I only shoot hardcore for my own website. Glad to know that you shoot hardcore video's for millions to see. Sounds like you are the one whoring yourself out, not me. Can you show me any place where Obama said he would be for porn?

my cock is bigger than yours!

ahahahah :thumbsup

:glugglug

:1orglaugh

Ahh nice to see you are still a cry baby and never did answer the black and Cuban question. :thumbsup

Jane, please never change. You are entirely too funny. It's just too bad its unintentional.

The poor kid thinks it's his burden to bear as an American to fight and die in war to promote freedom and security for non-Americans thousands of miles away from his own country of America. It's a noble quest, even with arguably a Christian subtext, yet it should not be America's formal foreign policy stance. It never has been historically. The placards that read "Country First" waved during McCain's convention come to mind. It's so true. It really should come first.

No it is intentional. I can't believe how many people on here are getting so pissed in these threads. I also like the word racist is thrown around on this forum. Pretty crazy.

you missed the point of the whoring statement all together and i only shoot hardcore for my site but its been in the top 5000 since 03. This is an adult board right? We both know that no candidate will come out and say they are for porn, but net neutrality is about porn and every other type of website on the net. You being too dumb to understand what its all about is not my fault.

So you are going to get free oil to "pump in" the $$$$ in your school system ....

Let me know who is going to give you free oil ? Exxon ? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

If test were required to vote, no more than 5% would qualify. :2 cents:

Maybe she hangs with " her " crowd ...

So it is not as clear cit as you say :2 cents:

No shit neither side will come out and say they are for adult. Just read a good article on AVN http://www.avn.com/internet/articles/31735.html


Martin's plan drew criticism from wireless companies, Congressional Republicans, public interest groups and trade associations, who call the proposal a "threat to freedom of speech on the Internet."

Nobody in politics is declaring to be FOR porn , bimbo .... But some are staunchly against it.... :2 cents:

Well this is a good read http://www.democrats.us/editorial/Es...20030107.shtml and this on too http://www.redding.com/news/2008/may...h-for-ways-to/

Yeah and plenty are Democrats.

Its no surprise that Democrats want to fuck with us as well, but its all talk. Mccain and Obama have allready made clear which side of the fence they stand on Net Neutrality.

Mccain wants to end it.
Obama wants to preserve it.

Please go to 4:50...
https://youtube.com/watch?v=hVIg8ZUsNTk

What position do you think this guy will hold in a Mccain administration?

one is about cp and the other is about taxing porn. See dems want to tax it and rep want to throw us in jail. What is so hard to understand? Do you not know the history of your own industry?

Think you missed this one http://www.avn.com/internet/articles/31735.html

creating a porn free broadband option is not the same as throwing us in jail. Again learn your history.

Seems like the Democrats think viewing kiddie porn is not that serious. How anyone thinks this guy did not deserve what he got is crazy. http://www.democrats.us/editorial/Es...20030107.shtml

Oh get real. The Republicans do not want to throw all of us in jail. That is a bullshit statement even for this website.

Jane you want to have blinders on that your choice but dont be surprised if mcCain wins and the hammer comes down hard. Youre showing opinions and maybe if's when real fucking things have happened during this republican admin and ones prior to it.

you dont know your history.

I am going to have to agree to disagree with you.

you are living in a fantasy world, learn your industries history.

Im telling you facts not my opinion.

Can you please point me to links that support your facts? I have posted some on the Democrats, you post some on the Republicans please.

You are not aware of the changes in 2257 done by john Ashcroft? The first 2257 inspections in the history of porn? The attorneys fired by Gonzales in your home state and vegas actually for not going after adult porn?

http://www.filmreference.com/encyclo...RNOGRAPHY.html
Nixons response to the report porn isnt harmful
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2759

This is Harry Reems talking about his going to trial for being in deep throat(complete link on the bottom.
"I was told by Alan Dershowitz, who is a law professor up at Harvard, that if the republicans were re-elected I’m going to jail but if the democrats get into office I’d be Scott-free. Of course, Dershowitz knows a lot of people in Washington so I got calls from Ramsey Clark, who is a past Attorney General from the ‘60s, during the Kennedy era. I got calls from Eugene McCarthy saying, ‘Harry, don’t worry, if we take the White House we’re letting you go’, because I’d be crying to Dershowitz because I was scared. I mean, I didn’t commit any of those murders. I didn’t steal that money. I didn’t do those things to those people. I didn’t even know it was obscene. It was nothing more than to try to take attention away from his Watergate fiasco."
http://www.femail.com.au/harry-reems-deep-throat.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~durangoda...Censorship.htm
You can read about Charles Keating and porn
http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...32743420080903
Mccain getting a law firm founded by charles keating
http://www.azcentral.com/news/specia...-chapter7.html
the keating 5

Happy Reading :)

Haha this thread is funny.

Half of you trying to pretend you didn't decide who you liked/hated 6 months ago. If you like Obama you will hate anything McCain or Palin says or does, and vice versa. Let it go, its not like anyone here is going to change their mind lol :)

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...32743420080903
Mccain getting a law firm founded by charles keating

I meant getting a contribution from a law firm.

That's ridiculous...If you polled the ENTIRE population and asked them to state 10 things that the politician stood for, you would be hard pressed to find ANYBODY....

For example, name 10 relevant things that John Mccain stands for and don't use Google.

I promise I did not use the google.

1) John McCain stands against the Bush tax cuts because they are skewed towards the wealthy.

2) John McCain is for comprehensive immigration reform that includes amnesty for people who are already here.

3) John McCain stands against "agents of intolerance" like Jerry Falwell.

4) John McCain stands against storing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain.

5) John McCain stands against making Martin Luther King Day a federal holiday.

6) John McCain stands FOR the Bush tax cuts and thinks they should be made permanent.

7) John McCain stands against comprehensive immigration reform and would not vote for the bill he authored if it were brought up for a vote today.

8) John McCain stands with agents of intolerance like Jerry Falwell, actively seeking their support and endorsements.

9) John McCain is for storing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain.

10) John McCain stands proud if his record for fighting for recognition of Martin Luther King's birthday in his state.


There, ya happy now? :winkwink:

Yep, this is the point I was making earlier.

Elections these days are about preaching to the choir and trying to get more of your people to sing....there are no converts to be had.

You're certainly right about "if tests were required to vote most wouldn't qualify" and take a long look in the mirror when trying to figure out who'd fall into the 95% bracket.

Are you having trouble understanding that foreign aid and oil are 2 totally different things and one has very little to do with the other?

Please put your keyboard down and stop posting (on this or any other public format) until the sky in whatever world you're currently living in turns blue again.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Earlier you said "the 700 billion is foreign aid"

You do realize that our foreign aid budget is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 billion per year. (50 billion if you count pentagon "peacekeeping" work as foreign aid)


The 700 billion referred to in the T Boone Pickens ads is the amount we spend on imported energy......which is why I said earlier that we wouldn't get 700 billion to put into our schools or anything else if we were energy independent.

We would be spending that money with U.S. companies instead of foreign ones, and there's benefits to that of course, but it's not going to improve our schools. Two different things.

You're right, his exact words were "We're going to stop sending 700 billion/year to countries that don't like us very much" and I'm lumping everything into that number and I shouldn't be because it clouds the issue.

But, you bet, I do consider peacekeeping costs as foreign aid. I also include disaster relief, current loans, and past forgiven debt's as well. Any time my dollar goes to a foreign country and neither a good nor service is purchased, it's foreign aid. That is the money I'm talking about pumping into our school systems - unrelated to energy consumption costs.

You're right, the money we spend on energy consumption would benefit the American workers which, indirectly would help create a new tax base for other things, not just schools.

I'm talking oranges and the way I worded it, one could infer I'm talking about apples and I see that now. I'm sitting here wondering why people thought I was talking about energy consumption costs when I wasn't. :)

Yeah, that's why I asked you if you were speaking metaphorically when you said the 700 billion was foreign aid.

Either way, lucky for us, energy independence is an issue whose time has finally come, so regardless of who wins in November there will be some serious steps taken in that direction.....and honestly the plans of the two candidates aren't that far apart, even though they're still going to try to beat each other over the head about the specifics and claim that only their plan is the truly good one.

Yes I know about the 2257 changes. Thanks for the links, I look forward to reading them tomorrow. I am off to bed, long day. :)

Obama?s $845 billion U.N. plan forwarded to U.S. Senate floor
?Global Poverty Act? to cost each citizen $2,500 or more.

Posted: July 25, 2008
12:30 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

The U.S. Senate soon could debate whether you, your spouse and each of your children ? as well as your in-laws, parents, grandparents, neighbors and everyone else in America ? each will spend $2,500 or more to reduce poverty around the world.

The plan sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is estimated to cost the U.S. some $845 billion over the coming few years in an effort to raise the standard of living around the globe.

S.2433 already has been approved in one form by the U.S. House of Representatives and now has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar for pending debate.

WND previously reported the proposal demands the president develop ?and implement? a policy to ?cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief? and other programs.

Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media has published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could ?result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States? and would make levels of U.S. foreign aid spending ?subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.?

(Story continues below)

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years, he said, would amount to $845 billion ?over and above what the U.S. already spends.?

do you have any real news sources that have reported on it?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=s110-2433

thank you and it seems it never got out of committee.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...3&tab=analysis

Jul 7, 2008 4:07 PM - CBO says this bill would cost less than $1mm/year to implement and there is no adverse effect to state, local gov'ts. Right wing blogs claim it will cost taxpayers $845 billion between now and 2015. What is the truth? - Read Answers
Answered by a visitor on Jul 16, 2008 7:55 PM - This is to fund the United Nations Millennium plan for global poverty. Our share would be .7% of our Gross National Product. This is where the $845 billion price tag comes from.
Answered by a visitor on Aug 30, 2008 1:59 PM - The 0.7% of our $13.8 Trillion GDP is $96.6 billion. This 0.7% number was established by members of the UN (including the US) 35 years ago and has been reaffirmed many times. In 2002 George Bush was at the Global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico where he and other world leaders AGAIN reaffirmed this commitment to the UN. Yet the US still pays $65 billion less than our agreed commitment to the UN EACH YEAR. At that conference President Bush stated that reducing global poverty will reduce terrorism. No one disputes that, so it is unclear why he and our congress have restricted these funds to the UN. This bipatisan Obama-Lugar bill simply asks the Senate to acknowlege our commitment and enable the government to honor that commitment. If for no other reason, because (as President Bush pointed out in Monterey), reducing world poverty is one of our most valuable weapons against terrorism worldwide. The House version was passed last year. It is unclear why the Republican majority in the Senate has not voted on this bill.

https://youtube.com/v/K5zy5Y4Jl8A

Watch this (no audio) and look at those tax proposals he has in store for you!
This source is from the Wall Street Journal

I dont make over 250K and who ever is president taxes are going up. You cant have a war and cut taxes. We might be going into iran, cant use the chinese credit card forever.

Get a 5% pay raise - Obama will take it from you
Sell your house, Obama will take the profits from you
Invest in the market with what little money you have, Obama takes the profits from you
Die - and Obama takes over half of what you're leaving to your family...

Wrap all that money with a red ribbon - and ship it overseas!