Best Posts


User avatar
Posted by Str8tEdge
25 Feb 2015, 8:45 pm

Str8tEdge Emperor of the Pheasants
User avatar
Emperor of the Pheasants

Posts: 28781
five0pd310 » 25 Feb 2015 7:43 pm wrote:
Annoyed Liberall » 25 Feb 2015 6:42 pm wrote:

Is a hand print on the face of a 16 year old considered and injury? What does an injury involve?

I am open to that way of thinking. But, I don't understabd the reasoning behind it.

How does it make sense to teach not to hit by hitting?

You know how many women get involved with abusive men because they are used to being hit by their dad?


If you touch a hot stove you burn the shit out of your hand and you never touch it again, right? You learn not to burn yourself by being burned. Same thing with spanking and it works just as well with a lot of children.

A hand print on the face of a 16 year old? I guess i would have to know what the situation was that began it. Is it an injury? Technically, yes. Did the 16 year old earn it by hitting mom first? Was Dad just drunk and decided to smack the kiddos around? Just depends.


Physical discipline is the ONLY thing that works during the period of childhood where children are incapable of reasoning.

Idiots treating 3 year olds like adults are what's filling up our acute psych wards. :LOL:
-1

User avatar
Posted by Str8tEdge
25 Feb 2015, 8:14 pm

Str8tEdge Emperor of the Pheasants
User avatar
Emperor of the Pheasants

Posts: 28781
Annoyed Liberall » 25 Feb 2015 6:12 pm wrote:
Str8tEdge » 25 Feb 2015 6:09 pm wrote:

I gave you another for pointing it out. Keep your junk science out of other people's raising of their children.

The MAIN reason why children are so unruly, disrespectful and downright rude these days is not enough swats on the ass.

Link?


Sure. After you take a few human development courses so you'll be able to understand how stupid it is to claim spanking children isn't needed when they lack the cognitive ability to reason. :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
-1

User avatar
Posted by Str8tEdge
25 Feb 2015, 7:09 pm

Str8tEdge Emperor of the Pheasants
User avatar
Emperor of the Pheasants

Posts: 28781
Annoyed Liberall » 25 Feb 2015 6:06 pm wrote:
I see Str8 gave me a reddie.
No surprise he is in favor of smacking kids around.
I am sure the ones in the nut ward all strapped down are easy pickings.


I gave you another for pointing it out. Keep your junk science out of other people's raising of their children.

The MAIN reason why children are so unruly, disrespectful and downright rude these days is not enough swats on the ass.
-1

User avatar
Posted by Str8tEdge
25 Feb 2015, 7:06 pm

Str8tEdge Emperor of the Pheasants
User avatar
Emperor of the Pheasants

Posts: 28781
Annoyed Liberall » 25 Feb 2015 9:47 am wrote:
Spanking children can have long term effects.
Once you hit a child, you have lost control.

This is an opinion piece, but it links to the study being discussed.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/22/opinion/m ... index.html

http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/28/w ... your-kids/
Children who are spanked occasionally are not thought to be significantly impacted later on, but those who are spanked regularly are more likely to have behavior problems that may escalate into antisocial behavior. They may also be at greater risk for anxiety disorders or depression and ultimately may be more likely to engage in domestic violence and child abuse as adults.


http://abcnews.go.com/Health/spanking-k ... d=16695697

Childhood punishments such as spanking, slapping, and hitting – even in the absence of full-scale maltreatment – are associated with an increased risk of mental disorders in adulthood, researchers reported.
Adults who reported such punishments in their childhood had a greater risk of mood disorders, anxiety disorders, alcohol and drug abuse dependence, and several personality disorders, according to Tracie Afifi, PhD, of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, and colleagues.
Up to 7 percent of some adult disorders can be attributed to "harsh physical punishment" in childhood, Afifi and colleagues reported online in Pediatrics.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/spanking-yo ... -by-age-9/
Spanking may leave a lasting impact on children, well past their initial punishment.
Children who were spanked often early in life by their mothers were more likely to be aggressive later in childhood compared to kids who weren't spanked at all, a study published in Pediatrics on Oct. 21 concluded. Being spanked by dads was also linked to vocabulary and language problems in kids.
"These effects are long-lasting. They aren't just short-term problems that wash out over time. And the effects were stronger for those who were spanked more than twice a week," co-author Michael MacKenzie, an associate professor at the Columbia University School of Social Work in New York, told HealthDay.


Crock of shit backed by junk science from a bunch of pussified progressives.

The long term affects of disciplining children when they are MENTALLY INCAPABLE of REASONING like an adult, is respectful, mindful, pleasant children.

You can ALWAYS tell progressive parents by how their kids act at the grocery store.
-1

GailyBee's Photo
Posted by GailyBee
26 Feb 2015, 9:05 am

GailyBee Grammar Nazi Emeritus
Grammar Nazi Emeritus

Posts: 3734
What this thread 'proves' ( :blink: ) is that 'cons' are judgmental and hateful.

That's all. Period.

There isn't anything here that 'proves' Liberals are less patriotic than anyone else. Not one thing.

This thread is an example of paranoia and small-mindedness--and not by the Liberals who have posted here.

You have fallen into the schoolyard vortex of mob mentality and it does not flatter you or show you to be more patriotic than the Liberals.

It shows you to be petty and grasping and afraid.

What a shame...
-1

GailyBee's Photo
Posted by GailyBee
19 Feb 2015, 9:17 am

Post 19 Feb 2015, 9:17 am
GailyBee Grammar Nazi Emeritus
Grammar Nazi Emeritus

Posts: 3734

GailyBee's Photo
Posted by GailyBee
19 Feb 2015, 9:54 am

Post 19 Feb 2015, 9:54 am
GailyBee Grammar Nazi Emeritus
Grammar Nazi Emeritus

Posts: 3734
Two If By Tea » 19 Feb 2015 8:53 am wrote:
Str8tEdge » 19 Feb 2015 8:46 am wrote:


Point out on the doll where the baddie Two If By Tea touched you.


:huh:


You don't 'have to' put up with a single thing. There is an easy solution to your situation. :)
-1

GailyBee's Photo
Posted by GailyBee
19 Feb 2015, 11:02 pm

Post 19 Feb 2015, 11:02 pm
GailyBee Grammar Nazi Emeritus
Grammar Nazi Emeritus

Posts: 3734
Two If By Tea » 19 Feb 2015 6:47 pm wrote:
GailyBee » 19 Feb 2015 6:12 pm wrote:
Two If By Tea » 19 Feb 2015 9:05 am wrote:

And what would that be?


Don't be here.

See?

Simple!

:)

But I like it here and I don't have anywhere else to go.


In that case, you'll have to put up with it.

Your choice.
-1

GailyBee's Photo
Posted by GailyBee
19 Feb 2015, 11:02 pm

Post 19 Feb 2015, 11:02 pm
GailyBee Grammar Nazi Emeritus
Grammar Nazi Emeritus

Posts: 3734
Southern indep » 19 Feb 2015 7:26 pm wrote:


He is a bathroom toe tapper if I ever saw one. But he Keeps the nancies stirred up..


'Tis true. :huh:
-1

User avatar
Posted by Endoscopy
27 Feb 2015, 10:16 am

Endoscopy      
User avatar
     

Posts: 4578
Rebel » 27 Feb 2015 9:01 am wrote:
MSN has a liberal slant, but CNN is certainly not liberal. FOX is not a news organization. It's a right wing propaganda farm.

I tune in to NPR as often as I can, and utilize a few different on-line sources. If I want TV news, I generally opt for CNN.


You people are so idiotic .



Image
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
27 Feb 2015, 3:57 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
Reasonable » 27 Feb 2015 2:49 pm wrote:
This could be the most unprofessional thing I've ever seen from a politician.
Remember we pay his salary.


Did he tell numerous lies about his health care plan that does almost the opposite of what he claimed?

Did he seize control of the internet?


Did he run up $8 trillion in debt?

Did he bring about the worst recovery since the Great Depression?

Did he cause real unemployment to remain stuck at 10%?

Oh, that was Obama, wasn't it. :rofl: :rofl:
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
27 Feb 2015, 4:37 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
Reasonable » 27 Feb 2015 3:08 pm wrote:
RichClem » 27 Feb 2015 2:57 pm wrote:

Oh, that was Obama, wasn't it. :rofl: :rofl:


Oh look. A squirrel.
Poor glory hole can't even address Boner's disgraceful behavior.
Wingnut credo in effect..


Hey troll, why did you cut out most of my post? Because you know what a failure the Leftist-in-Chief is. :rofl: :rofl:

Did he tell numerous lies about his health care plan that does almost the opposite of what he claimed?

Did he seize control of the internet?


Did he run up $8 trillion in debt?

Did he bring about the worst recovery since the Great Depression?

Did he cause real unemployment to remain stuck at 10%?
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
28 Feb 2015, 11:18 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
Mark Lindberg » 28 Feb 2015 8:10 am wrote:
I see the Right in here is doing their usual -- absolutely unwilling to agree when one of their own shows he is willing to take boatloads of taxpayer money and laugh in our faces.

Tell me something, righties, you get so het up over libs doing bad things, don't you? Well if you're so mad at them for screwing up, how can you possibly give your own a free pass for screwing up?


Absolutely stunning that you'll ignore Obama's overwhelming failure on just about everything, but babble about some minor remark Boehner made. :rofl: :rofl:

Don't you see that you have no credibility when you do that?


Does anyone with an ounce of common sense believe a word you write, moonbat?
-1

Mark Lindberg's Photo
Posted by Mark Lindberg
28 Feb 2015, 2:21 pm

Mark Lindberg      
     

Posts: 4302
Huey » 28 Feb 2015 8:32 am wrote:

Please post what Warren Buffet said. I don't thinkit is a case of Buffet lying or being stupid. I think it is a case of your or your sources spinning what he said.

But I will give you a small clue. Buffet was talking about the official, marginal rate he pays being higher marginal rate than his secretary. Not the DOLLAR amount. That is absolutely true. His secretary is taxed on an INCOME TAX BRACKET. Buffet does not take a salary or takes a small salary. THe bulk of his "income" is from his investments which is a lower RATE. He does this on purpose to avoid paying MORE taxes. So he is not stupid. Nor is he lying. His secretary does not pay MORE dollars. And he never discussed her EFFECTIVE rate. Which I just showed you just about NO ONE in america pays.

So please post what Buffet said. I look forward to it.


Gee, not the dollar amount? Who would've thought? Buffet pays many times in dollars what his secretary makes.

Here's his latest comments:

Warren Buffett says even though he and other top earners are paying higher taxes this year, he thinks he's still paying a lower rate than his secretary.
In 2013, capital gains for those earning more than $400,000 ($450,000 for couples) will be taxed at 20%, up from 15%. And high-income households also will pay an additional 3.8% in Medicare taxes on their investment income for the first time. The top marginal tax rate also rose for the wealthiest wage earners, but since Buffett's income is from investment gains, not wages, that's not a factor.

But part of the problem is that his secretary's tax bill also went up since a partial payroll tax holidayended, raising what she pays for social security by 2 percentage points.

"I'll be a fair amount higher, 8 or 9 points higher," Buffett said of his own tax rate in an appearance on CNBC Monday. "But the differential between me and the rest of the office, not just my secretary but the rest of the office, was greater than that. It'll be closer, but I'll probably be the lowest paying taxpayer in the office."

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/
The point is, why should the wealthy get a pass by paying a lower rate than people who make a fraction of what they make?


Is it because he's a "job creator" and needs the money to create more jobs? Here's a clue: the wealthy are not job creators. Job creation is a result of demand coupled with the ability to supply it. If people can't afford what you sell, how are you going to create more jobs? If you have a car but no gas to put in it, how do you go anywhere in it?

That's why increases in pay are good not just for workers, but also for business, who can sell more goods and services. If you, in effect, rob the workers to give more to stockholders, you hurt all three: workers aka consumers, owners, and stockholders. Workers don't make enough to buy a sufficient number of products to allow business to expand and hire more workers.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6f8813c8-b85b-11e4-b6a5-00144feab7de.html#axzz3T4LmGTjG
-1

User avatar
Posted by Str8tEdge
25 Feb 2015, 6:41 pm

Str8tEdge Emperor of the Pheasants
User avatar
Emperor of the Pheasants

Posts: 28781
WillFranklin » 25 Feb 2015 1:41 pm wrote:
Str8tEdge » 25 Feb 2015 7:56 am wrote:

That's because private investment is essential to the economy. You're burger flipping job? Not so much.


Wealthy investors have made out big and can afford to pay more in taxes.


So can the 43% who pay ZERO in taxes or the millions who not on;y pay ZERO in taxes, but get thousands back in earned income credit.
-1

User avatar
Posted by danobivins
01 Mar 2015, 8:06 pm

Post 01 Mar 2015, 8:06 pm
danobivins       
User avatar
      

Posts: 12984
Truthwarrior757 » 01 Mar 2015 6:53 pm wrote:
FACT! Less than 1.5% of the American population has relatives who were slave owners


Yeah, care of stormfront. Probably 99% of whites had slaveowner ancestors.
Doesn,t matter tho,, if a company injures someone the lower workers don,t get a pass, the whole company is responsible.
-1

User avatar
Posted by Str8tEdge
22 Feb 2015, 12:35 am

Str8tEdge Emperor of the Pheasants
User avatar
Emperor of the Pheasants

Posts: 28781
greatnpowerfuloz » 21 Feb 2015 9:17 pm wrote:
Str8tEdge » 21 Feb 2015 8:56 pm wrote:

He's not even good at that. He's a machinist and he makes 4 times what an RN makes. :roll:


And why shouldn't he? Do you have any idea what a machinist does?

Here's a hint. He's not a chimp trained to timely dispense pharmaceuticals.


In greatnpowerfulfraud's lame attempt to insult me she actually called her own daughter, who's a nurse by her own admission, a trained chimp.....

Now, judging how little she actually knows about RN's I seriously doubt her daughter's a nurse but that's neither here or there.

Str8tEdge » 21 Feb 2015 9:23 pm wrote:
greatnpowerfuloz » 21 Feb 2015 9:17 pm wrote:

And why shouldn't he? Do you have any idea what a machinist does?

Here's a hint. He's not a chimp trained to timely dispense pharmaceuticals.


http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes514041.htm

Machinist:

Median wage $19.03 an hour Annual $39,570

RN:

Median wage $31.48 an hour Annual $65,470

A machinist doesn't even require a college education.....drunk.

I can't believe you just called your own daughter a trained chimp in a lame attempt to attack me. :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: You're a special kind of stupid.


So.... Should she be banned for trashing her own child? :huh:
-1

LouCabrazi's Photo
Posted by LouCabrazi
02 Mar 2015, 10:10 pm

LouCabrazi       
      

Posts: 13037
danobivins » 02 Mar 2015 7:22 pm wrote:
I support obamas plan to shoot down israeli planes.


+1
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
03 Mar 2015, 9:30 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
Mark Lindberg » 03 Mar 2015 8:24 am wrote:
Ya'll might want to practice saying 'Madam President' -- just in case you'll be saying it soon.


Yeah, Americans long for having a total sleaze back in the White House. :rofl: :rofl:

They want US policy sold to the highest bidder, no really! :clap:

As Fox News headlined:

Hillary Clinton’s ties to corporate donors, lobbyists while secretary of state scrutinized

The Fox story begins:

Hillary Clinton's ties to large corporations have come under more scrutiny after it was revealed that dozens of companies that have donated millions to her family's foundation also lobbied the State Department during her tenure as secretary of state.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the 60 companies who lobbied Clinton's State Department between 2009 and 2013 donated over $26 million to the Clinton Foundation in that period. The donors include instantly recognizable names like General Electric, Exxon Mobil, and Boeing.

The Journal also reports that at least 44 of the 60 companies participated in philanthropy projects valued at $3.2 billion set up by the Clinton Global Initiative, which is a wing of the foundation. At least 25 of the companies also contributed to 15 public-private partnerships created by Clinton and coordinated by the State Department.

While there is no evidence that any laws were broken, the connections do raise potentially thorny ethical questions as Clinton prepares for a likely 2016 run for the Democratic presidential nomination.
http://spectator.org/articles/61938/sha ... a-lewinsky
-1

User avatar
Posted by Reasonable
03 Mar 2015, 8:49 pm

Reasonable       
User avatar
      

Posts: 27289
golfboy » 03 Mar 2015 7:40 pm wrote:
Yes, you're ridiculous and I've debunked your moronic claims.

You are psychotic.
I mean really.
To show yourself to be such a coward and numbskull and continue this charade, it's really pathetic.

Goofy says he debunked a video with Krauthammer 's exact words but won't tell us how or where.
No really.
-1