rhaig

we only have 5 unless you count the lube. Then it's 6 -- Rob

there are no shades of grey here. They came here illegally, intentionally, and remained here. There is a process for legally becoming a citizen. Should they wish to remain here legally they should enter into that process, then they will not be illegal anymore, and will be allowed to stay. Shipping them all home (wherever home may be) is not a viable option, not only because of the cost, but because of the lost benefit to our society that they provide. But they are here illegally as long as they stay outside of that process and when caught should be shipped home. -- Rob

so you're ok with a government official modifying a report made by citizens? A change that reverses the opinions of these citizens? And making that change after they endorsed the report and not consulting them? You're ok with all that? -- Rob

really bill... you know what the analogy is. An object designed to perform a function that is legal by some, but can be used to commit a crime by others. Should the object be illegal to own, or should only the act be illegal to commit? Though they are both crimes against a person. I'm not equating theft to murder. -- Rob

I defined what "home country" means to me. (note the "to me" in my sentence) Not what it means to anyone else. You can choose to assume others hold the same definition or not. I wouldn't even assume that the Obamas all hold the same definition of "home country". To Michelle Obama, when she was making the statement this is all about, may have been thinking about where he has family. I wouldn't presume to know what she was thinking. Perhaps you can tell us since you're clearly so close to her that you know her thoughts. -- Rob

don't you get it? did you see the comment that I was discussing this offline and wanted to ammend my original statement? it's referred to some as "learning" I know it doesn't happen much on these forums. perhaps that's why it confused you. you quote my original reply, then my clarification, and then my original reply. quite the spin-meister. You should work for a politician. -- Rob

considering other agents have been put in jail for doing their jobs, yeah. Me, with my current training... I'd have cut and run. AND I have the balls to say it. put me through their training, give me their resources, I might know more about what's available and my answer might change. Until then, yeah, I'd cut and run to my vehicle where a rock, or brick, or cinder block wouldn't injure me. -- Rob

then you missed a key part of the situation and I refuse to respond in more detail until you figure out what that was. -- Rob

FAIL! They're illegal the minute the person becomes a felon. -- Rob

now you're making assumptions again. I don't hate the man. I've never met the man. I don't care for some of his policies, but that's a whole different matter. -- Rob

To me, one's "home country" is the country they consider their home. Noting that "home" sometimes has little to do with nationality, place of birth, or residence. -- Rob

Quite the opposite. I clearly stated that I believe it to be perfectly obvious what she meant. Psychic skills were not mentioned. So explain it if you dare. No, I'd rather not play your silly little game. You know you know what she meant, and any pretence otherwise just makes you look like a fool. I mean seriously, are you actually going to sit there and tell me you can't think what she meant? Are you really willing to make yourself look that stupid just so you can attack Obama again? Hey, some people would confuse Palestine with Afghanistan just so they can attack Obama. Look!! Jakee can dodge a question almost as well as you can! -- Rob

I've been discussing this in PM with the OP. I will amend my statement above by saying that given the incomplete picture of the situation that we all have, were I the officer in question, I believe I would have abandoned my suspect and sought refuge in my vehicle, or out of range of the rock-throwers. I also understand that I cannot know what was really going on there (nor can any of us here) nor what I really would have done had I been that officer. -- Rob

An "idiot" who is out-numbered, surrounded and ambushed, with deadly missile coming from all directions, include above from a bridge, with great force. where did you read they were tossing them from the bridge? I hadn't seen that. -- Rob

I understand the emphasis meant by your repetition. I understand the potential for damage from large size ricks being thrown. I also understand the use of deadly force and the laws allowing it in certain cases. While I believe that there may have been threat of serious bodily harm due to a potential impact from a rock thrown, I question the size of these rocks and the damage that might be done by a rock thrown by a 15yo boy across the river. Do you know how large these rocks were? I do not and wish you would share if you do, as it might change my opinion. Do you know the width of the river at that point? I know at some points it's a trickle, and at others it's tens of yards across. Have you been trained in the use of deadly force, when it is appropriate, and when it is allowed? (note that they are not the same) For example, in TX, it's legal to use deadly force to stop "criminal mischief at night" which could be something as simple as a kid TP-ing your front yard. That doesn't mean it's appropriate. One could say the same thing for a 15-yo kid throwing rocks.... depending on how close he was, how likely it was he would make contact, and how large the rocks were. -- Rob

The part about the federales crossing over, picking something up, and taking it back is disturbing. Considering they're using that to claim the border patrol agent crossed the border to shoot the boy. That being said, what kind of idiot shoots at people who are throwing rocks!?!?! If they were flinging rocks from a catapult, and the rocks weighed several pounds, that's one thing, but rocks that are hand thrown? -- Rob

well... our government hasnt removed our capability nor our right to defend ourselves in our own homes either. -- Rob

Locks keep the honest people honest. A real thief will bypass a lock every time without any problem. They're a formality, an effective (to a certain degree) safeguard, and they give the ignorant some peace of mind. (not ignorant in a bad way, but by the actual definition of the word) -- Rob

punish the actions not the ownership takes on different meanings with different liberals. especially when you start changing what is owned. -- Rob

I've seen your stuff before. Can't someone post a thread with a link without you tearing it apart on all ends in an attempt to discredit the poster somehow? Is that how a moderator should behave? Yes, because he's right. and apparently they're both apples, even though they're different. :) -- Rob

The POTUS is a public figure, and we all love to make fun of them. -- Rob

You are seeming to imply that it's OK for FELONS to have gun collections but not OK for them to purchase guns legally. well, as you quoted me saying (I assumed you read it, I assumed poorly) "I think felons are already not allowed to possess firearms." I don't disagree with that law, and I don't see how you could have inferred that from my post. It's illegal for felons (my caps lock still isn't stuck) to own or otherwise possess firearms. I'm good with that. Should we send the swat team (or their probation officer) to go inspect their homes to ensure they have no firearms? We can... Probation officers in most states have the right to drop in unannounced. -- Rob

correct. If you've ever dealt with the cops, you might have noticed they asked you to keeps your hands where they could see them. sometimes they'll ask you to get out of the vehicle and stand where you can be seen when they call in your license. I have been asked to do these things, and I have a "good guy card" (a concealed handgun license). So they know how unlikely it is that I would attack them. But they follow procedure and are careful. -- Rob

so you agree that gun registries are all about confiscation then. So you think FELONS should be allowed to keep their guns, then. I think felons should not be sold guns. I think felons are already not allowed to possess firearms. You are seeming to imply that once someone becomes a felon (my caps lock key isn't stuck) that the police should come confiscate their weapons. Is that correct? I may have inferred incorrectly. -- Rob

So if I understand your ideas, we would need to bring in another off shore rig and get it up and running, drop the pipe down and make a new connection. Why couldn't we reinforce the existing pipe? It should be possible to excavate around the existing pipe to a certain depth and place reinforced hydroulic concrete around it for strength. Then attach some type of temporary plug to stop te flow - at least it wouldn't be leaking - even if we have to un plug and let it flow while we attend to the permanent fix. At least it would be stopped in the interim. I think every problem they're trying to solve, already has a solution. But not at that depth. So they're trying to come up with something expedient and simple. because the complex, long term solutions are extremely difficult to implement at that depth. -- Rob