Sex toys - EdenFantasys adult toys store Ginger Snaps Back

Would-be underwear bomber actually a CIA double agent

abaldwin360:

(CBS News) The would-be bomber in the recently-uncovered plot to blow up a U.S.-bound airliner leaving Yemen was an undercover intelligence agent. The plot was revealed to U.S. intelligence officials based on a tip by Saudi intelligence services, and had been revealed by a Saudi intelligence source who had been inside Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and providing information through the Saudis for some time.

CBS News correspondent John Miller, a former assistant director at the FBI, reports that the double-agent revelation goes right to the heart of an intelligence agency’s nightmare, which is identifying a source that they’ve placed inside an organization.

Intelligence agencies and senior officials tell CBS News they’re not going anywhere near commenting on the issue for obvious reasons.

The Associated Press is reporting that the alleged double agent has been removed from Yemen and apparently is safe. This may go a long way toward explaining why authorities said yesterday that the bomber was no longer considered a threat.

It may well be now that he was actually working with the CIA all along.

source

So, can the TSA stop cupping our crotches now?

Oh, CIA! You and your silly shenanigans!

abaldwin360:

Wages for Americans age 25-34 have decreased 5% since 2001 while tuition rates have increased 8% PER YEAR on average.
But guys, guys, people don’t have enough money because they’re lazy and they take out too many college loans because they are stupid.

abaldwin360:

Wages for Americans age 25-34 have decreased 5% since 2001 while tuition rates have increased 8% PER YEAR on average.

But guys, guys, people don’t have enough money because they’re lazy and they take out too many college loans because they are stupid.

sinidentidades:

The cost of a US university degree has left people wide-eyed for decades but student debt has now mushroomed into a nightmare for Americans with potential to explode as the next major US financial crisis.

Students at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, for instance, can typically expect to borrow $23,445 to top off the total $31,812 they might need. And that’s just for the first (or freshman) year of a four-year degree.

“You’ll pay approximately $1,414 per month for 10 years to cover your total borrowing once schooling is completed”, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal agency, says on its website www.consumerfinance.gov.

“This equals 29 $50 textbooks every month.”

It’s relatively easier at Harvard (typical first-year borrowing stands at $16,459, because average grants and scholarships are higher) and the University of California in Los Angeles ($13,796 in borrowing), but the picture is clear.

Two years ago, for the first time, total outstanding student debt in the United States topped $1 trillion, according to the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.

That’s more than what Americans owe on their credit cards.

“Take it from those of us on the front line of economic distress in America: this could very well be the next debt bomb for the US economy,” said the organization’s president William Brewer.

“The reason: Students and workers seeking retraining are borrowing extraordinary amounts of money through federal and private loan programs to help cover the rising cost of college and training,” he added.

“In many cases, parents responsible for the student loans are in or near retirement years and facing repayment demands.”

(via writtenmemory4)

Anonymous asked: How do you feel about people who abuse government assistance? People who use their food stamps to buy forty dollar steaks, get angry when their fried chicken dinners aren’t covered, and leave in their brand new Mercedes?

abaldwin360:

thisgingersnapsback:

Abuse happens, period. It doesn’t matter what, some people will do anything to get an “advantage” in the world. But since such abuse is statistically uncommon, while it might be aggrivating, you don’t rip out the safety net from everyone else benefiting from the programs just because a few people fuck up—that’s like saying that no one should be allowed to drive, because some people drive drunk.

The widespread myth of the “Welfare Queen (or sometimes, though less frequent, King)” you have just described (thanks, Reagan!) does nothing but harm the reputation of those who abide by the assistance program’s rules and regulations. It’s these harmful stereotypes, which you are actively perpetuating, that turn those who are privileged enough to not have to rely on assistance against their fellow human.

What do I think? What do I think? 

I think you don’t fucking know a person’s circumstances, and you shouldn’t fucking judge them. Who knows when the Mercedes entered their lives? You certainly don’t—you don’t know them, so you assume the car is brand new, and it just helps to reinforce your hateful bullshit. It could have been a gift, it could have been purchased prior to the crisis or unfortunate circumstances that lead to them needing government assistance.

Or, more importantly, it could be none of your goddamn business what kind of car they drive.

So, poor people don’t get to enjoy “good” food? Why? Because they’re poor? Because they deserve to be punished? Because why waste such good lobster on such a waste of person, right? Jesus christ, fuck you. I work in a grocery store—no matter WHAT a person paying with E.B.T. buys, it is ALWAYS scrutinized and judged, in ways that absolutely no one else’s groceries do.

A single mother comes up and buys a basket full of frozen foods, and my coworkers roll their eyes, thinking her lazy, thinking that their “hard-earned tax dollars” shouldn’t be paying for junk food. And they ignore the chorus of shouts and playful laughs of the kids running around her, her children, and the exasperated and exhausted expression on her face, because it wouldn’t help to fuel their self-righteous, “I’m better than you!” hate storm to think that maybe, just maybe the quick dinners are all she can do, because unbelievably she DOES work and DOES try to make ends meet, while at the same time attempting to raise her children and make time for them and their school and their love and their raising, and meals might not be a top priority for her.

A man shows up with a cart full of natural foods, good-for-you foods, healthy foods—sometimes, there might even be a steak or lobster. He buys mostly vegetables and fruits, and seems conscientious of the things he buys—and he pays for it with his EBT card. IMMEDIATELY a chorus of “Well don’t get to eat that well!” starts up, once again making his private shopping trip suddenly open for comment and criticism.

You just can’t fucking win, people are programmed to judge you for what you buy no matter what—they are programmed to judge EVERY ASPECT OF YOU AND YOUR LIFE that would otherwise be considered rude or hateful behaviour—so what do I think about the people who use their food stamps to buy steaks? Or who seem frustrated because a food product they want isn’t covered? I don’t fucking careJust because you’re poor, broke, or just plain in need of a little help doesn’t give me the right to turn what you buy and eat into public dialogue.

tl;dr: I don’t feel anything except extreme outrage at the self-righteous pricks who get to decide what another person “deserves” in life, and whether you intended it or not, your message reeked of judgmental implications.

Awesome reply by my incredibly brilliant girlfriend, you can find her blog here

Rebloggable!

abaldwin360:

What do tax cuts for millionaires really cost?

Anti-Abortion Male Republican: ‘Sacred Sperm’ Bill Is ‘an Egregious Attack on Personal Liberties from the Government’

abaldwin360:

A “personhood act” passed by Republicans in the Oklahoma Senate earlier this year would ban all abortions, including in cases involving rape and incest. If the bill passes out of the legislature and the state’s Republican governor signs it into law, control over the reproductive systems of Oklahoma women will effectively be taken from the women themselves and handed over to the law enforcement apparatus of the state government.

In response, a pro-choice Democratic senator, Constance Johnson, introduced an “every sperm is sacred” bill that would outlaw what she described as the “depositing of sperm anywhere other than in a woman’s vagina.”

Not surprisingly, anti-abortion male politicians do not like Johnson’s amendment. The Daily Show’s Al Madrigal interviewed one of these senators, the perhaps ironically named Ralph Shortey, who inadvertently revealed how truly clueless big-government Republicans can be.

Full Story (and transcript from Ralph Shortey who made the remark in the headline)

Do these guys even realize what hypocrites they are being? They are seriously so blinded that they can’t see the ‘Sacred Sperm’ Bill parallels their anti-choice bullshit?

WORK Act Would Give Low-Income Moms The Same Option As Ann Romney (For 3 Years)

abaldwin360:

A handful of House Democrats, encouraged by the recent bipartisan agreement that stay-at-home moms should be considered just as hard working as anyone in the workforce, will introduce legislation to apply that standard to mothers on welfare as well.

Under current law, raising children does not count toward the required “work activity” that must be performed by recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, the federal program that emerged from the 1996 welfare reform. Some states make an exception for mothers with children less than a year old.

The Women’s Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act, a copy of which was provided to HuffPost in advance of its introduction, would allow mothers with children ages 3 and under to stay at home with their children and continue receiving benefits.

The act was inspired by the recent kerfuffle, in which the political establishment, from President Barack Obama to Mitt Romney, took great umbrage at the suggestion by Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen that Ann Romney had not “worked a day in her life.”

“All moms are working moms,” Mitt Romney responded.

If that’s the case, then it’s unfair to apply a different standard to low-income women, reasoned Rep. Pete Stark of California, a top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.

read more

Senate Republicans block “Buffett Rule”, which would have put a 30% income tax on millionaires

abaldwin360:

Democrats, as expected, failed to garner the 60 votes needed in the 100-member Senate to move to a full debate and vote on the bill aimed at getting more tax revenues out of the wealthy.

Obama and congressional Republicans are squaring off this week over the tax hikes for millionaires and a Republican plan to give new tax cuts for businesses.

“Tonight, Senate Republicans voted to block the Buffett Rule, choosing once again to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest few Americans at the expense of the middle class,” Obama said in a statement.

read more

File under, “Not a shock”.

The thing is, 72% of Americans in general, and 53% of republicans polled supported it.

Gives you a pretty good idea who’s interest senate republicans serve. 

rebelwithoutaclaus:

stfuconservatives:

timetruthhumor:

what’s wrong with ron paul?

He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state.
He believes abortion should be illegal.
He doesn’t support the repeal of DoMA and didn’t support the repeal of DADT.
He doesn’t support putting more money into inner-city schools, but does support vouchers for religious schools.
He believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
He doesn’t believe HIV causes AIDS. (ETA: Rand Paul, his son, belongs to a group that does not believe HIV causes AIDS. There’s no evidence to support that Ron Paul agrees or disagrees.)
While he doesn’t support a federal ban on gay marriage, he also doesn’t support a federal law legalizing gay marriage. Some see this as a states’ rights issue, and this is how he frames it, but he does support other federal legalization movements (drugs, for example).
His newsletter spouted horrible racist content for twenty years. He denies writing any of it, but if he allowed this content to go out under his name, he either approved it or was so ignorant of both the type of people he associates with and the type of content going under his name that he shouldn’t be trusted to run anything.
He believes in reinstating the gold standard, which most economists believe was one of the major causes of several financial crises during the early part of the 20th Century, including the Great Depression.
He believes in free market capitalism.
He wants to get rid of Affirmative Action.
He is a frequent guest on the Alex Jones radio show. Alex Jones is a government-hating conspiracy theorist. If you don’t know who Alex Jones is, then Google him.
Any of these items should keep a sane liberal ANYONE from voting for Ron Paul.
His stance on drugs and wars win him a lot of liberal fans, but only if they don’t look at literally anything else he stands for.
Source: steviemcfly 


Here’s a full list of his views, most of which are abhorrent.

thisgingersnapsback, is this what you’re looking for?

Yup yup yup! Lots of people sent me the link to it, you guys are great! I had an ask and I was lazy xD

rebelwithoutaclaus:

stfuconservatives:

timetruthhumor:

what’s wrong with ron paul?

  • He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state.
  • He believes abortion should be illegal.
  • He doesn’t support the repeal of DoMA and didn’t support the repeal of DADT.
  • He doesn’t support putting more money into inner-city schools, but does support vouchers for religious schools.
  • He believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
  • He doesn’t believe HIV causes AIDS. (ETA: Rand Paul, his son, belongs to a group that does not believe HIV causes AIDS. There’s no evidence to support that Ron Paul agrees or disagrees.)
  • While he doesn’t support a federal ban on gay marriage, he also doesn’t support a federal law legalizing gay marriage. Some see this as a states’ rights issue, and this is how he frames it, but he does support other federal legalization movements (drugs, for example).
  • His newsletter spouted horrible racist content for twenty years. He denies writing any of it, but if he allowed this content to go out under his name, he either approved it or was so ignorant of both the type of people he associates with and the type of content going under his name that he shouldn’t be trusted to run anything.
  • He believes in reinstating the gold standard, which most economists believe was one of the major causes of several financial crises during the early part of the 20th Century, including the Great Depression.
  • He believes in free market capitalism.
  • He wants to get rid of Affirmative Action.
  • He is a frequent guest on the Alex Jones radio show. Alex Jones is a government-hating conspiracy theorist. If you don’t know who Alex Jones is, then Google him.
  • Any of these items should keep a sane liberal ANYONE from voting for Ron Paul.

His stance on drugs and wars win him a lot of liberal fans, but only if they don’t look at literally anything else he stands for.

Source: steviemcfly 

Here’s a full list of his views, most of which are abhorrent.

thisgingersnapsback, is this what you’re looking for?

Yup yup yup! Lots of people sent me the link to it, you guys are great! I had an ask and I was lazy xD

(Source: truth-has-a-liberal-bias)