sfc

No the law doesn't care who is president, torture is still illegal (i.e. unjustifiable) the only difference between presidents is that some break the law.

I guess I'd be mad if I woke up from a trance one day only to find out that people been feeding me shit.

See this story for details: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090413/ap_on_re_af/piracy The "lifeboat" was under tow behind the Navy ship at the time, so the distance couldn't have been that great. One pirate was aboard for negotiations. The other three were shot by SEALS from the fantail of the Navy tow boat. Excellent job! Now King Obama has to deal with the consequences:Abdullahi Lami, one of the pirates holding the Greek ship anchored in the Somali town of Gaan, said: "Every country will be treated the way it treats us. In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying," he told The Associated Press. "We will retaliate (for) the killings of our men." Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old self-proclaimed pirate, told the AP from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl, that: "From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)." "Now they became our number one enemy," Habeb said of U.S. forces.Obama is about to get a real-life lesson in terrorism, that doesn't play well to his teleprompter. Wow, he just authorized force that probably saved a US Citizen from being killed by a bunch of pirates and you still give him shit. You have some real hate issues with him. You really are going to spend most of the next 8 years angry.

Why the Hell do we keep giving money to other countries for them to build up armies with? We gave money to Iran and Iraq, and then later went to war with them. I agree with going into Afghanistan to kill Osama Bin Laden. We don't need to spend billions doing that - go in, find him, kill him, get out, and get the military back home and protecting our own borders. Does anyone believe that after Lockheed Martin spent $65 billion to develop this project, that they are going to be OK with a measly $600 million from the US government? The F-22 isn't going away, they are going to remind the government just who is in charge (the corporations), and the government will buy more of them. Obama is going too far, trying to make everyone happy, and spending too much money. Bush told the dems to shove it for 8 years. Now Obama has a democratic congress, and he needs to tell the republicans to shove it. Let's stop the Bush-era war-mongering, use the military to protect our own country, and use taxpayer money to help US citizens. Yeah he should fuck the troops and let them figure out their own way back and also leave all the valuable equipment for the terrorists to use after we leave in a disorderly manner

Beats letting them all die. Do you have any idea how many private companies are cutting pay? HP Honda New York Times FedEx to name a few, pay cuts are as a result of market forces not government policy. That is what happens when unemployment gets high you know.

and another, this time 5 kids :( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090405/ap_on_re_us/children_slain;_ylt=AtR0jjl00WICLvQytC7Y22IDW7oF

Credibility is beside the point - you're citing an opinion piece. All the neo-cons have these days are opinions so they posture it as fact. Fortunately it only seems to be the 20%ers who buy into it. Credibility is so alien a concept to neo-cons they can't even spell it.

From the link you provided: (I added the bold) The author has to say it is "true", and he works for fox. Does this mean that even they are acknowledging their stories are not true. Can't trust a word they say anymore. Find a source that has not been discredited and maybe it would be interesting, if it is from fox it might be fiction. One thing I should have made clear. This is not about Obama in my mind. It is about our government

Please cease misquoting me. Then try adding something constructive, like what law you would like to see passed that would stop nuts from obtaining guns. and here is another one http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/30/california.shooting/index.html It virtually pointless to discuss laws, I've tried and all I get is the "criminal/nutters will find a way around laws" response. I agree some will but I would be OK with laws that lead to a reduction in gun crime not just those that eliminate it. I would start with with mandatory federal mental and criminal checks on all gun sales including private transfer of ownership, lack of screening and gun running are serious problems that need to be tackled.

1-Was this a massacre? What's the body count? Patience - you only ever have to wait an hour or two and you'll get your body count. www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=7205652&page=1 I wonder where all the "shall issue ccw" holders were, it was a cop that ended it, as is usually the case.

This is actually what this proposal suggests - everyone pays for it. Plenty are unhappy because they want only the rich and the employers to pay and they will fight. I am heartened because there is an inherent sort of admission that the rich and the employers are tapped out - they simply lack the resources to pay for something like this. I can say I find it more equitable. On the other hand I am against anyone being compelled to pay for someone else's private affairs or business. So "fairness" is somewhat of a misnomer. When we all get screwed at least we all are treated equally. And when "everyone" will be expected to pay, I belive that you'll find everyone in sudden agreement with the "rich" and the "corporations" and the "employers" who are upset. Which means we aint all that different. I used to live in the socialist kingdom of Great Britain. I had to pay 9% tax for my health care (employer made the same contribution), it was capped at 40K a year ($60K, probably higher now). In the USA I pay 6.25% + 1.25% (IIRC) for social and medicare plus some state taxes for unemployment (employer pays the same) it is capped at about $100K for social, medicare is not capped. In addition I and my employer pay a huge chunk of medical insurance, it works out about double what I pay in the UK when you add in deductibles if you actually have to go and see a doctor. If socialized medicine did occur, like it is in the UK, my costs will go down even if they tripled medicare costs, I don't have a problem with that. The only people who have a problem are the insurance companies that skim 30%+ off our premiums and they are working real hard to make sure it doesn't happen.

Totally agree, they could refuse the loans/bail out they are getting, I don't see Washington nationalizing GM. I don't see why we (the people) should just give them cash with no strings, look what happened with AIG and the bonuses, the greedy fuckers will keep on taking if we don't set out some rules. Personally I think we should take a huge stake in GM in return for the loan and if they don't like it then let them go bust (my preferred option), but given that we are bailing them out and that they fucked up why should they be allowed to continue business as usual, it obviously hasn't worked and heads should roll. If a bank were giving them a loan they would attach the same preconditions. And remember it was they who came cap in hand to DC begging for money, DC did not go to them.

And then there's the law of unintended consequences. If every product improvement requires that the entire lineup of models be re-tested at great expense, then maybe the manufacturers will just say "the hell with it" on improvements, and just keep selling what has already been approved. So then the guns marketed in California will actually be LESS safe than the ones sold everywhere else. Nice strawman, if a firearms manufacturer produced a good weapon and there was demand the cost of the approval would be insignificant compared to the profit, and at the end of the day profit is all that counts. Also the CA government would change the rules if what you say happened. Not a strawman at all, if you know anything about the gun industry. Several manufacturers make "Cali-legal" weapons solely for distribution in the state, and an equivalent model sans idiocy for sale in the rest of the country. Seeing as how a change in the Cali weapon would require the (ahem) "donation" of 3 examples and payment for the testing costs AND a 200 fee per year per model, it is VERY reasonable that manufacturers would 'freeze' Cali models while upgrading 49-state models. The auto industry tried pushing the same strawman and it was the same bullshit. It will diminish profits but not eliminate them, guns will always be available in CA, the firearms folks are adapting. If firearms sales stopped due to regulation then I'd agree with you but they haven't, the fact some models are different is not interesting. I can't import a car from Texas to CA without paying for it to be certified and in some cases it would be impossible, this is just the same except its guns, why should they get different treatment than other consumer goods, states have the rights to set consumer laws.

Here's the owner's manual for the Kimber Ultra Carry. See page 13. www.kimberamerica.com/downloads/Manuals/Compact.pdf Quote: "When there is a round in the chamber, the external extractor will slightly extend out from the slide which can be felt by brushing the trigger finger upward across the extractor"Yeah, like an ignorant gun handler that is about to point a loaded gun at someone else is going to feel that tiny little slightly-raised piece of metal, and suddenly realize: "Oh shit! This thing is loaded! I almost made a big mistake!" No chance. If they don't already know basic gun handling safety, then that tiny little raised extractor ain't gonna help. And even if the extractor is flush indicating the chamber is empty, it's still folly to assume it's empty and point it at someone else. You still need to open the slide and visually check the chamber. This is what guns designed by politicians are going to be like... riiiiiiiight, no-one has ever made the mistake of thinking a gun is not loaded when it was, and those that did were all untrained, a trained professional has never mishandled a gun.

And then there's the law of unintended consequences. If every product improvement requires that the entire lineup of models be re-tested at great expense, then maybe the manufacturers will just say "the hell with it" on improvements, and just keep selling what has already been approved. So then the guns marketed in California will actually be LESS safe than the ones sold everywhere else. Nice strawman, if a firearms manufacturer produced a good weapon and there was demand the cost of the approval would be insignificant compared to the profit, and at the end of the day profit is all that counts. Also the CA government would change the rules if what you say happened.

I wasn't just responding to your point, however a quick search revealed these pistol that have just been approved in CA, I presume they met whatever requirements CA has including the one you claim cannot be met, but I didn't check. Original link http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/recentlyadded.pdf Kimber Stnls Ultra Carry II Freedom Defender / Stainless Steel, Alum. Alloy .45 ACP Pistol 3" 2/13/2009 Smith & Wesson M&P 45 (Mag. Safety & Thumb Safety) Dark Earth Bro / Stainless Steel, Polymer .45 ACP Pistol 4.5" 2/13/2009 Glock 22 - FBI 100 Yr. Commemorative (Blk) / Steel, Polymer .40 S&W Pistol 4.49" 1/30/2009

Improving the standards of consumer goods is very typical (especially in CA). Banning of leaded gasoline, catalytic converter, cars emissions, Car safety features (LATCH, center brake lights), Smoking in the workplace bans, Smoking in bars banned, in some places smoking in condos banned. Levels of lead in kids toys and mandatory testing etc. I don't think guns are singled out in particular, any industry where the products can cause harm or kill face increasing regulation, (including kids toys, who'd thought chewing the paint off a red toy would be more dangerous that chewing the paint off a blue toy). Although some of it is over the top nanny state interference in our lives, I don't see any reason that guns should get a pass and avoid the same level of regulation that other consumer products do, including testing. Also companies will do anything to circumvent regulations, having no wriggle room is a good thing, today its just the color, then tomorrow it will be some other minor difference, how can you define changes which don't require retesting without opening the door to genuine mistakes or abuse.

GOP? who? Are they still a party? Grumpy Old Pharts, mostly old white men with nothing better to do

[sarcasm] Yeah, I expect that within minutes of Obama signing the plan on tuesday that all will be well again, he will be able to undo the errors of the last 8-20 years that put us in this mess with just a signature on a bill. [/sarcasm] The economy is going down hard, I support any attempt to help the situation, no-one knows what is right with absolute certainty, but I know that Obama and his advisers know more about economics than I do, and I know that partisan bitching is going to help nothing. I had hoped that the POTUS has all the support he needs to bring us out of this mess, but from looking at the responses on this site and seeing the dickhead GOP senators I realize that the sore losers put their pride before the well being of the country.

Nah. The fire is pretty close to being out of control. The firemen think they have a pretty good plan, but if it doesn't work, the house will burn down. The onlookers (who are also firemen) have a different plan, which they think will work better. But if they talk about it too long, the house will burn down. The onlookers' plan has no better guarantee than the firemen's plan. But either plan, executed honestly, and with cooperation from as many people as possible, stands a better chance of working than doing nothing. As a country, we're generally not in a position where we HAVE to do something -- it's better to do nothing, or something very small, than the wrong thing when situations aren't emergent. But the situation is emergent right now. This isn't the right plan. But just cutting taxes isn't the right plan either. People are selfish, and these economic times are likely to make them more selfish. And that's what any plan has to take into account. "Trickle down" only works when people aren't too busy trying to keep it all. Think about all the rivers that are having more and more of their water used by cities early in their path, so that there's almost no water left by the time they get to where they hit the ocean. I don't think we're likely to change human nature. So we have to figure out a crisis that Americans can pull together in -- we're really, really good at pulling together in a crisis that we perceive threatens all of us together. It's when the crisis threatens us individually that we pull apart. Wendy W. Yes I can agree with most of what you write. The one thing that the firemen who are onlookers need to remember is that they got fired for doing a crappy job, they would do well to work with the other firemen rather than throw rocks at them and stand on their hoses. Your point about working together is well taken.

If the fire crew have negligently loaded their hoses with gasoline instead of water, then the people would be doing the right thing by stopping them before they reach the fire. That's not what is happening, a better analogy would be that they are stopping the firemen because they are from the other side of the political spectrum. They would rather see it burn down than have a left winger put the fire out. (lush rimjob is a good example of this kind of person)

And I did not disagree. But, I do think I have the right not to have that data in some govt database. So yes, you could fingerprint guns, but that data is not attached to me. That way if I was a suspect you could test my gun, but you are not allowed to have a database. Using that same logic I assume you would be fine with giving the Govt a DNA sample as well then? After all, if you don't commit any crimes you would have nothing to worry about right? I would object to having my DNA collected just for the hell of it, but if there was a legitimate reason, like I'd been arrested or was in the military then I'd have no issue with them having it on record, I don't have anything to fear from it and it might help identify my corpse in the case of a accident, which would be good for my relatives. Fingerprinting goes with the gun not the owner, it would be wrong to insist you retroactively fingerprinted your weapons. However with registration and fingerprinting a lot more can be done to track down the source of illegal weapons. It is relatively easy for criminals to get guns, increasing traceability will help discover and prosecute the people who put the guns into criminal hands so I support gun fingerprinting on new weapons. I also support the 2nd and your and my right to bear arms.

Guns don't have right under the 2nd, gun owners do. I think it would be wrong to require you to submit your guns for fingerprinting but ok for states or the fed to require (new) guns to be fingerprinted prior to being sold. If you don't commit any crimes with your guns then you have nothing to worry about.

Maybe you just dreamed it. Neither you or anyone else seems to have come up with anything concrete concerning "these two" supposed scientists. Just another example of rushmc denying anything that points to man made climate changes. He grasps any straw that supports his viewpoint and presents it as fact and uses it to discredit any study that suggests that the climate is effected by man. Totally pointless discussion...

He is not planning to spend any more money. He is just saying it can now be distributed to more groups than it was previously. A different question would be should we continue to provide aid to other countries given the financial situation we are in and the amount of money we are borrowing. I agree with you we should look after our own first, I was sad to see a story of a 93 year old WW2 vet freezing to death in his own home because an unpaid utility bill.