ANOTHER ONE!
Joshua Kindred- Trump appointed ultra MAGA judge already tossed for turning his chambers into the grotto at the playboy mansion, constantly talking about hard core sex with his clerks and forcing at least one into an unwanted sexual relationship, then repeatedly lied under oath to the 9th circuit when his outrageous sexual misconduct was investigated.
Typical MAGA. Incompetent, unqualified, immoral, untruthful, and hyper criminal. He’s one of your best. No surprise when the only qualification checked for any Trump appointment was loyalty to a pedophilic felonious rapist.


More evidence- MTG, the mentally defective anti trans she-male, decided to attack President Biden’s age (basically the same age as Trump) claiming “the average age of the signers of the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776 was 44 years old, but more than a dozen were 35 or younger. Thomas Jefferson, 33, John Hancock, 39, James Madison, 25, Alexander Hamilton, 21 James Monroe 18, Aaron Burr 20, Paul Revere 41, George Washington 44.”
Sad for her, Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe, Aaron Burr, Paul Revere, and George Washington were not signers of the Declaration of Independence….but this is the woman who believes and argues that Robert E Lee is a founding father…almost as vapid and uneducated as yourself! That’s seriously impressive.
More MAGA idiocy, ignorance, and incompetence wrapped in faux righteous indignation and vitriol and hatriotism.
Even sadder, her surprisingly valid point, that we need to stop electing octogenarians to the most strenuous white collar job on earth (except she exempts one horrific octogenarian), was completely lost, camouflaged by her stupidity.

The videos of Epstein’s house, that the rapist felon candidate visited regularly, are horrific. Pictures of naked very young girls everywhere. No denying exactly what he, and his friends were all about when you see their clubhouse.
Know who isn’t on the Epstein list dozens of times? Biden!

Actually, having sex with children isn't what is harmful to children (Unless done in a physical manner that causes bodily destruction.) Oh shit, call the PC patrol, Lawdeedaw said pedophiles aren't monsters or hurt children!

Or wait, did I? By your assumptions that I assume you would assume I would be saying those things. But only a fuck-tard would. And hence why PC attacks are for fucking tards.

In history sex with kids was fine. In Rome it was an honor and often the child had power over the adult. Even in America it was fine when the average age of living was dying young. In Mexico 13 is the legal age, but younger is often accepted. Even by older men. This is still true in many places.

HOWEVER, pedophiles in America deserve to have their dicks cut off! Their clits burned away! Etc. Why? What makes pedophiles so vile here is the fact that they do it when society condemns it so much. Because of this children's lives are utterly destroyed. It is like sibling sex and how that is condemned--but to a much greater level. Under no circumstances in abusing children in this manner okay, or excusable. Even in the case of mental retardation.

So yeah...

It's a discussion we've been having in this country for as long as I can remember and was one of the prime arguments made for a vast set of reforms a decade ago. And I still don't buy it.

At the very basic level, the argument is that a declining percentage of working age people have to pay for an increasing number of pensions. But that's only half the story. The working age population has to generate enough output to sustain not just themselves and retirees, but also children, the unemployed, the sick, anyone not working. A shrinking population means less children, and most importantly less unemployed. Increases in productivity are more than enough to compensate for that, no need to increase birth rates or immigration.

Germany is regularly paraded around as a country in dire need of immigration, given our low birth rate. Even if we ignore for a minute that any 50 year population forecast of the past has been invalidated after maybe 5 years, the "worst" they could conjure up was a decline in working age population of 34% by the year 2060. So what? That's 0.8% a year. And since it's based on a population decline of 20% over the same time, it's an annual drop of 0.2%. That's their worst case scenario, and it's statistical noise.

We've had a massive increase in average age over the last century as well as two world wars and our system managed just fine. And an annual drop of 0.2% is supposed to bring it to its knees? Pah.

Now, I'm all in favour of immigration, primarily to spice things up and prevent our society from becoming too homogeneous. But our pension system needs neither mass immigration nor an increased birth rate. What it needs is for politicians to stop funneling funds from our "PAYGO" system towards their buddies in the private sector. Current income = current payments, public system. Everything else is too volatile and susceptible to the Vampire Squids on Wall Street.

found this too:

In the last decade (since 2000) the homicide rate declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s.
Based on data from 1980 and 2008, males represented 77% of homicide victims and nearly 90% of offenders. The victimization rate for males (11.6 per 100,000) was 3 times higher than the rate for females (3.4 per 100,000). The offending rate for males (15.1 per 100,000) was almost 9 times higher than the rate for females (1.7 per 100,000).
The average age of both offenders and victims increased slightly in recent years, yet remained lower than they were prior to the late 1980s.

Not neccesarally relevent but it's interesting that the overall crime rate is down. (In Canada too) But the US has sold more that 12 million guns since Newtown.

soooooo not sure what it all means.... First sentence is a key one though



and this:

The FBI has released their 2007-2011 “Murder Victims by Weapon” report. The results are contradictory to anti-gun industry claims that relaxing the ban on assault weapons will cause more crime.

The report indicates you are more likely to be killed by hands or feet than by a rifle or shotgun.

Since 2007 there has been a 16.2% decline in murders committed with personal weapons which are defined as “hands, fists, feet etc.” The number of murders of this type in 2011 totaled 728.


While gun ownership has dramatically increased since 2007, murders for both the shotgun and rifle categories have seen declines faster than the rate of personal weapons related crime.

The rates of decline for the shotgun and rifle categories are 22.1% and 28.7% respectively. In 2011 there were 356 shotgun murders and 323 rifle murders for a total of 679 murders.

Total murders by hands and feet in 2011 exceed the total number of murders by shotgun and rifle. Does that mean gloves and shoes need regulation because they are concealing deadly weapons? No, but it does mean that there is no need for any further regulation of long arms.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/27/fbi-crime-stats-you-are-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-hands-and-feet-than-by-a-shotgun-or-rifle/#ixzz2ZGab74Pq

NOT saying this last is a great source but hey it's there.

SO it seems that there are more killings with hands and feet than with all shotguns and (dreaded ar 15) rifles total.

And how is that an authoritative source? It's from a stupid blog...an obviously very biased blog.

none of which even touches my argument about diversity.

>> ^silvercord:

The average age (mean) of the speakers at the DNC was 58.66 while at the RNC it was 49.92.
From modicum of insanity:
Of the speakers in the DNC, there were 9 current governors and 5 former governors. 22 members of the House of Representatives, 2 candidates for the House, and 1 former House member spoke. 5 current senators and 2 former senators also spoke.
Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 57.44. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 62.64. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 67.2.
Of the speakers at the RNC, there were 10 current governors and 5 former governors. 9 current members of the House of Representatives, 1 candidate for House, and 2 former House members spoke. 7 current senators, 4 former senators, and 1 candidate also spoke.
Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 50.3. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 50.67. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 52.83.
I wouldn't count 'em out just yet when it looks like the DNC is the party that's getting a little long in the tooth.

>> ^VoodooV:
Comparing the two national conventions alone should be enough to convince anyone that the Republican party as we currently know it is in its last years.
RNC: by and large, mostly old white people
DNC: Actual cross-section of America and vastly more diverse.

"Of the speakers in the DNC ... 22 members of the House of Representatives" well they just blew the curve.

As for the RNC convention, I think what we saw was either a conscious effort to "go younger" and entice younger voters, or a symptom of the greater problem with modern conservatism: namely that serious, mature conservatives don't want anything to do with these lunatics.>> ^silvercord:

The average age (mean) of the speakers at the DNC was 58.66 while at the RNC it was 49.92.
From modicum of insanity:
Of the speakers in the DNC, there were 9 current governors and 5 former governors. 22 members of the House of Representatives, 2 candidates for the House, and 1 former House member spoke. 5 current senators and 2 former senators also spoke.
Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 57.44. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 62.64. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 67.2.
Of the speakers at the RNC, there were 10 current governors and 5 former governors. 9 current members of the House of Representatives, 1 candidate for House, and 2 former House members spoke. 7 current senators, 4 former senators, and 1 candidate also spoke.
Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 50.3. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 50.67. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 52.83.
I wouldn't count 'em out just yet when it looks like the DNC is the party that's getting a little long in the tooth.

>> ^VoodooV:
Comparing the two national conventions alone should be enough to convince anyone that the Republican party as we currently know it is in its last years.
RNC: by and large, mostly old white people
DNC: Actual cross-section of America and vastly more diverse.

The average age (mean) of the speakers at the DNC was 58.66 while at the RNC it was 49.92.

From modicum of insanity:

Of the speakers in the DNC, there were 9 current governors and 5 former governors. 22 members of the House of Representatives, 2 candidates for the House, and 1 former House member spoke. 5 current senators and 2 former senators also spoke.

Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 57.44. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 62.64. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 67.2.

Of the speakers at the RNC, there were 10 current governors and 5 former governors. 9 current members of the House of Representatives, 1 candidate for House, and 2 former House members spoke. 7 current senators, 4 former senators, and 1 candidate also spoke.

Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 50.3. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 50.67. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 52.83.

I wouldn't count 'em out just yet when it looks like the DNC is the party that's getting a little long in the tooth.


>> ^VoodooV:

Comparing the two national conventions alone should be enough to convince anyone that the Republican party as we currently know it is in its last years.
RNC: by and large, mostly old white people
DNC: Actual cross-section of America and vastly more diverse.

The average age of becoming a grandparent is like 47, that's a GGILF right there.

I'm a very reasonable person..it's the quality of the conversation here that's really the issue. I could sum up 90 percent of the comments:

you're stupid you believe the bible omg!
troll!
the bible is stupid!
god is stupid!
EVOLUTION is RIGHT and YOURE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So if you think I am being unreasonable, it's mostly because its hard to take some of you seriously..it seems like the average age around here is about 16 or so, and the average IQ doesn't seem to be much higher..but I hold out hope that someone with a brain will show up eventually that can see that these questions run a little deeper than the shallow end of the pool you're playing in

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Shiny, the video doesn't need refutation. I wouldn't argue with someone who said the moon is made of green cheese either. The subject that everyone is discussing, if you haven't noticed, is whether or not you are a reasonable person, one worth arguing with.

I can agree with you on your brother (And his son.) I was just noting that there are different levels of conservatives. This congressman is a raging blowhard because he is a hypocrite. Hands down.

As for how much your father makes---it depends what he did, the risks, the level of supervision and all. It is not for me to judge--but I get your point. If he wasn't a 24/7 man, or held a position of high liability, then it is welfare. If his bones don't ache, or his lifespan look shorter, than it's welfare... But some do earn their pensions. Most (As I assume you will agree here,) however, do not.

>> ^bareboards2:

I should have given more details on the unemployment "insurance." His son, who is more conservative than he is, lost his job along with hundreds of others when a company collapsed. His industry was flooded with people looking for remaining jobs. His response was to get a job delivering ice cream until "his" industry recovered/absorbed the sudden influx of capable --- computer technicians.
Now THAT is walking the walk.
My brother making vague attempts at half-assed jobs for three years (he got laid off twice, wasn't consecutive) while collecting unemployment and a military pension? That's bullshit. That's welfare for the wealthy and he took it because it was there. His son was more honest.
If I told you how much my father collects each month, you would not be saying what you are saying. All from the government. Believe me, there is nothing "disingenuous" about the amount of money my dad collects each month.
My point was to highlight their hypocrisy. Just as that Congressman blathers on about being self reliant while grasping what is offered.
If you believe in self reliance, then be self reliant.
Hypocrites.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^bareboards2:


I will kind of have to disagree with you on this number--not because your wrong, but because it's a slight bit disingenuous.
Unemployment Insurance is like Health Insurance. It is there, paid by you and me, for you and me. I may not agree with most food stamps programs, etc. but there is nothing wrong with using Unemployment Insurance.
As far as pensions... They are there for a reason. Like the Military pensions, for example... Your body typically is fucked by the time you reach old age. The second part of pensions is that government employees' pay (compared to say the private market employee with a master's degree) is a lot less than the private sector... Remember, higher up positions are like Managers or even CEOs. So even if an E8 makes 100K in benefits and such a year, he is sorely behind, say, a CEO, which he is the equivalent of.
Did you know the average age of a retired military or law enforcement officer is 5 years? That isn't shit for a benefit if you ask me...
Now pensions for a County Admin, Mayor, Senator, etc., yeah, that's bullshit. If the job doesn't have shit pay and demanding physical labor, it shouldn't have a pension.
I think nobody cared about this in good times, and only scapegoat when times are bad due to jealousy.
(As far as the union part, your 100% right. I didn't mind when our union was disbanded; they risked forcing layoffs in trade for pay raises...)

I should have given more details on the unemployment "insurance." His son, who is more conservative than he is, lost his job along with hundreds of others when a company collapsed. His industry was flooded with people looking for remaining jobs. His response was to get a job delivering ice cream until "his" industry recovered/absorbed the sudden influx of capable --- computer technicians.

Now THAT is walking the walk.

My brother making vague attempts at half-assed jobs for three years (he got laid off twice, wasn't consecutive) while collecting unemployment and a military pension? That's bullshit. That's welfare for the wealthy and he took it because it was there. His son was more honest.

If I told you how much my father collects each month, you would not be saying what you are saying. All from the government. Believe me, there is nothing "disingenuous" about the amount of money my dad collects each month.

My point was to highlight their hypocrisy. Just as that Congressman blathers on about being self reliant while grasping what is offered.

If you believe in self reliance, then be self reliant.

Hypocrites.


>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^bareboards2:


I will kind of have to disagree with you on this number--not because your wrong, but because it's a slight bit disingenuous.
Unemployment Insurance is like Health Insurance. It is there, paid by you and me, for you and me. I may not agree with most food stamps programs, etc. but there is nothing wrong with using Unemployment Insurance.
As far as pensions... They are there for a reason. Like the Military pensions, for example... Your body typically is fucked by the time you reach old age. The second part of pensions is that government employees' pay (compared to say the private market employee with a master's degree) is a lot less than the private sector... Remember, higher up positions are like Managers or even CEOs. So even if an E8 makes 100K in benefits and such a year, he is sorely behind, say, a CEO, which he is the equivalent of.
Did you know the average age of a retired military or law enforcement officer is 5 years? That isn't shit for a benefit if you ask me...
Now pensions for a County Admin, Mayor, Senator, etc., yeah, that's bullshit. If the job doesn't have shit pay and demanding physical labor, it shouldn't have a pension.
I think nobody cared about this in good times, and only scapegoat when times are bad due to jealousy.
(As far as the union part, your 100% right. I didn't mind when our union was disbanded; they risked forcing layoffs in trade for pay raises...)

>> ^bareboards2:

My family is conservative and whines about others taking welfare, how unions are killing America and how bloated the government is.
But my brother was on unemployment for a total of three years. He gets a military pension. He now works for a company on a military contract. He joined a union to get higher pay (he didn't like that he didn't have a voice in negotiating his pay, it was a governmental agency that did it, and didn't do it well. Well enough.) His wife works for the county government.
My dad has three government source pensions.
These Republicans talk about self reliance but when it comes to their own pockets, they grasp grasp grasp, but somehow it is the other person's fault.
The hypocrisy blows my mind.
The only good thing about it is I now can stop all their whining about others by holding up a mirror to their own behavior.
I am smug and morally superior and I LOVE IT.


I will kind of have to disagree with you on this number--not because your wrong, but because it's a slight bit disingenuous.

***Unemployment Insurance is like Health Insurance. It is there, paid by you and me, for you and me. I may not agree with most food stamps programs, etc. but there is nothing wrong with using Unemployment Insurance.

***As far as pensions... They are there for a reason. Like the Military pensions, for example... Your body typically is fucked by the time you reach old age. The second part of pensions is that government employees' pay (compared to say the private market employee with a master's degree) is a lot less than the private sector... Remember, higher up positions are like Managers or even CEOs. So even if an E8 makes 100K in benefits and such a year, he is sorely behind, say, a CEO, which he is the equivalent of.

Did you know the average age of a retired military or law enforcement officer is 5 years? That isn't shit for a benefit if you ask me...

Now pensions for a County Admin, Mayor, Senator, etc., yeah, that's bullshit. If the job doesn't have shit pay and demanding physical labor, it shouldn't have a pension.

I think nobody cared about this in good times, and only scapegoat when times are bad due to jealousy.

(As far as the union part, your 100% right. I didn't mind when our union was disbanded; they risked forcing layoffs in trade for pay raises...)

@gwiz665 i'd be very surprised if the average age of the power users of an mmo was 34. And again, there was nothing wrong with many of the fights, but they were all (except cthun) too easy and they were up every week for you to farm back down again.

I cba typing it again - what i prefer is the opposite of what i criticise in wow.

There is something that deeply disturbs me about this
There are 2 issues that have been brought up, Social Security and Extending the Bush Tax Cuts

This video implies a guilt by association by associating the Social Security problems with the Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts is an easy stab at the Republicans, but the video is tying it together with Social Security to imply something more sinister like a "Rich stealing from the poor" scenario.

The problem with Social Security is that people live longer, not something that was taken into account when it was first passed. At the time it was a better idea when people didn't live so long and would therefore not receive very many years of Social Security payout, but as time and Medical Advances went on, the years of Payment grew longer. So now Social Security has been something that the Nation has come to Depend on (which I must say is also implied in the video). To take it away would be a problem, but to throw more money at it would be a problem as well. Taking it away would create a scenario where those that had payed for it All or a Part of their Lives lose the Promised Benefit, and those who transitioned to the lifestyle of social security are Suddenly Forced to change their lifestyle of something they have come to Depend on. Putting more money into it creates a situation where a larger share of money per paycheck will be required keep another program at status quo. Essentially its an added tax with No Benefit, say for if its not payed then money will be needed from other programs so if you don't pay up someone is gonna lose something. The other situation involves Taking more money from Elsewhere and putting it into social security, the problem is that as more people enter social security for longer periods of time, the payout Required by the government Grows higher and higher meaning that more money has to be taken out of other areas of funding in order to maintain status quo.

The other type of option is to change the requirements of social security. Raising the age is quite plausible as it Reduces the length and to a certain extent, the number of people needing it (They die before they can get to the required age). The problem with that is, well one they can die before they can get to the required age and they have to work for longer periods of time at an age that may or may not be (I do not know this part) as effective. The deaths can at least be Balanced since the average age is increasing, there are always deaths before reaching even the earlier ages so this becomes Less of a factor. But the effectiveness of working 70 year-olds is unknown to me.

Well, there is an explantion to the "inexplicable" part. Either A-This guy is an asshole or B- He snapped. Now that the title has no reason to exist perhaps we can modify it?

Next, if this is a documented behavior cycle for the cop, fire him. If it is one random episode, get him some help (Not just an anger management class but serious help. Maybe meds if needed.)

See, the problem is that cops break most of the time--whether in a big way or small ways.

Average age a cop lives after retirement. 5 years. Why? Because they are assholes! Wait, that makes no sense. Beacause they cannot take the stress.

Average suicide rate of cops per normal population. Insane. Why? Because they are assholes! Wait, that makes no sense either... Oh, because they break.

Face it, some men break, with or without a badge. Get over it. Inexplicable my ass. I am not defending this man's actions--just pointing out a reality that no one else faces up to.

Get the man help unless he cannot be helped or it is just his nature. And before someone says, "Fire him anyways! He needs removed," think on this. If we fire every cop who says, "I have a problem. I wanted to smash this handicapped woman's face," no cop will ever admit to a problem until they hurt someone or take their own life.