Kennedy

And as soon as you can define "loonies", we might start giving a damn about your right-to-own opinions again. Until then, give it a rest. I leave such definitions to the appropriately qualified medical professionals, just like I leave defining "felons" to appropriately constituted law courts. Well that's a change for you. That would appear to say you don't want any changes whatsoever, because that's exactly what we have in place today. We are talking about a legal right, so things are subject to legal definitions. Or are you saying you want to give legal powers to medical personnel (that they emphatically do not want)? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I'm going to try to answer this without reference to the US constitution or any current gun laws. To me it is not about guns, but a matter of choice. Why should anyone have the ability to take away my choice of whether to own a black rifle? I look at questions like this from the point of view that a government has to justify any reduction or liberty. Short answer: what answer do I need other than the obvious - I want one. Like what? Short answer: no, not at all, according to my own logic and Obama's CDC study. I can't think of a reason to ban them that overrules the inclination to allowing adults to choose for themselves, but you're spot on that banning them does nothing to increase safety. What made you ask the question about AR15s? Do you think they're used in a lot of murders? I'd wouldn't blame you for assuming that based on news coverage and what politicians are saying, but the facts (according to FBI) are that AR type rifles are almost never used in homicide. I know they stand out because news media makes a big deal out of "mass shootings". While they evoke an emotional response, they are not truly statistically significant; they are not a reason to severely alter national policy. "Sandy Hook" isn't the problem - "Chicago" is. The USA has a problem with violence disproportionate to its population. Because of our freedom to own firearms, much of that violence is committed with firearms, but assuming the violence would not occur if firearms were not available is not a reasonable position. Guns are used in violence, but that's hardly the same as saying guns cause violence, or that less guns would result in less violence. Estimates vary, but there is about one firearm in this country for every man woman and child, and a similar number of passenger motor vehicles. (disclaimer: 310 million people, 270m private guns, 247m vehicles) Compare vehicle deaths to gun deaths and tell me what you find. Firearms ownership is even distributed between handguns, rifles, and shotguns, with a tiny tiny fraction of blackpowder and relic guns. So handguns make up about 30% of private guns, but account for 80% of gun use in crime and about 70% of gun deaths. Far more gun deaths are suicides than homicides; notice that folks wanting more gun control always say gun deaths, not murders. Every study done (even by the Clinton DOJ) shows that firearms are used for self defense more often than for crime. The lowest estimate was over 500,000; the highest estimate was over 3 million. (I thought there was a 5m estimate, but couldn't find it) The bottom line is that banning semiautomatic rifles has no effect on crime. It's primary purpose was to desensitize the US population to the idea of banning guns one by one. Those looking to push gun control wanted to prey on ignorance to push their agenda. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Awesome. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Yeah, so we've gone from "we don't collect American's data" to "we don't collect domestic data" to "we only collect metadata" to "we only collect data on targets and their associates" to "we collect anything that even mentions anybody". But according to POTUS, this is not collecting American's data. This is not domostic spying. Seriously? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Watch your double standard. We don't have the settlement itself yet. If you're going to take lawyers' words and discussion as justification that it affects the children, you really need to take their word that the admission or no injury is in the settlement as well. Sign the settlement or not, nobody forced them into it. They had a lawyer and a judge there to ensure they understood their rights. I don't either. The difference between us seems to be that you assume anyone who settles and pays is actually wrong. Talk to a lawyer. It just isn't so. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Good job recording it. A better idea would have been a camcorder on a table or shelf. Phones just can't keep focus or target. They would've done better not to answer the door. If there's a warrant, let them serve it and then open the door for the police. If not, a polite "my lawyer will be in contact" is never wrong. There's no way in hell anyone should open the door for anyone that sounds that angry, uniform or no. Finally, I would've used a landline to keep 9-1-1 on an open line if the police were allowed in. FYI for anyone who only watched the CNN video: the officers were not at the wrong address. They were there to serve granny with some sort of civil fine order that was overdue. I don't know if that's as good as an arrest warrant or not, but I certainly don't see it as good cause to waste that much time and energy. Finally, being professional makes even questionable work look wonderful, while acting like these guys makes ever great work look like jackbooted thugs getting their sadist on. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

And as soon as you can define "loonies", we might start giving a damn about your right-to-own opinions again. Until then, give it a rest. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Where? got a link? It's linked from the article in the OP. http://ae3b703522cf9ac6c40a-32964bea949fe02d45161cf7095bfea9.r89.cf2.rackcdn.com/2013/211/626/pg-settlement-hearing-transcript.pdf Those are the transcripts from just before the judge approved the settlement. http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/washington/confidential-agreement-should-have-been-part-of-washington-county-marcellus-shale-case-record-697530/#ixzz2bQzxgJ5Q This is the original Pennsylvania paper that the OP article is going off of. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Actually, the plaintiffs admitted that they suffered no ill effects. It's in the settlement, or the defendant companies wouldn't have signed off on it. So do you think the plaintiffs told the truth to the court and never suffered ill effects, or that they lied to get the money? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

202-456-1111 witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Uh, when did these become winter sports???????? http://www.olympic.org/sports JerryBaumchen That's kind of the point, Jerry. You know it. I know it. Apparently, POTUS doesn't know it. Let me google that for you. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I mean, shoot, there's arsenic and stuff in there. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Just ask POTUS. The Soviets are definitely going to interfere with the gymnastics, track and field, and swimming at the winter Olympics. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Overall it was much better than I expected. It raised most of the questions I have in this thread, and stated that there are no answers. It called out the idiocy and inability to support (lies behind) blaming the video and unplanned protests, and the lies told about edits to the talking points. It asked a lot of questions and wondered where teh answers are. It did also condemn some rightsiders for making political hay out of the early followup (political ads and fundraising). On the fair side, they did include a (R) politician condemning those ads and efforts. (basically, if Erin Burnett read dz.com, she'd be calling tkhayes either ignorant or a liar) On the short side, it completely left out what the president was doing the entire time. It didn't even raise the point. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

First, under the text box, there are seven buttons. The right most button says "url". Click it, paste the url, then click it again. If you don't want people thinking you're just a bot with angry programing, try using it. It looks like so: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/world/africa/egypt-unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Second, it was a coup, short for coup d'etat. Look it up. This is a text book example. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Do you want to be the guy who admits that the enemy successfully attacked our military on our shores? As a lone actor, workplace violence is both technically accurate and less damaging to our reputation / encouraging to our enemies. Far better than most propaganda. I disagree. I think it'd be better to live in the real world and have our leaders act accordingly. State what happened, identify and admit any failing or shortcomings, address and correct them, and improve future outcomes. Is that really ever a bad formula? A doctor was commissioned as an officer. He either lied about his reason for signing up or he turned away from the flag and oath and turned towards an enemy movement. He didn't openly renounce his allegiance. He decided to attack anyone sharing the uniform. He killed and wounded dozens of soldiers. (did I miss any relevant points or misstate anything?) Identify anywhere the system failed or should be improved. Did Hasan really tell someone in uniform that he was fantasizing about killing soldiers? Did he let on that he no longer respected the flag, country, or military (a la pvt Manning)? What kind of communications was he having with leaders of the enemy? Is there a systematic blindspot to identifying internal threats? Is there anything the military can fix about soldiers being unable to defend themselves on base? (that's a painful cost benefit analysis from the politician-litigator-liability standpoint) Answers those, fix them, and have a better day next time. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Military person shooting military targets. Doesn't sound like terrorism to me. Treason and murder? Sure. Blues, Dave Funny thing to me is how he is basically saying he defected to enemy forces without openly renouncing his position in the Army. He then used that position to attack and kill US forces. His own opening statement in his court martial shows he believed it was enemy action in an ongoing military conflict. Doesn't that mean his victim should be considered combat casualties rather than victims of workplace violence? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Is it possible that it was just a bad graph? Did the 13 events include exclusively US events and discount events in Canadia and south of the border? I doubt it, but I'd like to know before I lambast them. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I hear more of the Charlie Brown noise: whah wha, whah wha wha whahhhhh..... witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

So you're saying that wiretapping US citizens, with privacy standards in place, would reduce terrorist attacks, but for some reason removing those privacy standards renders the same information useless against terrorists? That makes no sense. I'm pretty sure he's saying the opposite, but don't let me speak for him. My understanding is that thin thread was up and running, and had built in privacy protections. Thin thread was shut down, and its replacement(s) including trailblazer were not ready, and do not have any privacy protections built in. I don't necessarily agree entirely, but I think he was saying that they shut down a viable program that could have warned us about 9/11 in favor of a theoretical program that did the same thing without privacy protections, and because it wasn't ready, it increased the chance for the attack to occur. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Really? The truth? So tell me, how many Americans were on the ground? Who led/coordinated the attacks? How many were injured? What were US forces doing? What were Libyan forces doing? Who pushed the video story over the reality of coordinated attack following weeks if minor attacks? When you have answers, you can say they're the truth. Since you don't have any of those answers, you're just making shit up and insulting those smart enough to k ow why we don't know. Reality check. I never said they didn't. Let's see what you said and what I said. Your case is hypothetical nonsense. I'm working on an issue in the real world. And sometimes best efforts are not only not good enough, they are so miserable as to be civil or criminally negligent. Despite good intentions. (An example here might be keeping the mission open despite reports that it didn't meet minimum requirements, let alone dangerous area requirements). You can't just make shit up in a forum where folks can go see what you said in the past. Maybe I have you too much credit. I expected you to be able to tell apart an assertion from a hypothetical. You made a worthless generic assertion (jobs in dangerous places can lead to deaths) followed by an asinine hypothetical (if this had been Bush, no one would've said anything). Does that help, or do I need to walk you through it word by word? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

My agenda is finding the truth. Your answers don't feed into that, so yes they bother me. So I guess you would have wanted to stop the watergate investigation before it reached the Oval Office, right? Or are you ignorant of the fact that it took more than a year of digging and investigating to connect it to Nixon? Sometimes coverups take time to unravel. Should everyone stop just because you're satisfied? Sure there've been deaths due to failure of communication. Since that appears to have no bearing on the Benghazi attack, why mention it. If it was due to miscommunication, then we need to find out where the failure was and fix it. You'll notice no one in the administration has said the problem was what you suggest. Since lying about the attackers' motivation failed horribly, they've tried ever dodge known. Including your favorite "nothing to see here, move along." Your case is hypothetical nonsense. I'm working on an issue in the real world. And sometimes best efforts are not only not good enough, they are so miserable as to be civil or criminally negligent. Despite good intentions. (An example here might be keeping the mission open despite reports that it didn't meet minimum requirements, let alone dangerous area requirements). witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

No one seems to get too worked up when they need to get a background check, show they know how to operate one, and show they will be financially responsible before being licensed at the DMV to own and operate a car. Actually, you don't need any of those things to own or possess a car. Ask anyone that owns a collectible that is not driven on public roads, or registered or insured. Precisely what background check are you talking about? Do you really think an operators license shows anyone knows how to drive? All the things you mentioned are for using cars on public roads. Tell you what, when I'm using government ammo on a government range, your requirements would fit. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Nobody wants to take away your cars, but clearly we bed to close the loopholes. We need common sense car control. For the children. First, no cars that contain more than one gallon of gas. Next, no car can go faster than ten miles an hour. Next, no can can be bigger than two refrigerator boxes. Finally, no red or black cars; they go to fast and look scary. We need to regulate car dealers and close them down when the mess up paperwork or sell to out of state buyers. And obviously we need I stop all person to person sales. Oh, don't complain about your rights. You don't need these things. You can still buy and use cars. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*