Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In a gesture of goodwill, Southwest named a row of seats after her.

Been doing this long enough now to see the slide from something I dreamed of doing all my life to something that is absolutely unbearable at times.  Dad flew for 28 years before me and both of my gran

No dog in the fight.  But the 480FS Wikipedia page has an awesome “Woke era to present write up.” never seen that before must be a new AF Historian.

Posted Images

  • 2 weeks later...

The most WTF of the WTF posts! :bash:

Quote

 

Arizona lawmaker wants to tax porn watchers to help pay for border wall

TUCSON, Arizona (CBS/KOLD) -- Arizona State Senator Gail Griffin has proposed a bill that would tax anyone viewing porn on an electronic device in the state, reports CBS affiliate KOLD.

The bill suggests using software to block pornographic websites until the user's age is confirmed and a fee of at least $20 is paid.

Border security is ranked as the first program on the list to be funded by the porn tax and that could include a border wall.

Those in violation, including anyone who deactivates the blocker, would face a misdemeanor charge...

 

And she's a Republican! 😭

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, M2 said:

The most WTF of the WTF posts! :bash:

And she's a Republican! 😭

 

Obviously one of the stupidest ideas ever, but for a surprisingly large number of reasons. Obviously it's ridiculous on its face, and it's ridiculous to think that people won't figure out how to bypass it, but the math on it is crazy too.

Arizona has a population of 6.4 million people. If we assume half are men and half are women, and we trust the stats thrown out at Church last Sunday (no shit, thanks Church) that 85% of men and 33% of women watch porn, that gives us a maximum of 3.8 million total viewers even if we include kids of all ages. Multiply that times the $20 mentioned and you're generating a maximum of $76 million.

By suggesting that border security is "the first" of the causes to be funded by this, she's implying that it would pay for more that just that, which is crazy stupid. AZ represents almost exactly 20% of the total length of the US-Mexico border, meaning raising $76m for AZ would be roughly equivalent to raising $380m for border security for the entire country, which is 6.6% of what Trump is currently asking for to get started on his wall, and somewhere between 0.4-1.5% of its total estimated cost, depending on who you believe.

Sit down, Gail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except 69% of legislative proposals are not meant to actually become law.  She makes her base smile when she taxes what they don't like and appears to fund what they do like.  Whether it's proposing a 70% income tax or a $20 porn tax, they're running their mouth for election points, not serious proposals.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, M2 said:

The most WTF of the WTF posts! :bash:

And she's a Republican! 😭

Of course she's Republican.  Republicans have long been the "Puritan" party.  While I support their stated (and seldom executed) goals of strong military, removing shackles on business, and smaller government... It's a constant source of frustration that the GOP feels the need to regulate the moral behavior of the population.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
7 hours ago, matmacwc said:

I remember seeing that about 10 years ago.

At least two more USAF pilots that have lost command's "confidence in their ability to lead and command".

Strongly worded letter and non-judicial punishment to follow........... the only problem is they're probably both out making a quarter-mil a year flying for an airline.  Fuck off fun police.....just fuck off. :thefinger:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of sir or ma’am, how about “batshit crazy motherfucker”?  Direct, to the point, and totally gender neutral. I really don’t think this gu....ahem.....individual could argue with that description. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s abhorrent that the Supreme Court denied to take the appeal. While both of these guys sound like total pieces of shit, once retired you should no longer be subject to the UCMJ. I almost wish McRaven would get brought up on Article 88 charges just to get a lower court (or better yet the Supreme Court) to set a precedent that one should not be subject to the UCMJ post retirement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...