people's finances? Why would consumer shut their wallets when this is a revenue neutral tax? Prices wouldn't go up. In fact, prices would likely go down because taxes aren't being added at every step from procurer to manufacturer to retailer.
Why haven't other countries adopted this? Because this legislation would be the single biggest shift of power FROM the government TO the people.
It's interesting how you've said that you are familiar with the FairTax. If you truly were, you would know all of this stuff, and you would know how it got it's name, which you constantly take issue with, but only in a juvenile emotional way.
Refutation
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 3:08pm.
If you think government exists to protect our freedoms and rights, you are naive as all hell and refuse to study history. Government has to be forced into doing so. Hence things like single-document constitutions.
By saying constantly that incest can be consensual, and that government has no business enforcing millenia-old prohibitions against incest, you condone incest.
Unfortunately for you, the "prebate" IS an allowance. You can't be a libertarian. Why? Because you are comfortable with the idea of the government issuing out allowance money to every household every month to buy what THE GOVERNMENT considers necessities. That you cannot wrap your mind around that very basic concept shows me that you are not a libertarian. Besides that, it would be so much easier and require much less bureaucracy to simply not charge a sales tax at grocery stores and certain retailers. But no. YOU want the government to hand out allowance money instead. Call it a "prebate" all you want until you are blue in the face, but it IS allowance money.
When the government is handing out the money, THE GOVERNMENT IS IN CONTROL. This is why you are not a libertarian on this matter but rather an authoritarian on the level of our beloved President.
And you are desperately trying to fight reality. We WILL be paying 23% on every single thing we buy. Yes, this means, for instance, when I buy my iPhone, instead of paying $24.67 sales tax on it, I will be paying an additional $68.77. The iPhone goes from $323.67 with local taxes to $392.44 under the UnfairTax. Criticising the UnfairTax with local tax rates is 100% legit, because the local and state sales taxes aren't going away. So therefore, I have to heap an additional expenditure of 23% on almost everything I buy. (And yes, I get that this is meant to replace the income tax. A bad idea, as now, with that price tag on the iPhone, I have more incentive to buy something much cheaper as a simple tax dodge. Thus, all three taxing entities lose out, and Apple eventually loses out as fewer people are buying iPhones as a tax dodge. Apple begins laying off people, so do retailers, etc etc etc. But if you studied economics - you haven't - you'd understand what "multipliers" are.)
I have asked you to outline what these mythical "embedded taxes' are that are supposed to make it so when the UnfairTax comes, absolutely nothing will change! You have failed, and failed, and failed, and failed, and failed, and failed, again and again and again to outline what they are. It is much easier for you to whine about how my sound counter-arguments are "juvenile" and "emotional". (If anyone here is juvenile and emotional, it be you - you even throw a fit when I explain, quite logically, how even the NAME of the proposal is absurd! You have a deep emotional attachment to your pet idea and thus refuse to think the ENTIRE thing through with a bit of critical thinking, as I have.)
Here is where you have total faith in government and where you convince me you aren't a libertarian but an economic authoritarian. You say that in the legislation proposed in 2007 or will be proposed next year, the rate is 23%. Great! I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT. Because even when that happens, wait two years, or even less time, and Congress will start tinkering. Because that is what Congress does. Do you honestly think that Congress is just going to let the rate remain as it is? If you do, you are woefully naive, and are not remotely a student of history.
Why haven't other countries adopted this? Because shutting down consumer spending is not in the interest of different countries. Hence most countries have different tax regimes that include consumption taxes and income taxes, and the like. Again, your naivete is showing.
The five states that DO NOT COLLECT ANY SALES TAXES will have businesses burdened by the federal government for they will have to set up an infrastructure for collecting a tax they do not currently collect! And let me assure you, in some places in states like AK, it is going to be a real bitch. You think they are just going to cheerfully do so for FREE?
This is a war on consumption spending. It will not increase consumer spending as saving then becomes a tax dodge. Hence, in my view, if you really want the UnfairTax, you see consumer spending as a problem. The savings rate will skyrocket as consumers slam their wallets shut. (Maybe instead of upgrading my monitor on my computer or getting a better computer sound system, I'll just keep what I have and live with it. Better than forking over 31.25% to the local, state, and now federal tax man. Maybe instead of buying my lunch at Subway or MickeyDs, I'll pack my lunch, as groceries aren't taxed and the Big Nanny Government gives me ALLOWANCE MONEY to buy food...oh goody goody!...and not pay an additional 31.25% to eat at a restaurant.) As the wallets slam shut, people will go out of work, and some businesses will close their doors. "The power to tax is the power to destroy". Ever heard THAT saying before?
And I would LOVE to know, having worked in small business, how taxes aren't going to be added to every phase of production. Oh, I know...like in the landscaping business I worked in, we simply deducted all the taxes we paid for supplies from the final bill and just ate the taxes out of the kindness of our hearts. We'll cheerfully do that when we have to pay 31.25% on everything from paper to gasoline for the tractors to the tractors and mowers themselves. Yeah, right.
I do know about the UnfairTax; you are only whining I am not because in your world, there are two kinds of people: everyone who reads about the UnfairTax, which, after people read it, they instantly fall in love with it just as you have. Those who think it is a bad idea for the reason I have outlined, even after reading about it or being familiar with it? In satchmo's world, they are just stupid idiots who don't understand it. That is the ONLY reason the UnfairTax can be opposed.
And, AGAIN, if you HAVE to call your tax proposal "fair", there is a 99% chance your tax idea isn't fair. Fair is relative and is a virtue that can NOT BE ADVERTISED BUT CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR ITSELF.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Oh my goodness. Such willful
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 4:42pm.
Oh my goodness. Such willful ignorance, and you wear it as a virtue.
I think my favorite part is your calling embedded taxes "mythical," and then you recognize that they exist and try to argue they won't go away. Let me explain something to you, not that it will do any good and not that you've shown any capability to understand English, but if the income tax is eliminated, then why would there be taxes at each step from procurement to manufacture to retailer? There wouldn't because those taxes are based on INCOME. Those taxes are passed down the line to the final consumer. Eliminate the income tax, and you've eliminated those embedded taxes. So why would these taxes that you call mythical in one paragraph but then say exist in the following paragraphs continue to exist?
YOU LOSE
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 7:43pm.
"Such willful ignorance" is your counter-argument?
You lose. Since you cannot face the counter-argument, you're done.
One day you will grow up and figure out that not everyone agrees with you or thinks that a 23% consumption tax (and THEN having the government hand out allowance money for food and clothing) is a good idea. And then MAYBE, you will get better at selling your idea, and learning to actually face counter-arguments.
I call them mythical BECAUSE YOU ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO EXPLAIN THEM AND ABOVE ALL YOU REFUSE TO EXPLAIN HOW YOU MAGICALLY ARRIVED AT THE 23% RATE!!! At least I explained how your beloved UnfairTax can and will become "embedded"!
Now, when you are ready to face an actual counter-argument, post here again. Because whining that I'm ignorant, or don't understand the stupid UnfairTax, or anything else other than addressing specific points in my counter-argument, means YOU LOSE.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Exactly. I'm comfortable
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 12:02pm.
Exactly. I'm comfortable with government making sure we don't violate each other's rights. I get nervous when government tries to enforce "basic, common sense, virtually instinctive" rules. And I don't know where it gets the authority to do so.
NB's resident anarchist
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 1:53pm.
So you admit to being an anarchist.
Why do we even bother having government?
Why do we bother having society?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
What part of "I'm comfortable
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 1:57pm.
What part of "I'm comfortable with the government" leads you to believe he's an anarchist?
Fundamental questions for The Original De...
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 12:28am.
Because he doesn't believe the government nor society should have morals, folkways, norms, standards, values...you know, the things that governments and societies exist to defend?
He thinks government ONLY exists to protect people's rights and beyond that, it's "anything goes". As far as I am concerned, that's damn close to anarchy.
Now that you stepped in it, I'll ask you:
1) Why do we bother organizing ourselves into these silly things called "societies"?
2) Why do governments exist?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yes, I guess I stepped in the
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 2:10pm.
Yes, I guess I stepped in the BS once again.
An anarchist believes in NO government. Not some government, not a little government, but NO government.
Now should we move on from this point in agreeable terms, or are your questions intended to defend your loose interpretation of the definition of anarchy?
Shut up, whatever your name will be next week
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 3:14pm.
He doesn't believe government should do...anything. It only exists to protect his rights and freedoms. Murder, rape, incest? If government intervenes, that is a sign that they are fascist evil oppressors.
Now shut up and answer my questions.
1) Why do we have a government?
2) Why do we have a society?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
We don't need government.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 3:36pm.
We don't need government. Social anarchy is the way to go.
Why do we have a government? So people like you and me can argue policy while the suits in Washington pull our strings.
Why do we have a society? Historically all groups of people have formed communities as it is pertinent to human existence.
Now did you want me to shut up, or did you want me to answer your questions?
Now did you want me to shut
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 4:52pm.
Now did you want me to shut up, or did you want me to answer your questions?Everybody freeze! Everybody down on the ground! Well, which is it, young feller? You want l should freeze or get down on the ground? l mean to say, if l freeze, l can't rightly drop and, if l drop, l'm gonna be in motion. You see? Shut up! OK, then. Everybody down on the ground! You can forget that part about freezin'.
So I'm not crazy,
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 5:06pm.
So I'm not crazy, right?
Nice quote, btw. ; )
Voyage 34
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 7:47pm.
It is never a good idea to go on Voyage 34 right before checking out, and posting on, NewsBusters.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Think harder
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 7:45pm.
Why is society "pertinent to human existence"?
The rest of your answers are crap.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
government making sure we don't violate each other's rights.
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 1:58pm.
Good grief, that genie aint going back in the bottle! So genius, what keeps the Gov from violating you and your rights?
Can you underachieving dimwits get anymore pathetic?
victimless crime - INDEED an oxymoron
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 2:02pm.
I get nervous when government tries to enforce "basic, common sense, virtually instinctive" rules.
What part of nowhere on this planet and in the realm of procreation and biology is it acceptable on any level -- even the level of "right to privacy" -- to fornicate with your child do you not get? So, a big NYET (that's for Un :)) on what you wrote. The gov't/laws DO need to enforce the occasional obvious rule. This is one of them. Obviously.
And I'm with Un and anyone who thinks rationally. A "crime", by definition -- or by what we choose to label a crime -- can not be "victimless". Not possible. Even the tiniest, "silliest" crime of stealing bubble gum from a store results in lost revenue for the gum manufacturer and with incremental crimes like this, said manufacturer can go out of business... and so on.
Crimes have victims.
- Shy Obvious
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Suicide is a crime, genius.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 2:05pm.
Suicide is a crime, genius.
hey stupid
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 2:10pm.
Get back to counting beans. Seriously.
Frackin' irritant.
- Shy Jams
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Intelligent arguments are
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 2:49pm.
Intelligent arguments are apparently not your forte.
Any cliche about glass houses will do
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 12:29am.
Pot, meet kettle.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
victim of suicide
Submitted by Denny Crane on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 6:16am.
would be the person that just died.
We Are The 53%
Nope. Suicide is not a
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 10:22am.
Nope. Suicide is not a crime.
It is not an oxymoron.
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 12:14am.
It is not an oxymoron. Possession of marijuana is a crime, but there is no victim of the crime. Yes, there is such a thing as victimless crime, and there are plenty of examples.
Loser
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 12:30am.
Indeed, there is, pothead.
I guess I get to add "Loser" to your lists of titles. For if you are a pothead, you automatically are a complete loser.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Keep the stupid coming...
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 2:47am.
Doing pot is OBVIOUSLY, to non-dumb people, a crime with a victim because it alters your behavior, which in turn spills out and effects (VICTIMIZES!!) the life and people around you. It can effect your job performance -- making the boss/your colleagues/the company VICTIMS -- and makes you less responsible, making VICTIMS of people who count on you.
Killing yourself (the stupid example stupid bal made, above) VICTIMIZES all the people you bring pain to emotionally, and especially the closer loved ones you abandoned.
- Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
MrShy, You mean beer?
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 3:05am.
MrShy,
You mean beer?
The example used was
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 12:17am.
The example used was possession of marijuana. Truly a victimless crime. But to go with your baseless hysteria, a person willingly smoking pot does not make that person a victim of a crime. People are capable of weighing risks and making decisions for themselves. A person smoking pot in his living room is not victimizing anyone, nor does it "spill out" and affect the life and people around him; they are not victims of a crime.
You have a weird sense of criminal victimhood.
I disagree Satchmo
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:49pm.
You could be right if the person possessing the marijuana grew it him/herself. However the "spill out" already occurred to get that marijuana to the street and is done solely so someone will buy it. Did the marijuana come from a Mexican cartel? Lots of victims from those guys. Was it smuggled across the border by willing or forced mules? More victims. Was it sold by a drug gang? Many more victims. As the law stands now, drugs cause victims from the moment they are planted/produced. While I would agree there are victimless crimes, drugs are not one of them.
Loser behavior
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 7:50pm.
Yeah, then the pothead gets the wise idea to work a little bit to pay for more pot, and then hits me at work with his forklift (or whatever heavy machinery you prefer) not long after smoking a joint.
Engaging in loser behavior is criminal, and has very real victims.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Driving while intoxicated is
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 2:56pm.
Driving while intoxicated is a crime, but who is the victim without an accident?
Sodomy is illegal in some states, but with 2 willing participants, which is the victim?
What are we talking about again? Oh yeah, the myth of the victimless crime.
Driving drunk and stoned while committing sodomy
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 3:07pm.
Just another Sunday afternoon in the gated community of Zipper Acres.
That was dumb.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 3:09pm.
That was dumb.
FYI re sodomy laws.
Submitted by yutsnark on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:31pm.
According to Wikipedia: By 2002, 36 states had repealed their sodomy laws. A Supreme Court decision in 2003 invalidated the rest.
Wikipedia
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 7:51pm.
Ah, yes. Wikipedia, that great resource for academics everywhere. If it's on Wikipedia, it must be true!
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Oy. First you say that you
Submitted by yutsnark on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:19am.
Oy.
First you say that you don't want any citations -- you just want my opinion. Now you're demanding a more scholarly citation. So, here's one from Duke Law School.
http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/lawvtex
"Justice Kennedy's majority opinion forcefully declared that there is a fundamental right for consenting adults to engage in private sexual activity. Justice Kennedy said that this right is protected under the word "liberty" in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "
Hey yutsick
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 10:49pm.
When appropriate, citations are fine - for the love of the Shahinshah, sicko, grab a legit one. Wikipedia is never legit. never has been, and never will be.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Hey Unslime
Submitted by yutsnark on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 12:32am.
Right. And since you don't like wikipedia, I offered another citation. Does that one meet with your approval?
Nothing
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 11:16pm.
Nothing you do meets with my approval at this point, other than hearing you have been locked up, you sick, disgusting freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane's disapproval
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 6:05pm.
Ok. If I get locked up, I'll let you know.
In the meantime, have a Merry Christmas!
victimless crimes
Submitted by yutsnark on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:34pm.
Possession of an illegal weapon is a victimless crime.
No
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 11:17pm.
There is no such thing as a victimless crime, sick freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Definitely not cool. I'm not
Submitted by yutsnark on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:20pm.
Definitely not cool. I'm not sure whether it violates any laws. Do you know?
How do you guys feel about zoophilia?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:52pm.
As long as it's in the privacy of your own barn, you own the animal and it is fully weaned?
Cool or not cool?
Dunno....ask Satchmo
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:55pm.
It may be a clear cut case of government tyranny.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
~By all means
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:56pm.
Screw it's brains out. Just don't eat it. Meat is murder.
"Rich's legislation would
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:28pm.
"Rich's legislation would target only those who derived or helped others derive "sexual gratification'' from an animal, specifying that conventional dog-judging contests and animal-husbandry practices are permissible.
That last provision tripped up Miami Democratic Sen. Larcenia Bullard. "People are taking these animals as their husbands? What's husbandry?" she asked.
Some senators stifled their laughter as Sen. Charlie Dean, an Inverness Republican, explained that husbandry is raising and caring for animals.
Bullard didn't get it.
"So that maybe was the reason the lady was so upset about that monkey?" Bullard asked, referring to a Connecticut case where a woman's suburban chimpanzee went mad and was shot.
"I'm not familiar with that particular incident or case," Dean said.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/article982771.ece
Very intriguing, Sasquatchmo
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 5:04pm.
So we'll put you in the YES column for that, too.
EDIT: Oops, I meant to write ewe, not you.
zoophilia
Submitted by yutsnark on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:37pm.
Not cool.
A hypothetical (for Satchmo)
Submitted by Model850 on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:53pm.
You have been arguing the young woman's age and the so-called consensual nature of this abhorrent and perverted relationship. OK. Here's a hypothetical for you:
This relationship began when the daughter was 12, an age when she could not "consent." The father coerced the relationship as a condition of his continued love for her. The sick coupling continued year after year, the young girl growing more and more emotionally disconnected from the perversion she knew in her heart was wrong, but too afraid to end it because she didn't want to risk losing her father's love.
Even after turning 18 (when she could "consent") she was too submissive now to refuse his advances. Having fallen victim now to the Stockhom Syndrome, she has convinced herself she is agreeing to the relationship -- it's natural -- a position she cannot recant due to her years-long indoctrination and the endless threats of the withdrawal of her father's love.
Still think it's consenual? Can you NOW condemn this and agree it IS the government's (the law's) duty to interfere?
If he sexually abused her,
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:22pm.
If he sexually abused her, then he should be tried and if found guilty, put to death, regardless of her age. If she were underage, then it should be by the most painful means possible.
To bring it all full circle: Unfortunately, SCOTUS has ruled against the death penalty in these cases, and unlike Palin, I am able to cite a SCOTUS decision I disagree with.
IF???
Submitted by Model850 on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:33pm.
That he sexually abused her as a child is extremely likely. It seems nigh on to impossible that this woman just woke up one day -- as a consenting adult -- and thought, "Hmmm. Today would be a good day to get it on with Dad! Oh, Daddeeeee! Could you come in here for a minute?"
Sheesh. "If" he abused her.
LOL! Waitaminute. You just
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:45pm.
LOL! Waitaminute. You just presented a hypothetical and now you're taking issue with the word "if"??? IF is the hypothetical, dude. This is what we're freaking discussing. This is your hypothetical; this is your "if". Holy cow! LOL.
OK, you got me there
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 5:00pm.
Calm down, though. It's not that big of a victory, dude.
I saw your "if" and admittedly succumbed to a knee-jerk reaction against what at first glance seemed to be more of your defending this scumbag's "right" to boff his daughter. I didn't read the "if" as your continuing the hypothetical. Perhaps if it had been written as "Well in that case, yes, he's a scumbag." Sorry for the confusion.
But again; calm down, dude. It was a pretty small "win" for you.
Name it.
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:35pm.
SCOTUS has ruled for and against many things in it's history. I doubt Palin could have just named in issue and said she disagreed with the courts decision without Couric saying "Can you name any?"
Kelo immediately came to mind
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:42pm.
Kelo immediately came to mind when I heard that question. It's been a burning issue for years, especially for conservatives and libertarians (and there is cross pollination there). The SCOTUS case I was just referring to had only been decided a couple of months before Couric asked the question, so it should have been fresh on Palin's mind given that she was governor of a state. The case was Kennedy v. Louisiana.
Congrats
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:46pm.
Only took you seven minutes with the aid of the internet. I don't think Palin had that advantage.
Believe what you wish.
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 5:07pm.
Believe what you wish.
Wrongo
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:58pm.
If the insane crap you've been spewing in this thread is a representative "libertarian" viewpoint, then no...
there is ZERO ZERO ZERO cross-pollination between conservative and libertarians.
~Pollination
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 6:02pm.
Satchmo has got a one-track mind...
You assume
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:44am.
You assume satch here has a mind. It doesn't, at least not of his own.
(Like the new SN)
~Thanks
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:01pm.
I've gotten lots of compliments on it. Brings out my eyes, I think.
I thought William Buckley had
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 12:17pm.
I thought William Buckley had some libertarian views -- for example, legalizing marijuana. Was he not a conservative?
Check yourself
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 6:15pm.
In your zeal to attack Palin, you forgot: it was Christine O'Donnell who could not cite a SCOTUS case she disagreed with.
Either way your views here are disturbing to say the least.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You obviously are unfamiliar
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 6:22pm.
You obviously are unfamiliar with Couric's interview, which was discussed in the recent Barbara Walters thread. In it, Palin was unable to name or identify a SCOTUS decision with which she disagreed.
Just as you are obviously unfamiliar
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 6:30pm.
Just as you are unfamiliar with the O'Donnell debate with which I am more familiar.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
O'Donnell has nothing to do
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 6:42pm.
O'Donnell has nothing to do with this discussion. I was referring to another discussion in the Walters' thread that others here participated in. The comment was for them. I couldn't care less how familiar you are with the O'Donnell debate; it has no relevance.
Hey Stupid, why don't you tell Unsane about your Stupid.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:35am.
Stupid calls Palin stupid and can't understand the irony.
Stupid says we don't have a 2 party system.
In the face of overwhelming evidence of his Stupid, HE SAYS IT AGAIN.
I think you've come out on
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:50am.
I think you've come out on the losing end of those 1000 psychic wars. I implore you to seek professional help.
Why don't you defend the charge
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:00am.
Instead of acting as if you're above it. You're not. You're busted.
I've stated clearly in the
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:06am.
I've stated clearly in the other thread why we do not have a two-party system. Follow the links. There are at least two posts in which I explain to him and ask him questions. Vet, who is apparently a very unstable person, can only type the word "stupid" and is unable to address any single one of my points regarding the false notion of a two-party system.
Who's unstable?
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:10am.
The guy calling an idiot stupid or the guy defending incest.
Full On Stupid. Balls out Stupid. You go Stupid!
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:17am.
A two–party system is one where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections at every level of government. - wikipedia.
Come on Stupid. Keep on a keepin' on. PROUDLY FLY YOUR STUPID FLAG.
You see that word up there Stupid? What is that word that you keep missing? Come on. Tell us. That nasty nasty nasty word that starts with an N and ends with a Y.
Yeah Stupid. Your examples of exceptions are NOW the rule.
Tell us again how we do not have a 2 party system STUPID. Go on. We are waiting.
Le'ts all salute the Stupid flag waving proudly in Stupid Satchmo's front yard.
Whatever
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:38am.
When another party holds more seats than dems and reps, contact me.
C-ya
But that is not the measure
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:48am.
But that is not the measure of a two-party system. Certainly two parties dominate, but it would be foolish to deny that there are office holders from a number of other parties, and it would be foolish to deny that these other parties run candidates for president. I'm sure you even had some on your 2008 ballot, did you not? Of course you did. There were quite a few on mine. Therefore, we do not have a two-party system. The system is that anyone can run for office provided they meet the state's criteria, usually collected signatures and release of finances, and they don't even have to belong to a party. Do the two dominant parties sometimes control that criteria? Yes, of course.
Saaaaaaaaaa-lute.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:50am.
Fly that Supid flag Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll.
Political Parties in the United States
Two-party system dominating U.S. politics since the 1860s
Question for the Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll -
Why is it Stupid Satchmo thinks incest between consenting adults is none of our business but calling a Stupid troll by Satchmo's given name, Stupid, needs to be banned?
Trollie don't want name calling on the internet but trollie was incest to be legal.
Why is that trollie?
You're an idiot
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:00am.
And you may be due compensation for having stupid parents or teachers.
Do the two dominant parties sometimes control that criteria? Yes, of course.You contradict youself right there.
That's not a contradiction.
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:16pm.
That's not a contradiction.
Didn't I tell you to shut up Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:30pm.
Holy Cow, you are one STUPID troll.
A two–party system is one where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections at every level of government. - wikipedia.
What does that NEARLY word mean to you Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo Troll?
You have serious comprehension problems don't you? People rip you off at McDonalds all the time making change. You can't think in real time.
COME ONE STUPID. SHINE ON. Tell us what part of NEARLY confuses you?
Stupid. Butt Hurt Stupid. Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo. Not gonna ever live that one down.
Now say something else to prove your Stupid.
Troll Deflect-O-Rama, in 3D Smell-O-Vision!
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:53pm.
Get yer cardboard glasses out, you ignorant people. We've solved the Incest-between-consenting-adults-thing, now we're gonna get schooled on the flat tax and the fallacy of the two-party system.
All in one thread. It's amazing, unprecedented and yet somehow totally sickening.
Gittin up a full head of Stupid!
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:03pm.
Chuck Chuck Chuck. Throwin' in the coal sir. Chuck Chuck Chuck.
Beeeeeee-aaaaaaallllllllllsssss Outtttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maximum Full Head Of Stupid! Hang on to your hats.
Where did the little Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo go anyway? He is gonna have to buy another carload of coal if he wants to maintain this level of Stupid.
Boiler #2 has a crack, Sir,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:43pm.
and may be about to blow. Orders?
Damn the Trollpedoes!
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:52pm.
Full Stupid ahead! We'll take the risk she will blow. Where is the Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll? We need more coal!
So be it... onward to destiny!
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 6:02pm.
BTW, regarding the MIAT: tonight Minnesota has permitted a 6-hour limited sasquatch hunt to cull the population. They're all either hunkered down under pine branches or at a romantic dinner with their daughters.
You iz good.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 6:07pm.
No wonder the diaper wearing Dead Zippers hates you.
Dine under the pine
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 10:09pm.
Unfortunately, a six-hour hunt doesn't give us much time. Fortunately, sasquatchi tend to hunker and dine at the same spot.
Jer
No, it's you that is losing...
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:02am.
You are defending a disgusting relationship (incest) as it's ok as long as it's "concentual"... the Vet has busted your ass left and right and you continue on. You suck, period! Carry on freak! You are the one that needs professional help, defending a father that fucks (yes, I said it) his own daughter as ok as long as it is "consensual". I will get banned but I don't care, this is wrong and you can't defend it. Asshole!
Sorry NB, this jerk has gone on way too long, ban me if you must, it's worth it to tell this jerk off... sick basturd.
I, for one, Ruk
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:08am.
Will defend you to the hilt. You have said nothing wrong here. Sometimes coarse language is called for, and this is one of those times.
Thank you R1
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:29am.
I never use that kind of language but it seemed appropriate for this. I appologize for my language but crap, this pisses me off to no end! It is so wrong that someone is appologizing for incest. Incest in NEVER, EVER OK! NEVER! I only hope I can log on tomorrow. I would hate to think that some incest appologist got me nuked from NB, that would be BS. I, again, appologize for the language...
Effin' duplicate
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:41pm.
Sigh.
No, I am not defending the
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:09am.
No, I am not defending the relationship nor am I defending incest. I have said that it is disgusting and irrational. What I have questioned is how it is the government's business what two consenting adults do when there is no victim of force or fraud. I think if you took a step back and attempted to look at this objectively and rationally instead of emotionally, you might be able to discuss it. "It" being how or why this should be government's business.
Whatever Stupid.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:23am.
A manboy with a case of the Full On Stupids says he is indeed not stupid and as such should not be treated as though he is stupid.
Respect him and hisStupid Flag at Full Staff. He demands it.
Tell us manboyStupid. If we are to believe we do not have a 2 party system as been printed and taught for nearly 200 years. What do you say we have? Stupid. manboy. manboyStupid.
No Scrath
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:23am.
You ARE defending incest "if it is consenual' (paraphrasing). That's BS Scratch!!! Don't matter if it's consensual or not, it's wrong, wrong, wrong!!!! Not defensible! EVER!!! She didn't wake up one morning and decide to screw dad, it was taught to her, that. is. obvious!!! Don't defend it, consensual or not!! Don't defend it!!! EVER!!! It's wrong and illegal, GET IT??? Guvment don't matter (even though it's ILLEGAL!) DON"T DEFEND IT!!!
Incest is cool Rukus.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:30am.
It is calling trollies Stupid that is wrong. Look how butt hurt he is getting because someone called him Stupid.
Butt Hurt Stupid manboy Trollies don't think things through.
Trollie wants a law banning humans from calling trollies Stupid or butt hurt. But incest, yeah, trollies are all over that.
I agree that it's wrong. I
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:33am.
I agree that it's wrong. I have never said that it isn't illegal. There is no doubt that it is illegal. That has never been in dispute. I think you're confusing my questioning of government as a defense of incest when that couldn't be farther from the truth. As disgusting as it is, it was consensual. This is a fact. The relationship began when she was an adult. This is a fact. There was no victim. This is a fact. There was no force or fraud. This is a fact. Therefore, it really isn't government's business.
Is there a federal law against it?
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:48am.
If there is good, but I supplied a link to state laws against it. As a State's rights advocate, I don't see where you are going with this.
I would wager that if you pollled the populace, most in every state would be against incest, therefor, states enacting laws against it would seem to make sense.
You're not some idiot anarchist, are you? Maybe just a pervert??
Again, we are not debating
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:42pm.
Again, we are not debating whether it is illegal or not, nor are we debating whether it should be under the federal or the state.
Following your logic, I wonder if you polled the populace and they said that everyone with blue eyes should be executed that you would think enacting laws to support that would seem to make sense.
~Oh yes
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:57pm.
Support your theme with an impossible hypothetical, it adds to your credibility.
Restless 1's scenario is highly likely, yours is utterly inane. Keep going.
Talk about the old strawman
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:59pm.
Good grief.
For someone who claims to be a libertarian rather than a liberal, you surely argue like a liberal.
Change the subject, attack the poster, whine, change the subject, whine, whine, whine.
Poor Mr. Incest Defender. You can't win defending this abonimation of a position you've chosen.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
We aint doing nothing Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo Troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:01pm.
You are piling on the steam and getting your Stupid balls out.
Tell us why the word nearly sends you into apoplectic fits of stupid.
Tell us Balls Out Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo, what kind of party system do we have iffen it ain't a 2 party system.
Poor strawman...
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:48pm.
You set him up then smacked him to the ground! I'm impressed! NOT!! Try again daughter effin' defender! No, never mind that, just shut up and go away, freak.
But trollie...
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:54am.
It should be the governments business to outlaw calling Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo trolls names, right?
Question for the Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll -
You figure out what that N word was trollie?
Many countries have numerous political parties (groups of people who join together to try and win political office and thereby control the government) but the US exists under a two-party system. The two major parties in America are the Democratic and Republican parties. They act as coalitions and attempt to win elections. We currently have a two-party system because of not only historical precedent and tradition but also the electoral system itself.
Another question for the Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll -
How deep does your Stupid go anyway?
You do not dictate terms to me. Understand?
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:16am.
Unfortunately for you, you brought up something where O'Donnell was most certainly relevant.
For a "libertarian" you sure are a disgusting, hate-filled creature who loves to talk down to people and constantly bark orders at people.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Ew
Submitted by Kat Outta the Bag on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:57pm.
Just...ew.
What if it was consensual????!
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:02pm.
It is a crime...spell that with me, C-R-I-M-E.
He, being the father is the responsiable one. The one that knows it is aginst the law. And it is aginst the law for a reason. The same reasons that brother and sisters are not allowed to marry. Not even in Arkansas!
Another question, how did the police find out? Did the daughter rat the liberal blogger out? Did mom find out? It's not like the cops just parked outside one day and decided to go look in the windows.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Okay, I think there has been enough fornicating on NB today
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:19pm.
I mean, all the articles about the dems screaming for Obama to be forked, and now a perfesser gets busted for porking his very own daughter (eww).
LOL - Enough is enough.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Me, too. I'm about all f-ed out.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 5:06pm.
The upside is I didn't even have to take anyone out to dinner.
SoL,
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 5:36pm.
LOL.
You know, after reading down this thread for a second time, it is clear we have some seriously sick and twisted people here at NB. :-O
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave-
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 6:52pm.
5 hours later, almost 100 posts, and as many thumpings, and our primate relative is still going at it.
Talk about staying power.
????
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 6:06pm.
You say that as if there were something wrong with it!
As a Prog/Lib....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 6:15pm.
If ("if") I were a Prog/Lib I would say, since I don't believe in God and my motto is "Mind yer own bees-wax", I would say, "Well, I don't believe incest is right for me, you know? But just because it's not right for me, I wouldn't criticize you for doing it. I mean, who am I to pass judgement on you, man? I mean, we're all sentient beings on this planet, man. And, if you're not hurting anyone else and the chick's into it, I mean, who am I? You know?"
Like you were warned about the brown acid, man
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 7:13pm.
;)
With apologies to Noel, a word to my friends about the FairTax
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 9:22pm.
I realize this is off topic, but having read the comments on this thread concerning the FairTax, some of you seriously need to take the time to read both this and then this, as it appears many of you have fallen victim to much of the BS being spread around by its opponents.
I am truly convinced that the only real chance we have to wrest the power back from the federal government that our current tax laws have allowed it to take from us is the repeal of the 16th Amendment and the abolishment of the IRS.
Our current system is broken beyond repair, and thus cannot be "fixed." We tried what was essentially a flat tax in the mid 1980s, and the ink on it wasn't even dry on it before congress began to screw with it.
They will do so again, as they just cannot help themselves.
No, the only way for the people of this country to regain the power our founders never intended for the federal government to have, is to take away forever the federal government's direct access to our incomes, and to send their instrument of tyranny, which is the IRS, packing once and for all.
Or, we can keep trying in vain to tweak the hideous system in place now, and kick back and watch this country sink into a tyrannical, statist Hell-hole - because that is exactly where we are headed, and we are going to get there far sooner than most think.
You see, it won't just be your children and their children living under tyranny.
It will also be most of us here.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Good man. Let me add that
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:02am.
Good man. Let me add that some critics say that if the FairTax were passed, then we'd have both the FairTax and the income tax in place at the same time. This is not true, as language in the FairTax resolution, H.R. 25, specifically states that it will only be implemented upon repeal of the 16th amendment. If anyone here truly believes himself to be a conservative, truly wishes to eliminate the debt and deficit, then I urge you to educate yourself about the FairTax by following the links in Dave's post.
Let's see Scrath...
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:33am.
Fair Tax discussion vs. I support incest as long as the guvment ain't involved.... Hmmmmm.... Asshole!!!! Yeah, we get it freak.
Wow.
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:34am.
Wow.
Hmmm, wow upside down would be
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:42am.
mom. Got issues?
I wonder if he kisses his
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:45am.
I wonder if he kisses his mother with that mouth? Such vulgar language.
We know
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:48am.
You would support him if he did much more than kiss his mother.
Really???
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:49am.
Grow up.
☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣ ☣ Scratchmoore ☣ ☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:46am.
I wore my polygamy porter T shirt today, and I come on to NB and find you, Playing dad, WTF!
Oh ...BTW ... Adding a fair tax + irs, is the "logical" next step, a whole new agency.. A Homeland fair tax security agency.
You Didn't Build That.
The warped views of satchmo
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:25am.
Get it straight, both you AND Dave.
It is the UnfairTax. See, whenever you HAVE to call your tax proposal "fair", 99% of the time, IT ISN'T FAIR.
Besides, satchmo wants to be owned and controlled by the government to the point where he wants the government to give him and everyone else an allowance to buy food and clothing. Some lover of freedom he is.
Unless, of course, it is sex with relatives, which is something he will cheerfully fight and die for.
What a warped set of priorities.
And I so love the self-reghteousness of satchmo here. Now, unless you support a horrifically unfair tax scheme which has the government giving you an allowance every month to buy food and clothing, that severely punishes the poorest Americans, and one that will force Americans to slam their wallets shut, you aren't a c onservative, in his eyes.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Dave, Hawaii already has one, It's called the "Excise tax" @4.5%
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:20am.
Here's the deal: When you buy stuff every single entity and persons pay a 4.5% tax, oh yes that is also charged on Labor, and added in addition to the fed gas tax, Just one of them tax on a tax..things.. No matter if you run a business or not. As a business you shell out 4.5% when you buy stuff. Then you collect 4.5% for the state when you sell it. What happens if there are sub-contractors in the loop? Get this: They do the same tax pay/collect dance pay the tax and collect the tax, for the state (a" free" service).. hummm Let's see that's 18%.... Oh in the fine print...however/option when selling business to business the transaction fee/tax is only ah 1/2 %... Sweet...so only pushing a tax of 13%
IRS code is 70,000 pages, Newer versions trump older ones just like the MO of the camel washers hand book.
You Didn't Build That.
As you well know,
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:33am.
As you well know, upcountry............that exise tax can double or even triple by the time some transactions take place!!! And........if you're self-employed (or, in my case, self UN-employed), they want the 4 % of everything that you make (minus the subcontractors), even if you've ALLREADY paid 4% on the original purchase or transaction....................and they also want the 4 % on your INCOME.........plus state and federal taxes!!!!
We DO call this place the 'People's Republic of Hawaii'.....................
Yippie We get more dems, truly the land of polynesian paralysis.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 4:06am.
It's the tax on a tax thing that ticks me off the most.
You Didn't Build That.
Yeah..........I 'm sure that
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 4:43am.
Yeah..........I 'm sure that Maui has it's share of them........but we have been getting a lot of rich mainland lib yuppies over here for the past few years. They show up.....buy some pricey place, drive around in their SUV's or Hummers (whatever the hell happened to the 'carbon footprint' or whatever the hell it was with these 'greenies'???) and start telling the locals and the long time residents how they're supposed to live!!!! I've had a couple around my own rural neighborhood in recent years. In fact, there's a guy not too far from me who just moved in...........a 'malihini', with a big Ford F-350 and an Obama bumper sticker!!!
Do you think that I give these people ANY slack??? I"ve lived here all my life.......these clowns are a bunch of posers and wanna-bees!!!! They try and talk to me and find out everything that I've spent my whole life learning, so that they can act like they actually know something!!!!! But, of course, I love to toy with them............and when they find out I'm NOT a lib.........they immediatly leave me the F*** alone!!!!! Which is fine with me!!!!!
Where did you go Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:21am.
Out there desperately googling the intertubes to find suntin, anytin to back you up on your Stupid?
America’s Two Party System
The Democrats and The Republicans
Yeah Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll. That is all you are gonna find.
Now act all BUTT HURT because I called you Butt Hurt.
Come back Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:19am.
You forgot to tell us why incest between consenting adults is A-OK with you but a little name-calling between consenting adults gets your knickers all twisted up and your butt a flame throbbin' hurtful.
Tell us trollie.
Don't go away mad Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:57am.
Tired of some insane user that has taken offense at your trolling and stupidity and taken to calling you Butt Hurt and Stupid? Don't get mad. Turn up the trollin'. Notch it up baby.
Here are 20 tried and true troll tactics when things get all a butt hurtin'.
The Abridged Troll Bible - New Testament.According to Dead Zippers.
Whoops. I see you already tried number 3 - Whine about threads getting disrupted or mucked up when your troll ways are pointed out. - Satchmo: ...someone with the intent on causing disruption.
Whoops again. Looks like your already tried number 12 - Claim anyone that dare point out your troll ways are actually the trolls not you - Satchmo: From what I see, you are the troll.
Dang. And you took a stab at number 9 - Claiming people that point out your troll ways are in a meltdown or will meltdown soon. - Satchmo: You are mental.
Wow. Are you sure you weren't in on writing the New Testament of the Troll Bible?
Anyhoo. If you burn through those 20 and you butt is still a hurtie poundin'. Have solace. There are still plenty of moves. Try this - change your name to a derivation of the user that is putting the Butt Hurt on you by proving how stupid you are. Then BLACKMAIL him. Tell him you won't change it back until your butt stops a achin'. That is right. BLACKMAIL. That will draw people to your cause.
Finally. When all else fails. Make threatening stalker style posts. Do you know if the user has children or a wife or pets in his yard? Use it against him. ----
++++++++++++
#156 Are you a gun owner?
Submitted by The Original De... on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 11:19pm.
Are you a gun owner? Do your children take the same walking route to school everyday? Does your dog like drinking that tasty blue water? Does your wife still keep her unmentionables in the 2nd drawer from the top of that walnut stain dresser?
+++++++++++++
Well, that is all I got. Good luck with that sore red tender hurt butt of yours.
Thank you Vet
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:53pm.
I'm done with his dumb ass. Thank you sir, skin him if he show's back up sir. frellin'g ba*tard he is... Hoo rah!!!
Satchmo has a point.
Submitted by mdgiles on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 8:37am.
You know, having listened to Satchmo, whose position seems to be the less government in our lives the better - period; and the rest of you people, whose position seems to be the less government in our lives the better - except for those things which we find disgusting and/or just don't like, I'm forced to go with Satch. The events, as reported, state both were consenting adults. We may believe that the current incident points to earlier abuse, but that's not what was stated. I'm pretty much in favor of allowing adults to act in any manner their sick little minds can dream of. As long as they aren't doing it in the middle of the street , scaring kids and blocking traffic, I don't care.
I know, it isn't very Christian of me to show no concern for state of their immortal souls, but that's just the way I am. I have my own problems to worry about.
BTW, one of you claimed that the totally cost of producing any good or service - including taxes - wasn't embedded in the final price. Although you say this is what you were taught, I believe you may have misunderstood your economics professor.
Congrats
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 8:52am.
Another incest defending pervert graces the boards. Maybe you could show concern for the law? In Satchmo's own words incest is "irrational" and as previous posters with experience in social work have pointed out, it would be "rational" to assume years of abuse that led up to such an irrational and disgusting act. Not to mention that the act of incest can result in a child with horrible birth defects. But hey, as long as they keep that three armed disfigured abomination out of the street, you don't care....right?
PS...Three year member and this is the post you reveal yourself with??
Retread
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 9:16am.
A very pitiful retread at that. With an affinity for global warming.
having "listened" to satchmo*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:48pm.
Now thats called a "tell".
Looks like we have another
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:11pm.
Looks like we have another sleeper troll account activated.
How anyone can EVER defend the act of incest is beyond me. How sick and perverted are you to ever EVER think of having ANY sort of sexual relations with your children?
You are SICK,SICK, SICK!!!!!!!!
Is that you, Giles? Back from the troll grave...
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 7:27pm.
...to haunt us once again?
I notice your first post just happened to land in Noel's thread.
Hmm.
You aren't going to start defending Al Gore and his now proven-to-be-a-scam AGW BS again, are you?
Damn, was that ever annoying.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
~The one thing PT was good for
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 7:30pm.
Was slapping Giles down.
It was like watching two robots flail each other, beeping like maniacs.
Bru.. I agree, that was fun to watch.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:52pm.
Shoots, I have a book marked page where pt, linked 100 red lines of AGW stuff, whacking giles ... All electron dust in the new and Improved NB 2.0...
Posting on page two, lmao....
You Didn't Build That.
Idiots collide
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 3:09pm.
Watching Giles Winterbourne and Poppie go at it was the textbook example of idiots colliding.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I hope you don't have children
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 3:08pm.
Giles and Satchmo, here's your history homework assignment:
Name a society anywhere on earth in human history that has looks upon incest as you do.
If you have children someone out there would do them a great favor if they went through some legal channels to permanently strip you of custody of them. That goes for Satchmo as well.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Oh great! We got another sick
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 10:02am.
Oh great! We got another sick frellin' incest defender, mdgiles (mother-daughter-get-it-like-eeeet's-suave) it's WRONG, BAD, ILLEGAL, EVIL, NASTY,DISGUSTING, DON'T YOU TWO GET IT???? Where's my coffee? 'Cause if I had a gun....freaks!!!
Not another one
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:23pm.
My guess is it's the same one.
You could be right
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:35pm.
But I should prolly go hang out with Dave and keep a low profile for a while so I don't go off again, savvy? ; )
What's on the grill Dave? I'll bring the Sam Adams.
I cannot believe some of the
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:27pm.
I cannot believe some of the disgusting apologizers for incest on this thread. Truly awful.
I thought I has wandered into the Huffington (as intelligent as a) Post.
And that's all the time I will spend on this topic.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
One of them is the Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo Troll
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:42pm.
One of the more stupid trolls of late. What do you expect from a troll that gets confused by the number two?
Jack, Good of you let us know you haven't run out of heating oil
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:13pm.
Yet....
January weather here, huge cold front sweeping through here almost touching the equator.
You Didn't Build That.
upcountry -- yes, it's bloody
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:00pm.
upcountry -- yes, it's bloody freezing over here in Blighty! Damn that global warming!!
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Fun Fact
Submitted by Pharmer on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:42pm.
The first article I had seen (NY Daily News) didn't mention which relative Epstein was bedding, so I was checking incest laws to figure it out.
In New York it's legal to marry your own cousin. In Kentucky, it's absolutely not legal. In Indiana, it's only legal if they can't reproduce.
What's with these leftists? Have they utterly left their eugenics behind or have they become completely dependent on abortion??
(Plays a bit of dueling banjos in honor of kinky Dave.)
Almost dinnertime...
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:47pm.
I have a hot date with my daughter (an adult, mind, you) and I promised her lobster.
Au voir till Monday!
~SoL
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:58pm.
Don't do anything I wouldn't do.
I hope his younger daughter is kept at a distance
Submitted by ekslib on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 7:03pm.
from him. He mentions his 9 year-old daughter in his HuffPo Blog
Palin Proves Voters Were Right in 2008http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-epstein/palin-proves-voters-were_b_2...
"But Palin's decision disappointed a lot of her supporters and even casual observers (my 9-year old daughter, rather out-of-the-blue, said "I didn't think she was a quitter, or a resigner")."
So was this matter related to
Submitted by TCinAZ on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 6:52am.
So the matter related to this institution of "High Learning" was just a case of
A) Sit non doctissima coniux
B) Res angusta domi
C) A "Homer Simpsony" YEE-HAW, Rip-Roarin' Good Time
or D) All Of The Above, Cass?
I mean, your Prog friend is supposed to be an "intellectual". So..
I can't believe the incest trolls are still pounding away
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 12:22pm.
They make the Keebler elves look like a bunch of slackards.
SofL, I can't believe it
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 12:22am.
SofL,
I can't believe it either. It's the thread argument version of Peter Griffin fighting the giant chicken on Family Guy - just when you think it's finally done and over...an eye opens...
Chris: yeah, lots of chicken pounding going on here, too
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 10:50am.
Speaking of battles: Incest Troll Black Ops!
SofL, Update. 6:54 PM MST -
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 11:00pm.
SofL,
Update. 12/15/10 6:54 PM MST - Oh, good grief, the giant chicken opens it's eye yet again - another new post! It's still going on. This is like the 100 Years War! Never has so much time, energy, and thought been used on a more inane argument here. Why do intelligent people wasted their time arguing with this maroon? I'm beginning to conclude a lot of people prefer engaging in silly backs and forths with trouble-making liberal jerks than engaging in civil debates.
Good news for The Incest Troll Squad:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 11:31am.
Switzerland has seen the light.