Money for Cedarswamp


User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
16 Jan 2014, 11:59 am

Post 16 Jan 2014, 11:59 am
Cedarswamp Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 15582
littlehawk12 » 16 Jan 2014 2:16 am wrote:
All you ever have is grade school name calling. Why wouldn't everyone believe me over you, fraud?


Most likely because we've all read your drunken rants. :rofl:
1

User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
17 Jan 2014, 6:12 am

Cedarswamp Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 15582
Cannonpointer » 09 Jan 2014 8:58 am wrote:

So your fat, craven ass is now on record calling any who would suggest revolution moonbats, coward. And the founders whom you prattle about did precisely that, fraud.


I'd like to go on record as a "moonbat"....a well fucking armed "moonbat." :rofl:
1

User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
18 Jan 2014, 3:11 pm

Post 18 Jan 2014, 3:11 pm
Cedarswamp Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 15582
danobivins » 18 Jan 2014 1:40 pm wrote:
A while back fuelman wrot that many ppl making 40K a yr have no federal tax liability. I challenged that and said it was false.
Today I stopped into a tax place and axed them if Fuelman's statement was true. Turns out it is indeed true.
Under the right circumstances, with many kids and a mtg and business expenses, it's possible to whittle your fed tax rate down to zero.
So I was wrong. I typed without first making myself thoroughly familiar with the issue, and went by what I thought was common sense.
I'm not wrong that often, but in this case fuelman was right and I was wrong.


Way to man up. :thumbup:
1

User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
20 Jan 2014, 9:06 pm

Cedarswamp Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 15582


It's disgusting that the democrats fought against changing that.
1

User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
20 Jan 2014, 10:23 pm

Cedarswamp Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 15582
SallyForth » 20 Jan 2014 9:01 pm wrote:

Not Democrats. Conservatives who were, at the time, Democrats. Liberals populated the Republican Party in the early 60s hence their power passed the Civil Rights Act against the will of Southern racist conservative Democrats. Who are the liberals today, Democrats or Republicans? Who doesn't even bother campaigning in black districts, Democrats or Republicans? Republicans, of course. But weren't they the folks who passed rights bills for blacks? No, they were the ones who opposed it. They simply belonged to the Democratic Party at the time. But around the middle 60s racist conservatives started abandoning the Democratic party because it was beginning to turn liberal, and Richard Nixon developed his "Southern Strategy," wooing black-hating conservatives to the Republican Party, not for their views but for their voting power, which was considerable. So today, liberals reside in the Democratic party and conservatives (along with the racists) in the Republican Party. Today's Republicans would never have passed the Civil Rights Act; today's Democrats would never have been members of the KKK or White Citizens Councils.

Image
1

User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
20 Jan 2014, 11:35 pm

Cedarswamp Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 15582
SallyForth » 20 Jan 2014 10:19 pm wrote:

Is this how you usually respond when you hear something that frustrates your prejudices?


No that's how I respond when people try to spin away something that frustrates their prejudices?

You can't change the history of the democrat party....you just embrace the suck. :rofl:
1

User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
20 Jan 2014, 11:45 pm

Cedarswamp Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 15582
Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2014 10:40 pm wrote:

Still, it was nice of those who opposed change to leave the democrat party en masse and take up with the republicans.

Or is it your position that Mississippi is a blue state? :huh:

Alabama?
Texas?
South Carolina?
Georgia?
Kentucky?
Louisiana?
Tennessee?
Virginia?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I didn't THINK so, son. :wave:

Still, nice try. By the way - the republicans took your advice.

THEY EMBRACED THE SUCK! :die: :die: :die: :die: :die: :die:

I guess the Kennedy's got shot before they could switch to the Republican party....yea that's the ticket. :rofl:
1

User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
16 Jan 2014, 7:18 pm

Cedarswamp Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 15582
Candy » 16 Jan 2014 6:08 pm wrote:

So, because these programs are in debt, would you be in favor of shit canning the government run entities, ASAP?


Yes. :wave:
-1

User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
22 Jan 2014, 5:34 pm

Cedarswamp Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 15582
KarlChilders » 22 Jan 2014 4:30 pm wrote:

How FAR BACK exactly

Understanding the CHEAP SHOT but maybe like EASY FIELD GOAL or WAaaaaay BACK


Make it a 45 or 50 yarder. Fucking high school kids kick extra points.
1

User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
22 Jan 2014, 5:58 pm

Cedarswamp Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 15582
GeorgeWashington » 22 Jan 2014 4:49 pm wrote:

Today, almost one-half of the counties in Mississippi are dry with their own prohibition against the production, advertising, sale, distribution, or transportation of alcoholic beverages within their boundaries. It is even illegal to bring alcohol through a dry county in Mississippi while traveling across the country in the process of, for example, moving a personal wine or spirits collection to one's new residence

Of the 120 counties of Kentucky, 55 are completely dry and 30 are wet [1]. The remaining 35 counties are “moist, fall somewhere between.

Certain counties allow the sale of alcoholic beverages by the drink on golf courses located in dry counties.
Some wineries are allowed to operate within dry counties.
16 cities within dry counties have voted to allow restaurants above a specified size to serve drinks.
16 other cities are wet cities located in dry counties.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Contro ... uBKWXg8KsM




Can I make homemade wine and beer?Mississippi law provides that a person may make homemade wine for domestic or household uses only. Homemade wine cannot be sold. Wine is defined as a product obtained from the alcoholic fermentation of the juice of sound, ripe grapes, fruits or berries and made in accordance with the revenue laws of the United States.
A person may make homemade beer for personal, family, domestic or household use only. Annually a person may make up to 100 gallons if there is only 1 person over 21 years of age residing in the household; or 200 gallons if there are 2 or more persons over 21 residing in the household. The person making beer must be at least 21 and must reside in a “wet” county or municipality. Homemade beer may not be sold.
http://www.dor.ms.gov/info/faqs/Tobacco ... hol.html#s
1

User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
22 Jan 2014, 8:18 pm

Cedarswamp Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 15582
Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2014 7:11 pm wrote:

You have the tiny sac to say this shit to ME, you witless accessory?

YOU are the one justifying 3.5 billion of your fellow humans getting along with what 85 of those whose dicks you suck have. YOU are the generous guy with other peoples' property, son - not I.

YOU are the My Little Pony girl who pretends to believe that 85 guys have "out-worked and out-earned" 3.5 billion, you willing stooge for thievery.


Yea ya see that's the problem right there, I really don't give a fuck about 3.5 billion 3rd world assholes, And I'm not envious of the 85 uber-wealthy assholes.

C'est la vie mutha fuckas!
1

User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
23 Jan 2014, 3:25 pm

Cedarswamp Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 15582
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get ya. :ninja:
1


User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
25 Jan 2014, 4:44 am

Post 25 Jan 2014, 4:44 am
Cedarswamp Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 15582
You try to sell me some faggot soaps I'm outta here,
:lol:
1

User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
24 Jan 2014, 5:42 pm

Cedarswamp Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 15582
Misty » 24 Jan 2014 4:39 pm wrote:
When do we start talking about how much sex men are having, or why they can't seem to control their libidos?


Talk dirty to me baby! :wub:
3

User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
26 Jan 2014, 9:42 am

Cedarswamp Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 15582
Truthwarrior757 » 26 Jan 2014 8:20 am wrote:
US Military Now To Allow Turbans, Other Religious Clothing UNBELIEVABLE!

The Pentagon has approved a new policy that will allow troops to seek waivers to wear religious clothing, seek prayer time or engage in religious practices.
Defense officials say the waivers will be decided on a case-by-case basis and will depend on where the service member is stationed and whether the change would affect military readiness or the mission.



This was policy 30 years ago under Reagan when I was in.....the policy may go back further than that for all I know.
2

User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
26 Jan 2014, 2:06 pm

Cedarswamp Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 15582
Truthwarrior757 » 26 Jan 2014 12:56 pm wrote:

You did on another thread. said conservaties believe anything their told :LOL:


Dude like I said, I met a staff sergeant at a transportation depot in K-town Germany, in '84, maybe '85 that had a turban and a full beard, nice enough guy, very professional. All this "new" policy does is consolidate the different policies between the branches of service. Obama has done enough "real" stupid shit, why look for boogeymen where none exist?
2