Printable View
[QUOTE=Jackson;432153]Perhaps that's why the initiative was introduced in the first place. Think about it. Perhaps there are lots of people living in LA who do not like that it's the center of the porn industry and this is their way of shutting it down.[/QUOTE]LA is mostly mexican now a days. Do you really think that they care? Its just another example of a stupid law enacted by stupid people.
[QUOTE=Gandolf50;432164]LA is mostly mexican now a days. Do you really think that they care? Its just another example of a stupid law enacted by stupid people.[/QUOTE]Actually, Chatsworth, California, in the "San Pornando" Valley is the Porn Capital of the world and it's not in Los Angeles but it's nearby. I don't know if the new legislation applies.
The article below is very interesting. HUGE MONEY involved.
[URL]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-585049.html[/URL]
Jenna Jamison must have had to Fuck everybody to make a million bucks!
TL.
[QUOTE=TejanoLibre;432167]Actually, Chatsworth, California, in the "San Pornando" Valley is the Porn Capital of the world and it's not in Los Angeles but it's nearby. I don't know if the new legislation applies.
[/QUOTE]No, Chatsworth is part of the the City of Los Angeles as is most of the San Fernando Valley. About ten years ago, the San Fernando Valley voted to succeed from The City but the vote lost 66% to 33%. Burbank and Glendale are the largest cities in the Valley that are not City of Los Angeles.
[QUOTE=BigBossMan;432168]No, Chatsworth is part of the the City of Los Angeles as is most of the San Fernando Valley. About ten years ago, the San Fernando Valley voted to succeed from The City but the vote lost 66% to 33%. Burbank and Glendale are the largest cities in the Valley that are not City of Los Angeles.[/QUOTE]So I guess that's how LA beat them?
Thanks,
TL.
[QUOTE=TejanoLibre;432167]Actually, Chatsworth, California, in the "San Pornando" Valley is the Porn Capital of the world and it's not in Los Angeles but it's nearby. I don't know if the new legislation applies.
The article below is very interesting. HUGE MONEY involved.
[URL]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-585049.html[/URL]
Jenna Jamison must have had to Fuck everybody to make a million bucks!
TL.[/QUOTE]I remember Chatsworth and most of the "Valley" as being almost all residential. They must be filming in their back yards!
[QUOTE=Gandolf50;432170]I remember Chatsworth and most of the "Valley" as being almost all residential. They must be filming in their back yards![/QUOTE]Now that I think about it, that was a stupid post. It seems most porn is filmed in a living room, deck / patio, pool, or bedroom. I guess that would be what they call a "cottage" industry? .
The following editorial raises some very serious questions which the mainstream media propagandist seem to be ignoring. I apologize for the length of the quote.
[QUOTE=news.investors.com]Why Is Obama's Growing DHS Army Buying Armored Vehicles?
Security: In addition to stockpiling over a billion bullets and thousands of semiautomatic weapons the feds would deny U.S. citizens, the vehicle of choice for fighting the counterinsurgency war in Iraq is appearing on U.S. streets.
The sequestration question du jour is why the Department of Homeland Security, busy releasing hundreds, if not thousands, of deportable and detained illegal aliens due to budget constraints, is buying several thousand Mine Resistant Armored Protection (MRAP) vehicles?
And just who are they intended to be used against?
This acquisition comes on top of the recent news of the stockpiling by DHS of more than 1.6 billion (with a 'b') bullets of various calibers, enough by one calculation to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraq War, and the ordering of some 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO "personal defense weapons" (PDW) — also known as "assault weapons" when owned by civilians.
[highlight]Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that "have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds."[/highlight]
The Department of Homeland Security (through the U.S. Army Forces Command) recently retrofitted 2,717 of these MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the U.S. They were formerly used for counterinsurgency in Iraq.
These vehicles are specifically designed to resist mines and ambush attacks. They use bulletproof windows and are designed to withstand small-arms fire, including smaller-caliber rifles such as a .223 Remington. Does DHS expect a counterinsurgency here?
After IEDs began to take a toll on U.S. military forces in Iraq, the Pentagon ordered a large supply of MRAPs.
"They've taken hits, many, many hits that would have killed soldiers and marines in uparmored Humvees," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview.
A DHS officer, Robert Whitaker, stationed in El Paso, Texas, recently proudly described the agency's new armored toy as "Mine-resistant ... we use to deliver our team to high-risk warrant services ... (with) gun ports so we can actually shoot from within the vehicle; you may think it's pretty loud but actually it's not too bad ... we have gun ports there in the back and two on the sides as well. They are designed for .50-caliber weapons."
This is needed to serve warrants? Perhaps it might have been useful at Waco.
[highlight]So the question is what does DHS need 1.6 billion bullets, 7,000 Ar-15s and 2,700 armored vehicles for?[/highlight]
What are they anticipating or planning for, and why are few in the media and Congress asking about it, particularly in the light of daily apocalyptic bleats from the administration about sequestration cuts?
We have asked if this has anything to do with then-candidate Obama's proposal for a national security force as powerful as the U.S. Army.
In a July 2, 2008, speech in Colorado Springs, Colo., candidate Obama said: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
As Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News contributor, recently opined in the Washington Times, "The historical reality of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us."
No, we are not scanning the sky for black helicopters.
But we are concerned about an administration pushing for ever stricter gun control and de facto gun registration in the form of allegedly universal background checks to which criminals and gangbangers won't comply is arming itself to the teeth.
If weapons of war don't belong on the street, Mr. President, explain these purchases.
[url]http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/030513-646857-dhs-buys-special-armored-fighting-vehicles.htm#ixzz2MjNvsvDr[/url]
[/QUOTE]Yes, please explain!
What is the hullabaloo going on about drones? Has there been a domestic assassination on domestic soil yet? Would there have been a cheer or boo if Osaman bin Laden been hit by a drone. Why don't we check with Cheney about drones? Maybe, the future armed domestic insurgents / guerillas / seccessonists on American soil are getting worried?
Use people to fly the planes, not unmanned.
This filibuster guy wants to be the one.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;432229]What is the hullabaloo going on about drones? Has there been a domestic assassination on domestic soil yet? Would there have been a cheer or boo if Osaman bin Laden been hit by a drone. Why don't we check with Cheney about drones? Maybe, the future armed domestic insurgents / guerillas / seccessonists on American soil are getting worried?[/QUOTE]
No profit.
[URL]http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/why-the-gop-is-killing-post-office/Content?oid=3480985[/URL]
Though Bloomberg is confident the judge's ruling will be overturned on appeal:
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/bloomberg-soda-ban-ruling_n_2855769.html[/URL]
I like Bloomberg, more or less, but can agree he may have overstepped on this one. However I do believe "social engineering" isn't all bad, and has a place. On the soda issue, social engineering could be accomplished by other means, for example educating kids in school, running ads on TV, etc. You can influence society without denying a freedom.
The distinction to make is: [b]Does a freedom negatively impact other people ?[/b]
If you drink an extra large soda, you take a risk of your own free will and only affect yourself. If you sign up to be in a condom-less porn movie, you take a risk of your own free will; you may affect someone else, which may warrant some level of protection (e.g., blood testing), but the impact is limited to a small number of other people who are taking the same risk of their own free will.
BUT, there are other issues where a freedom clearly has a negative impact on other people, who have not accepted the risk of their own free will. The gun debate is a clear example to me. There are many examples where certain freedoms are disallowed, or have strong regulation. For good reason.
[QUOTE=Esten;432287]Though Bloomberg is confident the judge's ruling will be overturned on appeal:
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/bloomberg-soda-ban-ruling_n_2855769.html[/URL]
I like Bloomberg, more or less, but can agree he may have overstepped on this one. However I do believe "social engineering" isn't all bad, and has a place. On the soda issue, social engineering could be accomplished by other means, for example educating kids in school, running ads on TV, etc. You can influence society without denying a freedom.
The distinction to make is: [b]Does a freedom negatively impact other people ?[/b]
If you drink an extra large soda, you take a risk of your own free will and only affect yourself. If you sign up to be in a condom-less porn movie, you take a risk of your own free will; you may affect someone else, which may warrant some level of protection (e.g., blood testing), but the impact is limited to a small number of other people who are taking the same risk of their own free will.
BUT, there are other issues where a freedom clearly has a negative impact on other people, who have not accepted the risk of their own free will. The gun debate is a clear example to me. There are many examples where certain freedoms are disallowed, or have strong regulation. For good reason.[/QUOTE]Even you have to admit this was the stupidest thing a wild-ass liberal ever came up with. Totally ridiculas! Hang you head in shame! LMAO. Like it was a surprise it was slapped down, even in wild-ass New York! IALOTFLMAO! [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]
[b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was redacted or deleted to remove sections of the report that were [u]largely antagonistic[/u]. Please read the Forum FAQ and the Forum's Posting Guidelines for more information. [i]Thank You![/i][/blue]
Delete by Toymann, duplicate post
[QUOTE=Toymann;432291][b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was redacted or deleted to remove sections of the report that were [u]largely antagonistic[/u]. Please read the Forum FAQ and the Forum's Posting Guidelines for more information. [i]Thank You![/i][/blue][/QUOTE]
My last post was redacted based not on what I said to the poster. I was informed by several member friends the moderator was changed from Jackson, to someone who has been bragging I was on his ignore list. I always figured this was inaccurate information, but I just couldn't help myself to test my theory. I am not the only one that feels some trepidation regarding the identity of the new moderator. In the past I have maintained a tongue and cheek relationship with the previous moderator. Obviously that won't be hapenning going forward. No need to assess any more infractions new dude (my first ever I might add). Never forget that ultimate power corrupts ultimately. I now have my answer. Enough said. Toymann out.
Ps. I certainly hope the new moderator does not find this post antagonistic. Lol