Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 15:51:41
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
Whembley, I don't know if you're familiar with the film, Nixon (Anthony Hopkins)
but there's a scene in Nixon, where Nixon meets with business interests, many of whom are unhappy with Nixon, and Nixon basically says:
Do you really want Hubert Humphrey in the White House? This being 1968.
And the business interests have no answer to that, because they know that Nixon is right
Hilary Clinton is also going to turn around and say: do you really want Trump in the White House?
A deal will be made, newspapers will walk the line, it'll die down after a while, and everybody can get back to business
Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's an affront to freedom and democracy, but sadly, this is the way the world works.
|
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/01/16 19:54:22
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
CptJake wrote:That was my point. Which you argued against with your chicken/egg analogy. Creating supply does not create demand. It is NOT a chicken/egg thing.
Yes, it's chicken and the egg. Because by creating supply you are paying people. You're buying raw materials, you're paying wages. The cost of your production is someone else's income, and the profit left over is your income. And all that income becomes expenditure, becomes new demand, when it is spend by the people who received that income. This is one the most basic, fundamental elements of economics. One person's expenditure is another person's income. That person's income becomes their expenditure, which in turn becomes someone else's income, and so on. Automatically Appended Next Post: jasper76 wrote:Or, you know, I could have been just trying to make a joke and add some humor to one of the most boring political issues on the menu
It was a joke with a fairly specific argument behind it, you have to admit that
This is a law that we passed in the US. If you feel that the children of the rich in the United States and/or elsewhere should not be taxed in this manor, then by all means continue to attempt to persuade others, get a petition going, do what you feel you need to do to protect them.
I think I'm wildly optimistic about my chances of changing opinions on dakka. I'd have many thousands of times more optimistic to think I'd have an impact on US tax laws.
But in my wild optimism re dakka, I am going to try and see that there's no value in supporting taxes that are very expensive to determine and easy to minimise. While the goal of greater income equality is admirable, that can be achieved by just charging higher taxes at high income levels, it doesn't need bad taxes. Automatically Appended Next Post: skyth wrote:And it is still a ridiculous argument that the money was 'already taxed'. My income was already taxed because it is paid through people buying things from money that they already paid tax on.
You're confusing the path of a single dollar with what double taxation actually means. It refers to an instance of earning a dollar. I wash your car, you pay me $1. The govt takes 20%. I die, and govt takes 15% of the remaining 80c. That's double taxation.
The entire tax code (other than property taxes) is based on wealth changing hands. Inheritance fits right in with that.
When it is well defined, a tax system is based around instances of earning, when someone does work for remuneration, or property he owns generates income - that is what should be taxed. Not wealth changing hands, taxing windfall gains is as ridiculous as taxing birthday presents.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/18 16:16:36
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 16:36:32
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
sebster wrote: CptJake wrote:That was my point. Which you argued against with your chicken/egg analogy. Creating supply does not create demand. It is NOT a chicken/egg thing.
Yes, it's chicken and the egg. Because by creating supply you are paying people. You're buying raw materials, you're paying wages. The cost of your production is someone else's income, and the profit left over is your income. And all that income becomes expenditure, becomes new demand, when it is spend by the people who received that income. This is one the most basic, fundamental elements of economics. One person's expenditure is another person's income. That person's income becomes their expenditure, which in turn becomes someone else's income, and so on.
It's also a basic, fundamental, rule of business that you don't hire someone unless you have no other choice. That is why consumers, rather than businesses, create jobs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote:And it is still a ridiculous argument that the money was 'already taxed'. My income was already taxed because it is paid through people buying things from money that they already paid tax on.
You're confusing the path of a single dollar with what double taxation actually means. It refers to an instance of earning a dollar. I wash your car, you pay me $1. The govt takes 20%. I die, and govt takes 15% of the remaining 80c. That's double taxation.
The entire tax code (other than property taxes) is based on wealth changing hands. Inheritance fits right in with that.
When it is well defined, a tax system is based around instances of earning, when someone does work for remuneration, or property he owns generates income - that is what should be taxed. Not wealth changing hands, taxing windfall gains is as ridiculous as taxing birthday presents.
Only says you. The tax system, as current, is based around wealth changing hands. It is not double taxation when money is inherited, as it is going to someone else. I see no reason NOT to tax windfalls, as the person receiving the income didn't do anything to earn it.
Besides, I don't see any better way of addressing the wealth gap. It's already getting worse and worse as time goes on.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 19:13:04
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Whembley, I don't know if you're familiar with the film, Nixon (Anthony Hopkins)
but there's a scene in Nixon, where Nixon meets with business interests, many of whom are unhappy with Nixon, and Nixon basically says:
Do you really want Hubert Humphrey in the White House? This being 1968.
And the business interests have no answer to that, because they know that Nixon is right
Hilary Clinton is also going to turn around and say: do you really want Trump in the White House?
A deal will be made, newspapers will walk the line, it'll die down after a while, and everybody can get back to business
Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's an affront to freedom and democracy, but sadly, this is the way the world works.
Some are saying that an Trump administration would be a bumbling authoritarian administration headed by thin-skinned narcissist.
A Clinton administration would be an efficient authoritarian administration with clear connection to the power-brokers.
'Tis why I feel like we're playing Russian Roulette... only that there's a bullet in each chamber.
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 19:39:13
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
Still resisteing the urge to vote with a clean conscience and go third party? Maybe I can help. How about this guy? He checks alot of important boxes:
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 19:48:42
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
The problem with not taxing transfers of wealth as income is that if you only define income as income from earnings and property, you leave out a lot. Would investment income qualify? Dividends? Appreciation?
Imagine this scenario: Ronald Frump had a very wealthy father who passes and Ronald inherits millions of dollars of property and cash tax free. The property assets increase in value to billions. Dividends and selling off the occasional minor asset keep cash up without impacting overall wealth. He lives like a king but has, under an income scheme, earned little or nothing. Under realized income, he gets taxed for the inheritance, taxed for the increases in value, taxed for the dividends, etc.
Now, in reality, Frump probably still dodges a lot of taxes, but that is a flaw in the current implementation, not the basis.
|
-James
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:01:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
This election really has me bummed-out. Just once I'd like a candidate that I can vote for, not against.
Let's just face it, it's going to come down to Trump vs. Clinton. That's like choosing which guy gets to butt rape you in prison. At least with Trump I feel like he's going to say it to my face first and give me time to lube my rear. With Clinton it's almost like she'll jump on top in my sleep and demand a "thank you" when she's done.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:07:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Most Glorious Grey Seer
|
What's that Chinese curse? Oh, yea. May you live in interesting times.
Thanks, Obama.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:18:00
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
cuda1179 wrote:This election really has me bummed-out. Just once I'd like a candidate that I can vote for, not against.
Let's just face it, it's going to come down to Trump vs. Clinton. That's like choosing which guy gets to butt rape you in prison. At least with Trump I feel like he's going to say it to my face first and give me time to lube my rear. With Clinton it's almost like she'll jump on top in my sleep and demand a "thank you" when she's done.
Such cynicism.
This is the President, Supreme commander of the armed forces, Head of State, and leader of the free world that you are choosing. Please think seriously about it.
Clinton is an accomplished administrator, career politician and states-person whose main negatives are that she is a Democrat and doesn't pass the "I'd happily have a pint with her..." text.
Trump is a sad sack, narcissistic, racist, business failure with no relevant experience whose main positives are that he is anti-establishment (which guarantees he won't get on with anyone in Washington) and apparently has a huge penis.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:19:55
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Building a blood in water scent
|
Kilkrazy wrote: cuda1179 wrote:This election really has me bummed-out. Just once I'd like a candidate that I can vote for, not against.
Let's just face it, it's going to come down to Trump vs. Clinton. That's like choosing which guy gets to butt rape you in prison. At least with Trump I feel like he's going to say it to my face first and give me time to lube my rear. With Clinton it's almost like she'll jump on top in my sleep and demand a "thank you" when she's done.
Such cynicism.
This is the President, Supreme commander of the armed forces, Head of State, and leader of the free world that you are choosing. Please think seriously about it.
Clinton is an accomplished administrator, career politician and states-person whose main negatives are that she is a Democrat and doesn't pass the "I'd happily have a pint with her..." text.
Trump is a sad sack, narcissistic, racist, business failure with no relevant experience whose main positives are that he is anti-establishment (which guarantees he won't get on with anyone in Washington) and apparently has a huge penis.
He lies about everything all day long. Except his dong. There's "no problem".
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/18 20:20:17
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:21:13
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
The Conquerer
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
|
Kilkrazy wrote:
Clinton is an accomplished administrator, career politician and states-person whose main negatives are that she is a Democrat and doesn't pass the "I'd happily have a pint with her..." text.
No, she's not an accomplished administrator. She's someone who zero respect for the laws of the country, security protocols, and an ego the size of the moon. That's not someone we want running the country.
Career politician isn't a good thing, not when you've got such a stained record.
Her main accomplishment is "look how many rules I've broken without getting in trouble!"
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/18 20:24:58
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:28:10
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Kilkrazy wrote: cuda1179 wrote:This election really has me bummed-out. Just once I'd like a candidate that I can vote for, not against.
Let's just face it, it's going to come down to Trump vs. Clinton. That's like choosing which guy gets to butt rape you in prison. At least with Trump I feel like he's going to say it to my face first and give me time to lube my rear. With Clinton it's almost like she'll jump on top in my sleep and demand a "thank you" when she's done.
Such cynicism.
This is the President, Supreme commander of the armed forces, Head of State, and leader of the free world that you are choosing. Please think seriously about it.
Clinton is an accomplished administrator, career politician and states-person whose main negatives are that she is a Democrat and doesn't pass the "I'd happily have a pint with her..." text.
Do tell... what has she really accomplished in some meaningful way that'll foretell how good of a President she'll be?
Her glaring negative is she's absolutely untrustworthy and shady as feth.
Trump is a sad sack, narcissistic, racist, business failure with no relevant experience whose main positives are that he is anti-establishment (which guarantees he won't get on with anyone in Washington) and apparently has a huge penis.
Not sure you can really call him a "business failure".
But, not going to argue on your other points.
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:37:46
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence
|
I think the 'no relevant experience' claim is crap too. Running a big business, participating in major negotiations, making high level decisions are all relevant experiences.
|
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:38:32
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot
|
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump is a sad sack, narcissistic, racist, business failure with no relevant experience whose main positives are that he is anti-establishment (which guarantees he won't get on with anyone in Washington) and apparently has a huge penis. So he said...but he also has Deadpool baby-hand fingers. Not sure you can really call him a "business failure".
Well, he's certainly an expert at gaming the system and getting people to invest in him, I can't call him on that. The actual results have been more...hit or miss. Trump Shuttles? Trump Ocean Resort Baja? Trump Steaks?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/18 20:39:28
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:39:47
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
At least with Trump. When he goes after a business....country.....country leadership.....he's going to hit them where it really hurts......money train
|
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:40:40
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
Grey Templar wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:
Clinton is an accomplished administrator, career politician and states-person whose main negatives are that she is a Democrat and doesn't pass the "I'd happily have a pint with her..." text.
No, she's not an accomplished administrator. She's someone who zero respect for the laws of the country, security protocols, and an ego the size of the moon. That's not someone we want running the country.
Those exact check boxes are also valid descriptors for Trump, FWIW.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:42:10
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
For too long Americans have swallowed the bitter pill of voting for the lesser of two evils and watching their country slide into a morass of corruption. But now, we have the opportunity to vote for a true outsider and bring real change to this country. A candidate not bound to any party or the factions that have brought us here.
https://cthulhuforamerica.com/
|
-James
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:43:28
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Building a blood in water scent
|
Grey Templar wrote:.......someone who zero respect for the laws of the country, security protocols, and an ego the size of the moon. That's not someone we want running the country.
Drumpf to a tee.
Look, guys, you are going to have to hold your nose and choose a President, and the rest of us are going to have to put up with it. Don't choose Drumpf.
|
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:44:55
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
The Conquerer
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
|
feeder wrote: Grey Templar wrote:.......someone who zero respect for the laws of the country, security protocols, and an ego the size of the moon. That's not someone we want running the country.
Drumpf to a tee.
Look, guys, you are going to have to hold your nose and choose a President, and the rest of us are going to have to put up with it. Don't choose Drumpf.
Trump is definitely terrible. But lets not pretend that Hillary is better.
|
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:44:57
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Hillary does not entertain me. Trump has. He has my vote....my one vote...
|
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:45:40
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
CptJake wrote:I think the 'no relevant experience' claim is crap too. Running a big business, participating in major negotiations, making high level decisions are all relevant experiences.
He does have business experience. He has zero governmental, military, or foreign policy experience. I guess its possible that a swath of population has formed that may actually think lack of experience in these areas is positive quality in a presidential candidate, but when detractors say he is not inexperienced, I think this is what they're talking about.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:46:11
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Or... pray that Kasich & Cruz pulls enough delegates to deny Trump the majority by the convention.
Then, it'd be a "not-Trump" nomination.
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:49:04
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
whembly wrote:Or... pray that Kasich & Cruz pulls enough delegates to deny Trump the majority by the convention.
Then, it'd be a "not-Trump" nomination.
Just make sure your not wherever the convention is going to be held....riots and all that
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:51:03
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Hillary changes her "public opinion" repeatedly to appease the masses. She has remade herself in the last 4 months to align more with Sanders to suck in some of his votes. What she really thinks, who knows?
I have trouble voting for anyone that 1. Defends and admitted child rapist. 2. Manages to get his conviction overturned due to a technicality. 3. Immediately after the court proceeding gets caught making a crude joke about the rape victim. That's the Hillary I'm afraid of.
I'm also wary of he ability to declared "incompetent" as legal counsel and her loose ties with known domestic terrorists. Let's also add it that she was all on board for a cap-and-trade emissions law that would have HUGELY benefitted a bank she had stock in.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:53:21
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
jasper76 wrote: whembly wrote:Or... pray that Kasich & Cruz pulls enough delegates to deny Trump the majority by the convention.
Then, it'd be a "not-Trump" nomination.
Just make sure your not wherever the convention is going to be held....riots and all that
Cleveland....
I'll be glued to the screen with some munchies.
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:54:02
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
jasper76 wrote: CptJake wrote:I think the 'no relevant experience' claim is crap too. Running a big business, participating in major negotiations, making high level decisions are all relevant experiences.
He does have business experience. He has zero governmental, military, or foreign policy experience. I guess its possible that a swath of population has formed that may actually think lack of experience in these areas is positive quality in a presidential candidate, but when detractors say he is not inexperienced, I think this is what they're talking about.
We all ready elected a President with practically no governmental experience to two terms. All Obama has was a half term as a Senator, and a lot of that was spent campaigning.
What I am really surprised about is that Sanders agrees with Trump's foreign policy plan with regards to North Korea. Basically, have China deal with them. They are they one with the most influence over that little dictatorship.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 20:57:08
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
Using China to deal with North Korea has been every US politician's position since I've been alive. Is there something particular in the details of the Trump/Sanders position I don't know about?
As far as Obama goes, is your argument that because we elected Obama with no experience, and he did such an outstanding job that we should do it again with Trump?
(FWIW, by the time Obama was reelected, he had 3.5 or so years of experience as President of the United States, so the argument is only really applicable to his first term)
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/03/18 21:01:35
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 21:02:36
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
jasper76 wrote:Using China to deal with North Korea has been every US politician's position since I've been alive. Is there something particular in the details of the Trump/Sanders position I don't know about?
Really... you'd need the UN involved, and massive amount of money to "deal" with NK. Especially with the reunitification ideas of the separate Korean states. As far as Obama goes, is your argument that because we elected Obama with no experience, and he did such an outstanding job that we should do it again with Trump?
Actually it is better... By and large, Trump voters want "their very own" Obama.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/18 21:07:12
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 21:06:03
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps
|
Is that "want" their own Obama or something?
Also, this election is really coming down to vote for turd, or vote for turd.
|
Prestor Jon wrote:Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/18 21:06:50
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
I really hope.....Chad does not make a come bacjk
|
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
|
|
 |
 |
|