Slashdot Mirror
Reason Suggests DoJ Closing Porn Stars' Bank Accounts
MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) writes "In a recent story on reason.com it was reported that the DoJ is closing down the bank accounts of porn stars. Not knowing the site I googled around and found another site, the Guardian. The story does not end there. It turns out that this is part of a larger scheme (ironically) called Operation Choke Point. Also reported in a Washington Post article that downplays the practice. According to Cryptocoin news. There are thirty industries the DoJ is now targeteting: Ammunition Sales; Cable Box De-scramblers; Coin Dealers; Credit Card Schemes; Credit Repair Services; Dating Services; Debt Consolidation Scams; Drug Paraphernalia; Escort Services; Firearms Sales; Fireworks Sales; Get Rich Products; Government Grants; Home-Based Charities; Life-Time Guarantees; Life-Time Memberships; Lottery Sales; Mailing Lists/Personal Info; Money Transfer Networks; On-line Gambling; PayDay Loans; Pharmaceutical Sales; Ponzi Schemes; Pornography; Pyramid-Type Sales; Racist Materials; Surveillance Equipment; Telemarketing; Tobacco Sales; and Travel Clubs. But more can be added. (I notice alcohol sales is not on the list)." The Reason article stops short of saying that Choke Point is proven to be the reason for the account closures, but it seems very plausible.
There are thirty industries the DoJ is now targeteting: Ammunition Sales; Cable Box De-scramblers; Coin Dealers; Credit Card Schemes; Credit Repair Services; Dating Services; Debt Consolidation Scams; Drug Paraphernalia; Escort Services; Firearms Sales; Fireworks Sales; Get Rich Products; Government Grants; Home-Based Charities; Life-Time Guarantees; Life-Time Memberships; Lottery Sales; Mailing Lists/Personal Info; Money Transfer Networks; On-line Gambling; PayDay Loans; Pharmaceutical Sales; Ponzi Schemes; Pornography; Pyramid-Type Sales; Racist Materials; Surveillance Equipment; Telemarketing; Tobacco Sales; and Travel Clubs.
Because these industires are a definite threat to National Security... Fail!!!
The Soviets cracked down on all these too, except the ones they ran themselves. Ammo sales were a particular no no. Credit cards? Absolutely not.
You won't find a right to a bank account in the Constitution.
That you won't find the power to stop you from having a Bank Account in the Constitution is a fact that will be lost on the anti-drug "Goddamned Piece of Paper" Republicans and liberals.
Using DoJ resources to force the closure of accounts belonging to "legal but subjectively undesirable business ventures"? There's no way in hell that can be legal. This is a slippery slope situation and should get folks on both sides of the aisle riled up
I'm not making any claims, I'm just making an observation:
Some of the things on DoJ's "Laundry List" of so-called "high financial risk" businesses are historically not high-risk AT ALL.
Like ammunition and firearms. Far from being "high-risk": manufacturers and retailers have historically been both large and long-lived. There is an ammunition manufacturer not all that far from here and they have been in business for 60 years. And the vast majority of ammunition is sold through major sporting-goods franchises, not mom-and-pop shops. Same with firearms.
Further, where people DO engage in small-scale ammunition or firearms sales or manufacturing, it is often a perfectly legitimate, specialty product. I know somebody who made and sold custom cartridges, and I have also met a guy who makes firearms. All perfectly legit and legal.
So pardon me for saying so, and I don't want to be misunderstood as being some kind of right-wing nut or anything, but it kind of looks like some things on this list are in fact Obama agenda items. Which is illegal.
Pepper the list with plenty of "industries" that the vast majority of people would dearly love to see destroyed, such as pyramid schemes, racist trash and payday loans, but shut down plenty of useful-but-intimidating-to-those-in-power businesses as well.
[End Of Line]
Not sure why merely doing business in the Ammunition Sales; Coin Dealers; Credit Repair Services; Dating Services; Firearms Sales; Fireworks Sales; Home-Based Charities; Life-Time Guarantees; Life-Time Memberships; Mailing Lists/Personal Info; Money Transfer Networks; On-line Gambling; PayDay Loans; Pharmaceutical Sales; Pornography; Racist Materials; Surveillance Equipment; Telemarketing; Tobacco Sales and Travel Clubs industries or combination thereof should automatically flag ones activies as "questionable". What happened to innocent until proven guilty??
...but I can't stand the thought of government deciding that some people (who aren't doing anything illegal) shouldn't be able to have a bank account.
I reject the excuse that it's all optional on the part of the banks. Having Big Brother breathing down your neck and Strongly Suggesting that you do something is absolutely inappropriate, and I'd love to see Washington, DC held accountable for this in some way.
And that is a problem. It makes sure people do not climb out of poverty, or at least makes it a lot harder. After all, cannot have people participating in normal society that the government deems "undesirables". Next steps: forbid them to work, then concentration camps, then gas chambers. National purity must be maintained at all cost!
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
For all the Ponzi-this, tulips-that that gets posted every time Bitcoin makes the news, this is one of the problems they're trying to solve. A prude at Chase or the DoJ can't close your bank accounts if you have no need of a bank in the first place.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Oh wait... Harper's in power
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
I reject the excuse that it's all optional on the part of the banks. Having Big Brother breathing down your neck and Strongly Suggesting that you do something is absolutely inappropriate, and I'd love to see Washington, DC held accountable for this in some way.
It seems to me, too, that even though many banks are "local" institutions, if they accept FDIC regulation I think they are supposed to play by Federal anti-discrimination and fair business rules. Which would prohibit Government from shutting down legal businesses just because they are "unwanted" by somebody in said government..
Come on guys.
Given Wells Fargo is currently accepting these people as customers, I think you need to produce a higher standard of proof before this conspiracy becomes believable.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Wait, so they want more of these industries to be cash based and perhaps un/under-report income tax??? I know plenty of people who have been moving more toward cash in the past several years, but it seems counter-intuitive the government would want to track less.
But seriously, how will this decrease fraud?
This is feminism in action. Pornstars are the living embodiment of their imaginary patriarchy.
Ammo sales were a particular no no.
Private gun ownership was fairly common in the Soviet Union, at about 10 guns per 100 people, and is still common in Russia today. Private citizens were limited to long guns (rifles and shotguns), and they had to register them. But they were generally available to almost anyone that wanted one. The idea that all dictatorships ban private weapons, or conversely, that an armed citizenry always prevents tyranny, is clearly false.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Imagine your live without a bank account or the ability to drive or travel by air.
Drive porn to the black market... That will probably work as well as the war against drugs...
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Go read the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and get back to us with why you feel it doesn't apply to a bank account.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
No, but pornography is a first amendment rights, and screw you if it is at the opposite of your morality.
Considering that investment firms cost the government HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in bailouts, can they really argue that porn stars are "risky"?
Maybe that's part of it. I think this is Big Government nanny state in action. They want to control everything they see, whether or not there's a law authorizing them to do so. It's this kind of arrogance that makes the IRS audit political opponents of the Obama administration for no other reason than to intimidate them and "make them go away". Making people go away in one form or another is a common theme with dysfunctional governments.
It might be argue that subpoena and affidavit constitute an unreasonable search, and thus protected by the 4th Amendment.
I had no idea that this was the case in the soviet era. Can you cite your sources please?
It really depends on what you can find in origins of US law about the tools of your legal trade/profession been blocked/confiscated. US color of law efforts without a warrant or access to court is not legally good and would be challenged by skilled US legal teams.
The great aspect to the US legal system is it was shaped to protect from extrajudicial punishment and protects free speech, assembly, press, privacy and much more.
Generational color of law changes are difficult.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Do you WANT to create a shadow banking system? Because this is how you do it.
Agreed, it is clearly not optional on the part of the banks. This has a very chilling effect on activities where the regs can't actually prosecute for wrongdoing. If they could, they would, and they wouldn't be going this route. This sort of tactic is contrary to the principles of a free society. Banks will "choose" to decline to do business with certain people and companies if they feel they will get sued or have to spend a fortune on a governmental investigation. If there is truly evidence of illegal activities, authorities should go after the people allegedly engaged in those activities, not the banks. But in these cases, often times the activities are not really illegal, even if they are activities not loved by everyone in society. Because the government can't prosecute, should it be allowed to strong-arm banks into doing the dirty work? What does that sort of logic lead to, especially when things like banking are akin to breathing in modern society.
There are plenty of nefarious behaviors going on at banks that regulators would be wise to oversee, but this is a case of overstepping IMO. Regulators are forcing discrimination. Is it okay for banks to be choosy based on certain parameters (I don't like your business because it's porn and I think porn is ruining our society) and not others (I don't like your business because it supports, say, charter schools, and I the bank president happen to think charter schools are ruining our society)? That's discrimination. At the very same time, regulators would bring proceedings against these very same banks for refusing to do business with certain people/organizations just because they choose to.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
"PNC Financial Services Group Inc. (PNC) received a subpoena regarding the return rate for its payment-processor clients from the U.S. Department of Justice. The department’s consumer protection unit is seeking information “for certain merchant and payment processor customers with whom PNC has a depository relationship,” the Pittsburgh-based bank said today in a regulatory filing. “We believe that the subpoena is intended to determine whether, and to what extent, PNC may have facilitated fraud committed by third-parties against consumers.” "
Private citizens were limited to long guns (rifles and shotguns), and they had to register them. But they were generally available to almost anyone that wanted one. The idea that all dictatorships ban private weapons, or conversely, that an armed citizenry always prevents tyranny, is clearly false.
You don't need total confiscation. When you need to crack down on citizens, all you need is [A] that they don't own handguns (because those are primarily defensive weapons), and [B] that all other weapons are registered.
Then you're home free. When you know who has the weapons and who doesn't, you pretty much control them.
While I agree that "not all dictatorships ban private weapons", they don't have to. All they have to do is control who has them and who doesn't. Example: while it has often been denied, the Nazis did in fact grab guns... from the Jews. I recently read an article that had a picture of the original Nazi decree that Jews could not have guns or bank accounts. (!!!)
Sound familiar?
The great aspect to the US legal system is it was shaped to protect from extrajudicial punishment and protects free speech, assembly, press, privacy and much more.
Or at least, it's supposed to. The foundation is there.
Check out 18 U.S.C. 242: "Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law".
While many people think this is "just" a discrimination statute, a careful reading of the law shows that it applies to ALL Constitutional and natural rights.
And government employees are not immune. Not even the President. (In fact, this statute was specifically intended to prevent government abuse.) The maximum penalty is life in prison.
I should add: conviction rates for violations of 18 USC 242, once charges are brought, are exceptionally high: somewhere in the 90% range.
If you want more confirmation, see any of the message boards dedicated to the affected industries. There you'll find the victims discussing what to do.
In some of these industries, like porn, one closure affects many, many people. All those free porn sites are financed by the ads they run for a comparatively small number of large pay site networks. Many of them don't expect to get paid this month because their sponsor's account has been shut down in the last few days. The affect is similar to, but not as big, as shutting down PayPal's accounts - it affects not only PayPal, but anyone who relies on PayPal for their business. There are also hosting companies and other service providers who make their living providing services to all the smaller sites. When the sponsor can't pay the small sites, the small sites can't pay their hosting bill. Anything that affects a couple of the large sponsors ripples through the industry.
Go vote Republican then, they will make sure to uphold the Constitution unless it's for something they don't like.
Porn, lottery tickets, credit repair services, payday lenders.
Here is how the day for a typical poor person works:
1) Wake up, watch some porn
2) Go get a PayDay loan
3) Go buy some lottery tickets
4) Go to the credit repair service after not winning lottery
5)Sign up for some pyramid schemes
6) Watch some descrambled cable TV from neighbors cable connection
7) Party by doing some fireworks while smoking some tobacco and a bit of shooting some guns
These businesses really do prey on poor people. On one hand, you might think targeting these industries might be ineffective because people with really bad common sense are hard to stop from self-destructive activities.
Why aren't they just scanning driver's licenses as a requirement of buying lottery tickets and then compiling a list of super-habitual "blow all their money types".
These industries are organized crime, engaging in fraud/deceit and wrecking lives and run by criminals, and are run by the mafia types.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Because the DoJ isnt actually closing bank accounts?
If you had read the article you would see that it is speculating that a handful of porn star's bank account closures are maybe due to DoJ pressure. Theyre making this leap because of a vice.com article which speculates that the closures are because they are porn stars. Vice makes this gigantic leap because of a WSJ article (conveniently paywalled) which speculates that Operation Chokepoint is targetting porn.
Thats a whole bunch of speculation on a ridiculous assertion. A liberal administration isnt going to crack down on porn; it would alienate huge parts of their base. The idea is stupid, the speculation is stupid, and Reason/Vice are remarkably stupid websites. Slashdot is even worse for being dumb enough to link to the flamebait.
Yes, Obama clearly was pro-cable box descramblers and pro-fireworks when he ran for office.
Just one more way he didn't keep his promises!
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
I personally know people who got audited because of contributions to the IRS watch list. And they love to claim that it was a coordinated political attack against the right wing.
It wasn't.
When "non profit" groups form that are closely aligned with or have explicit anti-government agendas (particularly against the IRS, tax code, and the claimed illegality of personal income tax) then it's a no brainer place to look for those skirting the law.
No one was intimidated, their tax reporting was just flagged for the extra-scrutiny pile.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Which is fine: the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"General welfare" clause. It is the Silly Putty of the Constitution: it can morph into any shape and justify any law or government action, even if other parts of the Constitution are at odds with it.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Would be nice if all of the folks so ostensibly concerned with the direction this takes us, had actually bothered to read the article. Sort of gives the lie to your moral crusading when you cant even be bothered to get informed on the issue.
It's not socialism, dipshit. It's outright fascist capitalism.
Removing high risk activities? They should close banks!
No shit. A majority of the second amendment nutters in the US are extremely pro-police state, pro-totalitarianism.
Really? Odd that reality doesn't seem to fit with your narrative. From everything that I've seen in the US, police are generally disliked by both sides of the isle. But between the two sides, especially 2nd amendment folks you'll find them being the ones who don't actually take to the militarization of police. While many left wing people do, and left wing groups. Going as far as pushing police depts. to get surplus military vehicles. So you were saying?
Om, nomnomnom...
It is effect, this is to banks what the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comics_Code_Authority&oldid=604210348 Comics Code Authority] was to comic-book stores.
Then: "If you don't want trouble, only sell pre-approved comic books"
Now: "If you don't want trouble, only deal with businesses in pre-approved lines of business."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Of course I meant to say Comics Code Authority.
Memo to self: Preview THEN post.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
As if our weekly fun news didn't have enough material for its "US SPECIAL" corner...
What is it with the US and Porn? I've never seen a country so obsessed about it, and quite frankly any time some sort of report about some sort of sexual freak show or paraphilia, you may rest assured it's about the US.
Kinda reinforces my theory that the road to sexual perversion is repressing it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Frank Keating, former governor of Oklahoma and FBI agent who is now head of the American Banker's Association came out against Choke Point in a WSJ op-ed a week ago.
http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
When you become a banker, no one issues you a badge, nor are you fitted for a judicial robe. So why is the Justice Department telling bankers to behave like policemen and judges? Justice's new probe, known as "Operation Choke Point," is asking banks to identify customers who may be breaking the law or simply doing something government officials don't like. Banks must then "choke off" those customers' access to financial services, shutting down their accounts.
Justice launched the effort in early 2013 as a policy initiative of the president's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which includes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other regulatory agencies. Though details are scant—much of the investigation has been conducted in secret—the probe aims to crack down on fraud in the payments system by focusing on banks that service online payday lenders and other services deemed suspicious by the government....
^^ Haha funney post of the week!
Cash based in a web/phone/email world. What scammer wants the local person-to-person limitations of cash.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Except that you only see and hear what certain people say and what the REAL outcome is, not the smoke and mirrors.
Obama went to Columbia when Cloward and Pivens wrote their report on how to convert the USA to socialism. Sure looks like Obama is doing this.
^^ Haha funney post of week #2
Ah, yes. Will drive everything to the black market.
Just like those guys on the corner that sell ripped CDs and DVDs for cheap. Oh wait, that was the 1990s!
So I guess the common Joe that wants porn will be forced off the internet to find porn and will have to turn to dark alleys and buy illegal copies of Hustler!!
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
"If you like your pornstar, you can keep her, period"
I think we have gotten to the point where the administration has lied so frequently and so blatently that I believe the wing nuts explaining their wrong doing long before I believe their excuses. There is no level of trust for the administration anymore and they brought it upon themselves.
First they came for the Porn Stars, and I did nothing...
Then they came for the Tobacconists, and I did nothing...
Etc...
Eventually, they'll take your savings and they'll find some kind of spin to justify it. But in the end, it's about Obey or have your money "privileges" revoked.
What to do? Well, don't buy gold or silver. You can't eat those.
But where are the investigations and prosecutions for those that played a large part in the destruction of the world's economy with the sub-prime mortgage loans? The people who are generating legitimate incomes, even if they are not the best moral activities, and reporting them as such should not have to be worried about the government actively attacking their economic existence.
For those that are acting illegally then go after them. But do not attack whole industries just because you have a few acting illegally and the industry may be morally or politically undesirable to some people. If the industry is really wrong then make the very real, ad very open, effort to make it illegal. Don't like guns, make gun manufacturing, sales, and ownership illegal. But that would have to be done openly and there would be a real effort to prevent that. The same with any of the other legal industries targeted in this effort. And where the industry is wrong use the proper means to close down those that are engaged in the undesired activities.
I had no idea you could still get cable descramblers that work worth a damn. Anyone know if they're legit? Anyone wanna point me toward a good source?
I used to get hacked DirectTV access cards back in the day and they were awesome...but I thought those days were over for good.
I've sworn to never pay for cable again, but I would sign up for a basic package if I could get everything else for free like back in the day.
Thank you DOJ; without your stupid initiative I woulda never known.
I'm a so called "wingnut" republican, and this story isnt even a little believable. The day Obama administration goes after porn sites is the day the tea party embraces obamacare.
It's a bit regional I think, and mostly aligns with opinions on other issues. I've spent some time living in the southwest, and there is generally strong pro-police sentiment among conservative gun-owners in states like Arizona (and parts of Texas), largely due to their views on illegal immigration. If anything the prevailing sentiment in those areas is that the cops should be more militarized, fleets of drones with missiles and everything, and should be given more police-state-style powers to stop anyone at any time and ask for their documents.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"Nice bank you have there. Wouldn't it be a shame if we had to shut you down and audit you and your best customers for the next six months?"
"Now, here is a list of people we think you better not do business with. Any questions?"
I found two non-fringe or slightly suspect news links: EFF.org. The article completes the circle back to sites like reason.com and The Guardian. The other is CNBC.com. It links to entertainment sites like Perez Hilton. Not the sort of thing you expect to find when a secret government operation like this is uncovered.
What I don't see, is anything linking directly to information about the DOJ's Operation Chokepoint. The list of targets is a bit broad and the tactics are a little suspect. You wouldn't think of a far left liberal like Obama as someone who is anti-porn. We'll have to watch this and see how things develop. Maybe someone will find a few hard government generated facts and write up a 2600 article?
Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
If the government were searching or seizing the bank account, you would have a point. However as far as I can tell that isn't happening here. The fourth amendment does not protect you from having a business relationship with a corporation terminated, even involuntarily.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You heard it here first: Sex workers not being able to keep their money in a bank is worse than the Holocaust.
It's first a step to the left, and then a jump to the right.
Fascism is not the Holocaust. It is the road to it. The U.S. government considers itself far enough above the law to kill people with drones without due process, to detain them for decades in Guantanamo for decades without due process, to torture people to death for fun (the CIA report shows that torture was used lethally and systematically regardless of whether the "justifying" information was already given either by the victim or other means), to extort from people their right to a jury trial ("plea deal"), to record the communication of everybody in the world including the own populace for fun and extortion.
Destroying the existence of people you don't like for some reason is quite in line with what Nazi Germany did to the Jews in the years leading up to the Reichskristallnacht. And the U.S. shows no sign of mitigating sanity in its current course.
The main difference is that there is not a single NSdAP against splintered small parties they suppress, but rather a right and a far right wing of it handing off power to each other and having rigged the political system long ago to a degree where voting has become pointless.
While I'm sure there is a lot of room for abuse, I kind of applaud this action.
I think far too long the government has let banks and payment processors off the hook when it comes to enabling fraud.
A lot of fraud wouldn't exist in our modern world if it didn't have access to financial services. In some ways its the air supply of fraud.
Nice troll. How are ammunition or porn sales "fraudster industries"? People do get what they pay for, it's just that the government (yes, the nanny state) doesn't approve. Back in your troll hole now. Scoot!
I couldn't find a right to breath in there either.
Explain Ben Carson's audit. It's one of many.
While I agree that "not all dictatorships ban private weapons", they don't have to. All they have to do is control who has them and who doesn't. Example: while it has often been denied, the Nazis did in fact grab guns... from the Jews. I recently read an article that had a picture of the original Nazi decree that Jews could not have guns or bank accounts. Sound familiar?
The Nazis allowed Germans civilian to have long guns too. I recall reading an account by a former US officer who had accepted the surrender of a German unit. He told the German commander to collect all weapons and deposit them at the town hall. Among the weapons collected were numerous civilian rifles and shotguns collected from the town residents. The US commander told the German commander he only meant the military weapons and that the civilian weapons should be set aside so that their owners could come to the town hall to claim their property and have it returned to them.
As those people stuck in the 9th Ward during Katrina can attest.
Private citizens were limited to long guns (rifles and shotguns), and they had to register them. But they were generally available to almost anyone that wanted one. The idea that all dictatorships ban private weapons, or conversely, that an armed citizenry always prevents tyranny, is clearly false.
You don't need total confiscation. When you need to crack down on citizens, all you need is [A] that they don't own handguns (because those are primarily defensive weapons), and [B] that all other weapons are registered. Then you're home free. When you know who has the weapons and who doesn't, you pretty much control them. While I agree that "not all dictatorships ban private weapons", they don't have to. All they have to do is control who has them and who doesn't. Example: while it has often been denied, the Nazis did in fact grab guns... from the Jews. I recently read an article that had a picture of the original Nazi decree that Jews could not have guns or bank accounts. (!!!) Sound familiar?
Um, no, it doesn't sound familiar. What in the world are you talking about? (Unless you have one of those Obama as Hitler posters in your basement. Then it all makes sense.)
It really is more similar than you may think. Berlin, prior to the Nazi takeover of Germany, was something of a sex capitol. Hitler was fairly annoyed by the wanton sexuality and liberalism of the place. In fact he tried to take over the city and failed the first time... but not the second.
Explain Ben Carson's audit.
Easy: lots of people get audited, many of them at random. Somewhere around 1% of returns are selected each year. Recent trends show that approximately 245 million returns (PDF!) are filed each year, that's almost 2.5 million people who will be on the receiving end of that damned envelope.
My father was hit with an audit this year concerning his 2012 return. He hasn't voted in 40 years, isn't even registered in this state, and he sure isn't making political contributions or starting up a charity. There's no history of tax troubles, he didn't file or claim anything new or unusual that year. He just "won" the audit lottery. Sometimes famous people like Dr. Carson win it, too.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Conservative Utah has a pretty damn high (the highest?) per capita consumption of online porn.
You seem to be under the impression that conservatives dislike porn, and liberals love it. Fact is, both sides love it. It's just that more conservatives claim to be against it, because, you know, god.
The object of Cloward & Pivens is to cause a total financial collapse. That will be done by Marxism.
Once the collapse is done, the new "Elite Party" (my name) will rise to properly own and control and dispense everything to the populace (slaves.)
Not sure why ObamaCare is illegal. It seems to be merely a matter of jurisdiction. Here in Australia ...
The construction of the US government was based on competing centers of power. That power would be split between the federal government and the various state governments, and that within the federal government the power would be split between executive, legislative and judicial branches. The basic idea was to have checks and balances between the federal and the state and within the federal itself.
The constitution does this by enumerating the powers and authorities of the various components of the federal government and then it explicitly states that all other powers and authorities are the domain of the state governments.
The argument against Obamacare goes that since the constitution does not enumerate compelling a person to purchase a service as a power of the federal government it is a power that falls into the domain of the states.
In other words the power of the federal government is limited by an enumerated list of power and authority granted to the federal government and the power of the state governments is limited, plus the power of the federal government is further limited, by an enumerated list of rights and privileges granted to individual citizens.
Russia today may be better in this regard, but when I lived in USSR, I did not know a single person, who owned a weapon — even martial arts were frowned upon by the officials and what studios existed, were underground. Today in the US quite a few of my acquaintances have firearms — and my five year-old attends a karate class twice a week.
So, as they say, Citation needed...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
One of the first steps on the way to the holocaust was to deny Jews and other undesirables the right to a bank account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
thousands? are all of their accounts being closed?
there are probably hundreds of porn stars at any time being that they go through girls like baseballs at a game. plus all the people behind the scenes.
is there suddenly a stop to all porn production? because that's what would happen if people can't get paid or companies lose access to banking
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land (Article VI), and federal judges have power to interpret law (Article III). This includes power to interpret laws limiting the power of Congress, or in other words, to declare that Congress broke the law when enacting a particular statute.
google it
chase closed a few accounts
the porn people went on twitter and a lot of their friends closed their chase accounts in protest
in reality it was a few accounts
When it comes to dictatorship, WHO has the guns is important, and 'military/police' isn't the only criteria.
With a 10% private ownership rate, that could be something like 'the rich/mid-high level party members'.
In a society that's tribally fixated like much of the middle east, I'd work to ensure that my tribe has the firearms, nobody else.
I don't read AC A human right
Woah, please cite an instance where left wing groups are pushing police depts. to get surplus military vehicles. It's generally the left that is always marching around protesting police brutality with things like the Oct. 22nd marches/rallies that have been going on. It's the left that protests US military interventions. The left that bitches about the police state. It's the left that the right calls peacenicks and makes fun of for not wanting to arm themselves in the name of pacifism. Police states don't fit into that equation.
Administrative subpoena have no judicial oversight, leaving plenty of room for abuse.
The fourth amendment does not protect you from having a business relationship with a corporation terminated, even involuntarily.
It's a bit different when the relationship is terminated because the government is threatening the corporation though.
I get the feeling that a number of justices aren't going to like that, and at least to me quite a few businesses on that list are perfectly legitimate, even specifically constitutionally protected.
I don't read AC A human right
You can get them now, although you need a valid CableCARD to make them work.
Btw, you are also missing on United States v. Hubbell, which involves the 5th Amendments.
Unless you have one of those Obama as Hitler posters in your basement.
Obama could never be mistaken for Adolf Hitler. Hitler could rally crowds and command respect/fear on the global stage. Poor Mr. Hapless no longer seems able to do the former and was never able to do the latter.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Im under the impression that conservatives are more likely to object to porn than liberals, just as theyre more likely to reject ANYTHING that isnt "conservative".
A liberal administration isnt going to crack down on porn
Liberals aren't anti-porn? Seriously? You really wanna go there?
Earlier this month, 42 senators signed a letter urging Attorney General Eric Holder to step up enforcement of federal obscenity laws. Among the cast of mostly Republican signers, one name stood out: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a staunch liberal from California, the de-facto porn capital of America. (Feinstein wasn’t available to comment for this story.)
She wasn’t alone: five other Senate Democrats, including Minnesota’s left-wing warrior, Amy Klobuchar, also signed the letter, and they were applauded by feminists, leftist lawyers, and liberal academics. Together, this increasingly vocal segment of progressives is making the case that hardcore porn flies in the face of cherished liberal causes—and that Democrats should be leading the charge to take down its distributors.
“To be anti-porn is a progressive principle.”
Liberals have no problem going after porn. They just frame it differently than Conservatives. They're upholding women's rights (except of course for the right of women to consent to star in pornography) rather than Christian morals.
If anything the Liberal position is more hypocritical than the Conservative one.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Right to (human) life implies right to oxygenate sugars implies breathing. Or not?
Ezekiel 23:20
That's the claim from some on the democrats. Probably some of the same democrats who filibustered the civil rights act. In fact, over the last 20 years, there have been three major anti-porn laws, all eventually struck down by the Supreme Court. All three were signed by Bill Clinton.
Not only do the liberals pander to to the extremist feminists by going after porn, they keep at it, never giving up when the Supreme Court tells them over and over again "no, you can't do that. You're violating the first amendment". That's the fact. For more information, Google "CDA", "CDA II", etc.
This is looking like it will be a PR nightmare for the DoJ. It's going to look like an effort to impose morality and in a way that discriminates against the poor. There's all kinds of juicy hooks in a story like this to make sure it gets plenty of prime time news coverage.
My first question is: is the fundie element going to cheer because the gov't is cracking down on sinners? or freak because they are cracking down on god, guns and country?
my second question is : Can we get televangelists added to the list?
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
Why is it that we have so many nutcase conspiracy theory adherents in this country? Did the average IQ around here drop dramatically in the past few years? Jesus people, science is about evidence, not lame brained mentally deranged faith.... yet that's what more and more people who apparently won't take their medication keep putting up around here.
Yes, it looks like the DoJ is trying to crack down on scammers and frauds... who wouldn't applaud that? Seems to be quite a few people, especially ones that like living in their own fantasy land hating the government.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
This is bullshit, in case you didn't guess. Follow the Guardian link. One bank, Chase, is closing porn-related bank accounts, including "at least one" personal account. Chase is operating in the USA and making a calculation that it has more prudes than porn businesses among its customer base. This has nothing to do with the US government.
A liberal administration isnt going to crack down on porn; it would alienate huge parts of their base.
You mean like how the DEA is still going after medical marijuana dispensaries in Denver despite Obama supporting legalization? http://www.denverpost.com/news...
One of the first steps on the way to the holocaust was to deny Jews and other undesirables the right to a bank account.
Maybe so, but remember the original poster's claim:
"How the hell are you people still not realizing you're living in a situation worse than Nazi Germany?"
Which is just fucking ridiculous, no matter how you slice it.
The Constitution doesn't enumerate the rights of citizens, the Constitution enumerates the (very limited) powers of the federal government.
So, since the Constitution has "zero mention" of a governmental power to take away people's bank accounts, the federal government does not have that power.
As a lifelong Democrat, I may just do that. Democrats obviously have gotten drunk with power and have been wrecking this country. Frankly, I care less and less about the stupidity of social conservatives in the Republican party, because it is harmless compared to the damage Obama and Congressional Democrats have been causing.
They "embraced" a preliminary version of something that was somewhat similar to "Obamacare". That's not the same as embracing Obamacare.
Fact is that Republicans universally rejected Obamacare and that it was exclusively designed and implemented by Democrats. Democrats are the only ones responsible for it.
DoJ is encouraging banks to close bank accounts of risky actors.
How are porn stars "risky" in any way? They make a fair amount of money, what they do is legal beyond all doubt.
What the DOJ is doing, is helping re-define what "risky" means according to some victorian moral code.
Strangely enough none of them are big names. Its almost like someones trying to create a story where there is none.
Because it's easier to attack the weaker members of the flock first before you take out the last few remaining. The presumption would be by the time anyone noticed, it would be too late - and it would in theory provide a chilling effect on new people entering the adjust industry, killing off the industry by shutting down supply.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Read my sig. Please.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Oh, wait, they already did that with the Saturn dealers.
are you time warping?
I would really like a citation for this, or at least a point to continue some research. I have an amateur interest in history, and have been attempting for a long time now to figure out how the Russian experiment in Communism went so badly wrong. Marx was an adamant supporter of individual ownership of firearms, but somehow that didn't make it into practice in any Communist experiment.
So if you have some information regarding civilian firearms ownership in Soviet Russia, I would love to know.
Reason, Guardian, Washington Post...
Cite a source that doesn't just make stuff up.
I read the letter that the senators wrote, and it doesn't mention anything even close to what this submitter is claiming.
Why is slashdot approving tinfoil-hatter submissions now? That's the bigger story.
hmm, since affirmative action is inherently hypocritical for pushing discriminatory privilege along attributes it claims shouldn't matter, I'd say that hypocrisy is not limited to the wealthy private sector.
Take your 'soviet' newspeak and shove it up your ass.
But they were generally available to almost anyone that wanted one.
I don't think that's true. Certainly there were ways to get a gun in the USSR if you needed one, but based on how happy my Russian coworker was to buy a gun in America, it wasn't easy for anyone to get one.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If you read in Russian, you should google , and 1960. In short, being a civilian in the USSR, you could get strictly a hunting rifle. There was no Castle doctrine, so you couldn't realistically use it for own protection. Such action would make yourself a criminal almost automatically. The registering process and regular checks were quite strict, and you were bound to sell or abandon weapons if you have failed to renew your license in term. Hunters were watched over quite carefully, and a case of bad behavior could make their license revoked (there was a kind of civil watch program in the USSR). The '10 in 100' number posted above seems not very realistic for me. In my own town of birth (with plenty of forests with sporting game around) there were less than a thousand of registered hunters out of the 130,000-strong population. Disclosure: my father was a hunter for a few years in 1970s, even before my birth, then get rid of his rifle.
Oh good, slashdot is quite harsh with the cyrillic. I mean voluntary hunting society, okhotnichiy bilet and law on hunting of 1960.
It's easier to just convince gun owners that whoever is the target of tyranny is their enemy too. This is how the US government got away rounding up US citizens and putting them in internment camps.
Oh, also convince them that "we" respect your rights (as we're collecting all your phone calls) and "they" are trying to take your guns away (even though they're not). That shit always works.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
So where are all of those NRA protests against wholesale warrantless wiretapping?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Um, you have heard about "Romneycare" ? He pretty much invented the idea of the individual mandate. And yup, it's working.
when you've weakened their access to food/shelter/healthcare you pretty much control them.
Maybe 100 years ago you were right, but these days the tech available to a modern army is so much better than what Joe Blow can afford it's not even a contest. To say nothing of the training a soldier gets.
Dictatorships are much more concerned with controlling who gets to eat and sleep in a warm house. If you too busy worrying about food and shelter you're not worrying about oppression...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
at least not a material one. So it's not surprising people look on at the current administration doing a lot of the same things as the last one and conclude their all the same.
To be fair, I think the current Administration (e.g. Obama's) is doing the best he can. I doubt I could do any better. But given the current state of America there's no chance in hell you'll see a real left...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Sound familiar?
Yes, it reminds me of how the Black Panthers tried to exercise their Second Amendment rights, by marching into the statehouse in Sacramento in 1967.
That was unacceptable. California couldn't let negroes go around with guns. The legislature passed a gun-control law, and Governor Ronald Reagan signed it.
Reagan went on to become president in 1980, and appointed his own justices to the Supreme Court.
And that's how America lost its freedom.
Right, fucking Democrats, always pushing the police into buying surplus military vehicles...god damn it I have family in Berkeley and they're always going on about the police needing to buy like a diesel submarine or maybe an Apache helicopter.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Romney didn't "invent" the individual mandate. Individual mandates exist in many places in Europe. They're fairly reasonable. But whether they work or not depends on the details.
Obama's plan ended up being a gigantic handout to corporate America. Face it, the Obama administration is both deeply corrupt and incompetent. And I say that as someone who actually voted for the guy.
Stupidest thing since beta
If anything the Liberal position is more hypocritical than the Conservative one.
It's not so much hypocritical, it's just that the left favors collective rights over individual rights. So where the right would favor an individual's right to join or not join a union, the left favors a union's right to force individuals to become members.
Banning pornography is like forcing women to join a union. By restricting supply it artificially increases the value of naked women and as a result causes men to spend more on it. As a result they're hoping to increase the sexual value of the average middle-aged American woman from almost nothing to "half your stuff when she divorces you".
For the lazy..
Estimated 8.9/100 in guns per 100 ppl privately owned so about 1/11th of the amount in the US
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...
"Guns may be acquired for self-defense, hunting or sports activities only. Russian citizens can buy smooth-bore long-barreled firearms and pneumatic weapons with a muzzle energy of up to 25 joules. An individual cannot possess more than ten guns unless part of a registered gun collection, guns that shoot in bursts and having more than a ten-cartridge capacity are prohibited."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
http://www.gunlab.com.ru/
Honestly in today's age, there is no excuse for lazy assed ppl to cry 'citation needed', this is not an encyclopedia, its a debate, take the effort to research rather then cry for others to do it for you. I remember the horrid old days of the internet when searching for data was a task, its not, grow up or shutup.
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
So apparently you both agree that you're somewhere on the scale of Nazi Germany, and now you're just arguing over the exact point the United States falls?
I'd say the problem is more the fact you're even on the scale, rather than where on the scale you are.
No, but pornography is a first amendment rights, and screw you if it is at the opposite of your morality.
You don't have to support the actions in the story (and I don't) to argue with what you just wrote.
Pornography isn't a first amendment right. The actual people who passed the first amendment didn't think it protected pornography. By contrast. they did think that the first amendment protected, say, the Koch brothers buying political ads, because that's exactly what the first amendment was for.
Wallowing around naked in public (or some commercial version of public) isn't speech. Political communication is speech, the precise speech that those who enacted the first amendment were trying to protect.
If you want to enact law that protects pornography, then go ahead ... but actually do that, don't try to hijack other law for your purpose.
In a two party system the two parties work in alliance to ensure they collectively control all political power.
In practice voting Republican is exactly the same as voting Democrat.
No shit. A majority of the second amendment nutters in the US are extremely pro-police state, pro-totalitarianism.
Really? Odd that reality doesn't seem to fit with your narrative. From everything that I've seen in the US, police are generally disliked by both sides of the isle.
Depends on the area. Individuals tend to want the public to share their values and behavior, so gun nutters tend to want the public to share their values. In places where the gun nutter values coincide with local law, this means they like when the state uses strong enforcement of law, say to win the war on drugs. In places where the gun nutter values differ from local law, they tend to see their guns as a defense against government over-reach, say to defend free grazing rights.
Big surprise, they're only "totalitarian gun nutters" if they disagree with you.
You don't need total confiscation. When you need to crack down on citizens, all you need is [A] that they don't own handguns (because those are primarily defensive weapons), and [B] that all other weapons are registered.
[A] is complete bullshit. Handguns were created as weapons for riders, because you can shot them single-handedly, while with a long gun, you have to stop your horse and then shot both-handedly. Handguns are primarily attack weapons.
The Nazis allowed Germans civilian to have long guns too.
That should read "German civilians who were members in good standing in the Nazi Party, or the family member or friend of someone with authority in the Nazi Party. If that Party member happened to fall into political disfavor, or the citizen's personal enemy(s) reported him for some betrayal or politically-forbidden speech etc, those individuals were suddenly instantaneously prohibited from possessing a firearm.
This status-change was often announced by way of a Luger or MP40 discharged into the unlucky formerly-legal-gun-owner for the offense of illegally possessing a firearm.
Every single person ever born or who will ever be born has the natural right to self defense. How much any particular government recognizes this natural individual right varies greatly, however. Until basic human nature deeply and fundamentally changes, people will always need an effective means of self defense against other humans attempting to do them great harm, and therefor have the natural right to that defense.
Every tyranny and authoritarian state down through history where individual freedom was severely restricted also severely restricted and onerously-regulated, or prohibited outright, common people from possessing effective personal weapons for self defense.
Failing to learn such important lessons from history leads people into de-facto slavery if not actual, outright slavery. That is, if they are lucky enough that the powers-that-be haven't included good old genocide of "*those* people" (whoever is politically-inconvenient or convenient, as the case may be) as part of their goals.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Hi! As a card-carrying NRA member, I'm one of those "Second Amendment folks" you're talking about here. A couple of points:
It's "the Second Amendment," not "the Second Amendments." There's only one Second Amendment.
Overthrowing the government by force is the right of the people, yes. It's also unbelievably stupid in the overwhelming majority of cases. Civil war is horrific and something best avoided. The Framers did intend the armed populace to be a bulwark against governmental infringements on liberty, yes, but mostly by means of making the government afraid to violently oppress the people for fear of the armed resistance they would face.
In this, the Framers have been overwhelmingly successful: where in past eras a government would've just bludgeoned people into believing the law was what they said it was, nowadays our politicians have learned to couch things in terms of "counterterrorism" and "protecting the children" and we'll quite amicably assent to whatever they say the law is.
The Framers had the right idea, they just weren't quite clever enough: they thought the risk would be a government that used force against the people, whereas the real risk is from public relations and focus groups.
Anyway -- short version: although I am one of those "Second Amendment folks," I, and all of the other "Second Amendment folks" I know, am absolutely against civil war. Horrible, terrible idea. I've seen enough gunshot wounds already in my life, thank you very much: I feel no need to be the cause of them.
This would amount to "terroristic threats", and would be considered grossly illegal in all 50 states. I, and all of the other "Second Amendment folks" I know, think this behavior is reprehensible.
To prevent such random risks to people earning money in the eu there will be laws to protect the common people.
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health...
However i think this is about personal accounts. If you want a bank account for a porn business you might have to shop arround.
Taking away a person's assets without a trial seem unconstitutional to me.
Can you explain how a handgun is a defensive weapon? Does it prevent you from being shot like bullet proof vest??
In my opinion (and I guess I agree with at least some others), guns are offensive weapons: http://www.theblaze.com/storie...
From a practical perspective, I don't thiink a handgun or a rifle will do you very much good against the KGB. Oppressive regimes tend to have military dominance and unless private citizens own tanks and missile launchers (a recipe for disaster), nonviolent social change will have to be the avenue of reform at a citizen level.
There should be a law against punishment of that type carried out without a trial.
And here I am without mod points, +5 to you. Looking through that list of targeted industries is head-scratching. They list perfectly legitimate business alongside illegal activity.
Or even one gun per 10 people.
The first amendment certainly protects pornography. That's why the DOJ lost in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
How many accounts does it take? How is it legal to even close one?
If the government can get away with this, where does it stop? Close the bank of accounts of political rivals? Close the bank accounts of those who write unflattering articles about Obama?
Seems to me that this action sets a dangerous precedent.
The first amendment certainly protects pornography. That's why the DOJ lost in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.
That's not even an argument. That's like saying "Crimea should be Russian because Russia seized it."
My country produces porn? Wow, I had no idea, I source most of mine from Europe. Oh, you mean those videos with laughably large cocks and not a single non-augmented breast?
American porn sucks. How it manages to survive in a competitive marketplace is beyond me. Thank god for the internet....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
what you are forgetting is that nazi germany wasnt JUST the Holocaust, Nazi germany lasted about 15 years(longer if you dig deeper but we will go with 15) and the war was 6. So yes, saying we are living in a place WORSE than nazi germany could be factual, nazi germany before the war, not during obviously
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Please just stop. The original poster was exaggerating in stupid fashion. Too often on Slashdot do you get these arguments, trying to find some technicality to defend the indefensible.
There can be only one reason to deny the stunning Nazi-esque politics of the left - being of them.
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
^^ (Kevin Bacon standing amidst the carnage in the last scene of Animal House) "All is well! All is well!"
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
even if true, states rights vs federal rights. Its ok for a state to do that per the 10th amendment, it is NOT ok for the feds, as per the 10th amendment (if we actually follow the constitution, something we havent done in decades)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
he doesnt support legalization, he supports pandering to potheads to get votes. big difference
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I like your sig, I would reverse the roles though. I want the libertarian president and the green veep
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
give a lawyer a week and he will get that fixed. I mean all these people are destroying the environment, so we need to restrict their right to breath, you know, for the environment
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Closing accounts is one thing but there are a lot more insidious things going on. For example, my Chase Business account was recently changed without my approval such that I could not make outgoing international wire transfers unless I kept $50,000 in the account. That means that I have to tie up more cash that doesn't earn any interest in order to be able to purchase components from outside the country. That was the first straw. The next one was when my business banking rep called me to try to convince me to close out some of my credit cards that I keep on hand for times when I need to purchase a lot of inventory to handle a big order. Intentionally closing a credit card has negative impact on your credit rating. Why was the rep trying to get me to fall on my own sword? They said they were concerned about my exposure. WTF? I always pay the cards off every month. What exposure?
But there are other cases where some bureaucrat functionary decides to take "social justice" into their own hands. The firearms business has recently been targeted even though everything they are doing is perfectly legal and above board. In one instance, the bank rep told the company "We don't think you should be in this business." In another, a manufacturer went into a meeting with the bank they had been doing business with for years. The bank rep told them that they were going to take away their lines of credit. To the manufacturer's credit, they said "Fine. We're closing all our accounts now. Today. This minute."
Thank you very much. I don't read Russian well (yet). I appreciate you taking the time to explain.
Of course you would. That would make the most sense to any right-leaning person.
However, the goal isn't to get your favorite candidate into the White House, but to break the stranglehold of the Democrats and Republicans on politics, media stories, voter mind-share, etc. For that, you actually need the Green Party faithful to buy into the coalition, and few of them would be willing to vote for a Libertarian president.
So, bite the bullet for the short term, just to get voter attention.
For more in depth thought, see this comment I made yesterday.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
You know, that's like your opinion man. The President was elected twice by the American people despite the derision and hatred implied by your comment.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
no its not, Just because I dont like the IRS does not mean the IRS should put me under more scrutiny. If anything it just shows that the admin are bullies. I thought we were against bullies??? isnt that one of the things they are pushing these days?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Never overlook the obvious answer. Perhaps the cash deposits made by the porn stars were causing complaints from other customers that they were somewhat slippery and had an unusual odor.
Perhaps a few of us could undertake to have a whiff the next time we're in the WF bank.
If your only tool is a hammer, you'll approach every problem as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Regardless of the interpretation of the original posters use of exaggeration, there are in fact similarities between what is happening in america today and what happened in germany in the late 20s and early 30s
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
oh i would totally vote either way, Ive voted for greens, libertarians, democrats, republicans If I saw a ticket that was split regardless of what party it is on top, Id be on board because as you said, baby steps, we cant expect REAL change overnight sadly
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
SCOTUS decisions are pretty important in the interpretation of the Constitution, and the intent of the Framers is studied extensively by them. Legally, the first amendment protects pornography. The exact feelings of the Framers may differ, but I wouldn't count on it. Many of them, were, after all, into some rather kinky shit.
So, chances are that someone like Benjamin Franklin would find our dirtiest porn dreadfully boring, and the highest court in the land has interpreted that pornography is protected by the first amendment. I think that's a fairly solid argument, but your claim of 'NUH UH' is quite a compelling counterpoint.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
[A] is complete bullshit. Handguns were created as weapons for riders, because you can shot them single-handedly, while with a long gun, you have to stop your horse and then shot both-handedly. Handguns are primarily attack weapons.
You are hundreds of years out-of-date. Handguns WERE primarily attack weapons. Today, in the United States, they are used vastly more often defensively. I mean in a ratio of something like 1000 to 1. So yes, they are primarily defensive weapons. Today. In the United States.
(Note: "used" defensively does not necessarily mean "fired". Statistics suggest that they stop crime many times more often just by showing them than they do by shooting. And even when they are shot in defense, often they don't hit anything, yet they still deter the crime.)
Sorry, the timing of Dr. Carson's audit was not a coincidence. He was targeted because of his political speech immediately after embarrassing President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast.
In my opinion, there should be a clear paper trail at the IRS establishing exactly how all audit decisions are made, and where/why they originated. If it originated from the Oval Office, that information should be available on demand by the auditee, and it should be a felony to conceal it. Obama's IRS has really been going to town with auditing his political opponents, and Bill Clinton's IRS allegedly actually admitted at one point that an audit was being done for payback against a person suing the president.
When the IRS is used as a political tool (or really, weapon), people's confidence in our country's freedoms is justifiably eroded. I'd like to see laws, harsh penalties and (again) paper trails brought to bear on this problem.
Your tinfoil hat is too tight. But I think you like it that way.
Obama has some serious flaws, but he did in fact save the world economy from being dragged into a depression caused by deregulation of the parasites on Wall Street. It must be easier for you to think about the world when you wear glasses that render everything in black and white.
And that crack about being unable to "command fear/respect on the global stage" is a regurgitated Fox talking point. You probably missed the fact that Obama threatened force, and was able to avoid using it, to get Assad to agree to relinquish his chemical weapons. Much cheaper, in both American lives and treasure. But don't let that get in the way of your narrative.
In my opinion (and I guess I agree with at least some others), guns are offensive weapons
80+ years of official Unites States Government statistics disagree with you.
For early years those statistics can be obtained from the Department of Justice. For more recent years, the Bureau of Crime Statistics.
I am rather amused that someone is using, as a supporting argument, the testimony of a sole person in the farthest Left and most pro-gun-control state of all 50.
Most police and sheriff's departments, and even police unions and organizations, say that handguns are the defensive weapon of choice, and support private ownership of handguns.
By the way: major crimes in this country are DOWN a full 50% from 20 years ago, and even more compared to 30 years ago. During that entire time, per-capita gun ownership (including handguns) has gone steadily up, and "concealed carry" has virtually exploded over that same period. Watch that chart for a moment. (Note: blue in that chart very much does NOT mean "blue state".)
If concealed handguns aren't being used "defensively", then what are they all being used for? Whatever it is, it sure isn't crime.
Conservatives are hypocrites, though that's almost unfair because they barely make a show of believing in anything, but the left are true believers in "objectification theory", and would make even sexy advertisements a criminal offense. Only thing stopping them from going full Sharia is that they don't believe in restrictions on women, and it's going to take quite a restructuring to make men the frigid sex, apparently they're hoping that most will turn gay
That link did not come through for some reason.
Here is the chart to which I was referring.
The Nazis allowed Germans civilian to have long guns too.
That should read "German civilians who were members in good standing in the Nazi Party ...
Which could have been nearly anyone. Many joined the party because it was an economic or social necessity, not because they were true believers. Even the Allied military recognized this as they went about de-Nazifying the country.
Seems like any moron can manage to get elected President, even twice.
Wow. Trouble with links today.
.gif, so watch for a moment.
Third try: U.S. "right to carry" since 1986
It's an animated
Back when this document was written, healthcare consisted of a bottle of rum and a hacksaw for a simple scratch to the leg which got infected. I don't think any other country in the world is so ignorant to think that laws created back then aren't up for rediscussion if it's for the common good.
There is absolutely *nothing* in the US Constitution that prevents government backed and mandated healthcare. Hence the people who argue that Obamacare is unconstitutional simultaneously admit that Romneycare in the state of Massachusetts is perfectly constitutional. The dispute is over the federal government running things rather than the states.
The NRA magazines like America's First Freedom regularly carry articles about the abuses of the government, although Fast & Furious and Operation Fearless (being gun-related) do tend to overshadow more generally political issues like Benghazi and the NSA/CIA wiretaps.
U.S. currency is valid tender for all debts, public and private (within the jurisdiction of the U.S., of course). Certain purchases (e.g. brand new cars) are pretty rare with cash, but any business or government agency that accepts payments will accept cash. It may not be as convenient: for example, to pay federal taxes with cash you may need to drive to another city with an IRS office, but it is possible.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
I bank with a small credit union. Hell, I even WORK for a mid-cap bank, and I'm reluctant to do business with them, and they're below the Chase/BoA radar.
If you think this WHOLE DISCUSSION is "tinfoil hat", then what the hell are you doing here? I remind you: these ideas are speculative only. But the fact that you (and maybe even me) think they're crazy is not reason to not talk about them.
Okay, if it's that unclear to you; the comparison of the concerted policies of Nazis to advance a policy of GENOCIDE to some assholery by US government agencies that need some reining in is beyond stupid.
I find it worrisome that it needs to be said, because it seems nearly everyone is focusing on the distractions, while the real crimes, which literally steal peoples' futures, are ignored.
Conservatives are hypocrites, though that's almost unfair because they barely make a show of believing in anything, but the left are true believers in "objectification theory", and would make even sexy advertisements a criminal offense. Only thing stopping them from going full Sharia is that they don't believe in restrictions on women, and it's going to take quite a restructuring to make men the frigid sex, apparently they're hoping that most will turn gay
Thank you, that was awesome! I haven't read such a dog's breakfast of nonsense in oh, nearly a month!
10% per capita gun numbers meant the guns were in the hands of maybe 5-7% of the population. Common my ass.
The NRA specifically notes in it's charter that it is a gun rights organization. VERY single focus for the simple reason that allowing the focus to widen decreases efficacy. Thus, while they will note other abuses, they will not lobby against them. That's the specific purview of organizations like the EFF and FIRE. Also state level ACLU orgs. The national level org can go fuck itself.
Because there are so many right-wing politicos in LA, New York, Detroit, and Chicago pushing for police militarization.
"Poor Mr. Hapless"
You mis-spelled Harper...
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
So having made a stupid defense of the original post, you now fall back to a point the first guy who replied to already made, which while maybe true, is moving the goalposts. Of course the idiot mods are having a field day with this crap.
I was really just going for being a wiseass, but if you want to take it seriously......
but he did in fact save the world economy from being dragged into a depression caused by deregulation of the parasites on Wall Street
By continuing policies instituted by George W. Bush and Hank Paulson. GWB took the political hit on several unpopular decisions (bailouts) rather than leave them to his successor. BHO can't even bring himself to make a decision on Keystone, nor enforce the politically unpopular parts of his sole major legislative achievement. Oh, and guess what? A lot of the aforementioned deregulation was bipartisan. Who was the President who signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall into law?
You probably missed the fact that Obama threatened force, and was able to avoid using it, to get Assad to agree to relinquish his chemical weapons.
Want a list? Here's three of the top of my head: Chicago's first round exit from Olympics voting, Russia's behavior in Ukraine and Assad walking across the "red line" in the first place. BHO neither respected by our friends nor feared by our enemies. The global community laughs at him. BHO's decision to embrace any issue, no matter how seemingly insignificant (Chicago's Olympic bid) is usually the kiss of death. GWB was at least feared, if not respected. His Dad was both feared and respected. So was Bill Clinton. BHO is an embarrassment on the global stage. So is the current Secretary of State, while we're on the subject.
I really wish the Democratic Primary electorate had given us Hillary instead of BHO. It was their turn, the GOP was going to lose no matter what, the least they could have done was found someone that the rest of the world would have respected. Love her or hate her, Hillary would have been taken seriously overseas.
P.S., I don't really like the Republican Party either, so best of luck with your forthcoming attempt to dismiss me as a Teabagger, Right-winger, Rethuglican, or any other straw men you're cooking up.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
OK. I may be biased, but I just brought £200 worth of coins from the Royal Mint. What's illegal or unethical about that?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Interesting chart-slideshow, but I don't see how it's relevant. I don't mean any disrespect, but that is completely unrelated to my question. What I was asking is more specific, "how are handguns primarily defensive weapons?". There seems to be an attempt to classify rifles as offensive and handguns as defensive.
Clearly bulletproof vests/bulletproof glass/etc are defensive technologies. Firearms are offensive techologies.
If concealed handguns aren't being used "defensively", then what are they all being used for? Whatever it is, it sure isn't crime.
I actually don't understand this at all. Concealed handguns are not used. If they are used, they are no longer concealed handguns (or else your clothes and body would likely be damaged.
By the way: major crimes in this country are DOWN a full 50% from 20 years ago, and even more compared to 30 years ago. During that entire time, per-capita gun ownership (including handguns) has gone steadily up, [postimg.org]and "concealed carry" has virtually exploded over that same period. Watch that chart for a moment. (Note: blue in that chart very much does NOT mean "blue state".)
I don't really have bandwidth to fact-check this. There are a lot of trends and correlation is not necessarily causation. Mass shootings are defintiely on the rise in this country as are metal detectors in high schools. Also a lot of professional criminals are moving from physical to virtual crimes which may involve less gun violence.
This one is exaggerated troll-bait.
Why are coin dealers on that list? What am I missing?
Given that the first thing off the top of your head was Chicago's losing Olympic bid, how can I take you seriously? But if you want to throw Ukraine at Obama's feet, then remember Putin's little war on Georgia, while a U.S. president supposedly feared by the world was in charge.
Again, it's dumb to want a president who is feared by anyone. Fear is not the reaction you want to provoke, even among rivals. It doesn't end well.
For what it's worth, I voted for Hillary in 2008, and expect to vote for her in 2016. However, if you think I couldn't pull a one-side list of "failures" out of my ass for Hillary if she had won in 2008, then you're not living in the real world.
No, but pornography is a first amendment rights, and screw you if it is at the opposite of your morality.
I'm not commenting on porn one way or another. But if something that consenting adults do happens to go against my morality, do you know how I deal with that?
I don't do that thing myself. That's all.
You see, part of my morality involves recognizing the unnecessary control of other people as evil. Consenting adults == no victim == no crime == not a law-enforcement matter. I might speak against practices I disagree with, perhaps even vehemently, but in these cases trying to use government's police power (that is, armed men willing to do violence to force compliance) is just plain fucking disgusting.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
do you support racism? Hmm, xOra? Supporting white supremacist garbage in 2014 with some pointy-headed legalism that ignores human suffering, human rights and the need for human dignity is pretty odious. I think your employer would like to know about it.
The antidote for bad speech is more (good) speech.
You simply can't have freedom if people aren't allowed to decide for themselves what is worthy and what is disgusting. And in terms of free speech, it's worked out pretty well. Those who seriously express racist sentiments are publically humiliated and villified in our society. In fact I'd rather they be free to speak so that they can be identified and avoided, rather than driving it underground (like our futile efforts to proscribe drugs).
To frame this in terms of "supporting free speech is also supporting racism (because racists might speak too)!" is really very childish of you. If and when your intellect and emotions finally mature and match your chronological age, you will come to understand this for yourself.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Working in porn is not against the law... at least in many states. so why?
The figures you offered apply to today's Russia. I asked for stats regarding the Soviet Union times — when the country really was a tyranny.
Right. Nothing, in other words, that could pose much of a challenge to the military or police.
And in a debate — whatever age — one should offer supporting evidence with the argument.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Again, it's dumb to want a president who is feared by anyone.
No, it's perfectly logical to want someone that people think has the stones to back up their words. It's telling though that you choose to focus on the lack of fear as a good thing, rather than trying to dispute the fact that nobody (friend or foe) respects him. The Olympic Bid was perfect evidence of that, BHO put the power and prestige of the Presidency behind that bid, and Chicago got bounced in the first round. That may not mean anything to you, but it's hugely symbolic, and was the diplomatic equivalent of a slap in the face.
It's also evidence of BHO's utter failure to properly husband his influence and political capital. A domestic example of this failing would be the flushing away of all the political capital earned from re-election on an effort at gun control that was doomed from the get-go. BHO is supposed to be this cool political operator from Chicago but he's got nobody on staff that could do a whip count? Immigration reform was a casualty of that decision, as were other important issues that got short shrift.
In short, he's a loser, and the least effective President we've had in my lifetime. And I say that as someone that drank the kool aid and went so far as campaigning for him during the primaries against HRC. Boy, I screwed that one up big time....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Okay, if it's that unclear to you; the comparison of the concerted policies of Nazis to advance a policy of GENOCIDE to some assholery by US government agencies that need some reining in is beyond stupid.
If you don't see the obvious similarity in policies, then I'm not the one being stupid.
I don't mean any disrespect, but that is completely unrelated to my question.
No, it's not unrelated to your question.
If crime is way down, but handgun ownership and concealed carry are way up, then those guns are not being used for offense. Also, concealed carry is not primarily a sporting purpose.
So what are those handguns being used for? The obvious answer is defense.
There are things that states can be allowed to do that the federal government is not.
You can be opposed to federal control and in favor of state health care systems and not be a hypocrite.
Oh, you mean those videos with laughably large cocks and not a single non-augmented breast?
Mmmmm, aww yeah, that's the good stuff.
Okay, if it's that unclear to you; the comparison of the concerted policies of Nazis to advance a policy of GENOCIDE to some assholery by US government agencies that need some reining in is beyond stupid.
If you don't see the obvious similarity in policies, then I'm not the one being stupid.
You're not being stupid, you're beyond retarded.
But hey, at least you excelled at it.
Again, it's dumb to want a president who is feared by anyone.
No, it's perfectly logical to want someone that people think has the stones to back up their words.
There it is. Right there. There's your trouble - "has the stones". The only thing I'm not certain of is whether you were born 100 or 3000 years too late.
Oh, and I never said it's a *good* thing that other world leaders don't fear our president, but apparently you use "the stones" for reading comprehension.