Flytrap #2 - Possible NSFW Content and WAW fail , Whiskey Bacon and tamale hootch

Status
Not open for further replies.

Atan Nolme

Flaccid Member
Oct 14, 2004
6,388
12
0
Karningul,Eriador, Endor
I can only make judgments based on what you post. Your heart isn't available for perusal on the internet. Your hatred of Obama, and seemingly most other black people, reeks of racism. It would be different if only I thought that was the case. Or maybe that crazy kid Liam. But I would guess the majority of people here who cared to comment would agree. If its really not true, its something you should work on.

Yes, I cannot stand Obama only because of his black father. :tard::rolleyes::tard: Hell his father was a distant figure at best. If anything I cannot stand his white side. You know the ones that sent him to the little private red school and attend the the little red church in Hawaii. I know I have posted this before.

How many times do I have to post that I cannot stand Obama on the basis of his political ideology and not the color of his skin?

Just as the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. wanted us all to do.

So far as the snarky comment about the phone call goes, it had to to with the sense of entitlement of the woman (rules don't apply to her) rather than the color of skin on either end of the phone call.

I would vote for Congressman Allen West in a heart beat but you couldn't get me vote for Colin Powell. Just as I would vote for former Congressman J.C. Watts but never vote for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. For me It all about your core beliefs not about skin color.
 

Floptical

Doesnt Read Thread Titles
Sep 1, 2006
23,575
14,691
473
Rockies
Yes, I cannot stand Obama only because of his black father. :tard::rolleyes::tard: Hell his father was a distant figure at best. If anything I cannot stand his white side. You know the ones that sent him to the little private red school and attend the the little red church in Hawaii. I know I have posted this before.

How many times do I have to post that I cannot stand Obama on the basis of his political ideology and not the color of his skin?



Just as the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. wanted us all to do.

So far as the snarky comment about the phone call goes, it had to to with the sense of entitlement of the woman (rules don't apply to her) rather than the color of skin on either end of the phone call.

I would vote for Congressman Allen West in a heart beat but you couldn't get me vote for Colin Powell. Just as I would vote for former Congressman J.C. Watts but never vote for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. For me It all about your core beliefs not about skin color.

What's your views on Carlton Banks?
 

Jonny_B

Erect Member
Oct 14, 2004
9,162
25
41
Drove down to Crockett, Texas yesterday to visit family. Now there's a town going to shit in a hurry. From what I gather the last industry in town, besides a bit of ranching and forestry, is a juvenile detention facility.

The town is very small, but nevertheless has a ring road built around it. It's odd to look at on the map. Usually a ring highway has stuff on both sides of it. This town isn't growing, so the ring highway is still on the edge of town. Downtown is a shambles, and doomed. The only new stuff is built out on the ring road since no one drives through town anymore.

They built a new elementary, junior high and high school there recently. Right in a row, stretched along the side of the highway. They put it out on the ring road like everything else. Just across from the juvie facility. I bet they think it'll serve as some kind of warning.
 
Last edited:

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
I agree with that all I'm saying is that it's stupid to say they aren't entitled to the same unemployment coverage.

well whether or not they're entitled isn't up for debate. the law says they qualify

though whether or not they should be entitled to those benefits above a certain income bracket - especially when we are in the financial situation we're in today - is a different question :p
 

b_sinning

Erect Member
Nov 22, 2004
22,790
47
41
44
Savannah, GA
I'm so terribly sick of family drama. I am considering changing my name and telling them all to go fuck themselves.

Lets run away together. We can spend the days getting drunk, having great sex, and reading books and graphic novels and discussing them. I even have a small dog.

Have you really had any better offers than that recently? ;)
 

Dharma1521

Soooo do I look as young as I look?
Apr 5, 2006
15,273
995
548
Falls Church, VA
Lets run away together. We can spend the days getting drunk, having great sex, and reading books and graphic novels and discussing them. I even have a small dog.

Have you really had any better offers than that recently? ;)

I am fucking in. Let's get Thorn too.

OMG I don't know if I want to talk about Sandman right away or work our way up to it.


fucking tease.
 

APRIL

Feel Free to Pee on Me
Sep 30, 2004
103,151
37,828
1,823
Houston
I'm so terribly sick of family drama. I am considering changing my name and telling them all to go fuck themselves.
:heart: You can take my name, sweet heart.
well whether or not they're entitled isn't up for debate. the law says they qualify

though whether or not they should be entitled to those benefits above a certain income bracket - especially when we are in the financial situation we're in today - is a different question :p
It is something that is equally taxed on each person, but each person is not entitled to it?
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
:heart: You can take my name, sweet heart.

It is something that is equally taxed on each person, but each person is not entitled to it?

except it's not taxed on each person

but since it's a service that's supposed to help the least fortunate it should be reserved for that purpose. now whether or not the service should exist is a different argument but since it does its purpose shouldn't be to maintain standards of living but as a last resort safety net to keep people from being homeless. anything above that should be up to one's own ability to recover but there's no sense in restricting funds from people who desperately need for the benefit of those whom without would only be inconvenienced
 
Last edited:

APRIL

Feel Free to Pee on Me
Sep 30, 2004
103,151
37,828
1,823
Houston
except it's not taxed on each person

but since it's a service that's supposed to help the least fortunate it should be reserved for that purpose. now whether or not the service should exist is a different argument but since it does its purpose shouldn't be to maintain standards of living but as a last resort safety net to keep people from being homeless. anything above that should be up to one's own ability to recover but there's no sense in restricting funds from people who desperately need for the benefit of those whom without would only be inconvenienced

It is taxed on each person, just the company pays for it. Maybe I wasn't clear...

It's not to help the least fortunate, its to help a person transition from one job to another if they are involuntarily terminated. I don't think it should exist either, but since it does (and it is run poorly) there is no need to discriminate based on a persons gross wages. We don't know that persons situation...


omg I sound like Liam.
 
Last edited:

plot

Morning Boehner
Oct 16, 2006
20,031
4,165
323
kansas city
unemployment is directly considered an insurance, comes out of the pockets of your past employers based on what you made... and the amount you can collect dwindles after you've been on it for so long, and normally you can't be on it past 26 weeks.

not sure how you can even remotely compare it to the welfare system.

just because a dude has a million dollar house and wrecks his car, does that mean he shouldn't collect from his car insurance company? should he sell his house and get something cheaper and cover his car himself?
 

APRIL

Feel Free to Pee on Me
Sep 30, 2004
103,151
37,828
1,823
Houston
unemployment is directly considered an insurance, comes out of the pockets of your past employers based on what you made... and the amount you can collect dwindles after you've been on it for so long, and normally you can't be on it past 26 weeks.

not sure how you can even remotely compare it to the welfare system.

just because a dude has a million dollar house and wrecks his car, does that mean he shouldn't collect from his car insurance company? should he sell his house and get something cheaper and cover his car himself?

Here in Florida it is based on the first $7k each employee makes. The rate is higher for companies that have LOTS of unemployment claims.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
It is taxed on each person, just the company pays for it. Maybe I wasn't clear...

It's not to help the least fortunate, its to help a person transition from one job to another if they are involuntarily terminated. I don't think it should exist either, but since it does (and it is run poorly) there is no need to discriminate based on a persons gross wages. We don't know that persons situation...


omg I sound like Liam.

well yeah the point is that individuals don't pay the tax in the first place

but I see what you're saying, I just think it if it's going to exist then it should be limited to helping the least fortunate transition from one job to another in order to avoid them ending up on some other form of public assistance in the long term. the risk of someone making six figures or having seven in assets needing "welfare" is pretty slim so if we're going to deal with low and middle class folks needing to find jobs then save that money for those that need it.
 

plot

Morning Boehner
Oct 16, 2006
20,031
4,165
323
kansas city
Here in Florida it is based on the first $7k each employee makes. The rate is higher for companies that have LOTS of unemployment claims.

there's state and federal, i think 7k is across the board for federal and state vary... each state handles it's own unemployment system though.

like i said earlier, employers have (had anyways...) a max cap on how much they have to pay into the system so if you never lay off anyone you eventually reach the cap and no longer pay unemployment taxes... unless you lay someone off and they start drawing whatever credits your business has down. with the extensions congress keeps passing down, the system is depleted, and the caps have been lifted and rates raised so businesses who have never laid off anyone are sharing the burden for those who have had mass layoffs.

also, if someone quits or is fired, the business can contest their benefits and they won't be eligible. its supposed to be only for people laid off for whatever reason...
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
unemployment is directly considered an insurance, comes out of the pockets of your past employers based on what you made... and the amount you can collect dwindles after you've been on it for so long, and normally you can't be on it past 26 weeks.

not sure how you can even remotely compare it to the welfare system.

just because a dude has a million dollar house and wrecks his car, does that mean he shouldn't collect from his car insurance company? should he sell his house and get something cheaper and cover his car himself?
the difference is that car insurance is not publicly funded. he also has the option of having it entirely replaced or having a policy that only covers basic liability so if he wrecks his car - in this case, his own fault so it's different than being laid off - then he is responsible for covering the car himself. he's doing so with the money he paid on his policy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.