justinb138

That's in the reconciliation bill that hasn't passed yet. When it does it will be one of the best things the government has done in quite a while. By ending some corporate welfare to the banks it will not only save the fees it pays out to the banks but will be a source of revenue to the Treasury AND increase the amount of money available to college students. Republican lawmakers have vowed to try to crush it. Further driving up the already exorbitant cost of a college education. So don't go to college. No-one is forcing you. Well, should I decide to, it's nice to know that government has made it so expensive that I'll have little choice but to get a government loan in order to pay for it.

You mean "Virtualize"?

Ok.... that one's just too easy...

That's in the reconciliation bill that hasn't passed yet. When it does it will be one of the best things the government has done in quite a while. By ending some corporate welfare to the banks it will not only save the fees it pays out to the banks but will be a source of revenue to the Treasury AND increase the amount of money available to college students. Republican lawmakers have vowed to try to crush it. Further driving up the already exorbitant cost of a college education.

And meanwhile, N. Texas just experienced a winter with the most snowfall it's had in recorded history.

You seem to think that legislation = reform, or at the very least, that the government can't make the situation any worse than it is. Can you explain how you came to those conclusions?

In addition to the disaster that is the HC bill, as the economy continues to stagnate/decline, I'm betting the majorities will look a little bit different in November.

Why wouldn't I? I love fiction.

Also, based on my experience, the toll roads, especially in Dallas, are worth the cost. Being able to take the GBT and avoid the traffic mess at I-635 and I-75 is well worth the dollar or two it costs to drive it. If you're an avid beer drinker, the Flying Saucer in Ft. Worth is great, and it's right down the road from the Bass Hall. It's not really a family-friendly place, but it's clean, well-kept, and has around 200+ different beers available. You could always check out the Jones-mahal (Cowboys Stadium) if you want to get out of the heat for a bit and see what billionaire-level compensation looks like.

Not in North Texas. Here's a website that covers nearly all of them: http://www.ntta.org/ Not sure about the San Antonio area.

What's really disappointing at times is that I think the interviews that he does on his show are far more professional than those that come out of the "news" programs of both the left and right-leaning stations.

All you need then is an Elephant and a Mariachi band. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAcIGx-nxdI

I think Perry already won the GOP Primary.

Of course not, but because you were breaking state law, the feds shouldn't be involved anyway.

"Not seeking" is a WHOLE lot different than "CANNOT". As long as the laws are on the books, they can still nail you, so don't go blowing pot smoke in the cops' face just yet. That's exactly what I was about to point out. Saying that they won't is very different than actually repealing the laws that allow them to do so. Doing that would require that they actually cede some of their power, which isn't going to happen anytime soon with the people currently in Washington. If (when) the feds decide that they're going to go after someone despite their prior promises, I'd really like to see the state(s) intervene and protect the accused from federal action, but I doubt any governor would take such a political risk.

I'm sure there's probably some sort of civil liability involved in such a case. The problem I see is that there's little common sense involved in outlawing all private sales w/o a NICS check. What if I was to purchase a gun from my dad? A NICS check really wouldn't be warranted at all, but would I run the risk of being arrested and convicted of a felony because I didn't get a NICS check done? Doesn't seem right.

There is alwasy the chance he wouldn't have. But we know that if a check isn't run, he would slip through every time. True. At every gun show I've been to, the vast majority of the sellers have been gun dealers, who have to run the NICS checks anyway. I think most of them would be happy to run the NICS check on behalf of a private seller for a small fee, provided such a thing is legal. I'd consider myself a "gun-nut", but I have no problem requiring NICS checks for private sales at gun shows, however I'm not in favor of requiring it for private sales elsewhere, as it'd be pretty much unenforceable anyway. Unfortunately, none of the groups wanting to close the "gun show loophole" are interested in addressing just the gun-show part, which I'm certain many pro-gun people would support - they want to essentially ban all privates sales w/o an NICS check. You are correct in saying it would be unenforceable, but the consequences of getting caught not complying could be severe and thus serves as a deterrent. I can see that, but it would do little to deter the criminal element, defeating the point of the law in the first place. It'd serve as nothing more than a nuisance for the law-abiding. The exact same thing can be said about laws against murder, bank robbery, kidnapping, rape, and even speeding. It's a silly argument. The silly argument is passing laws to "prevent" crime and expecting criminals to abide by them.

There is alwasy the chance he wouldn't have. But we know that if a check isn't run, he would slip through every time. True. At every gun show I've been to, the vast majority of the sellers have been gun dealers, who have to run the NICS checks anyway. I think most of them would be happy to run the NICS check on behalf of a private seller for a small fee, provided such a thing is legal. I'd consider myself a "gun-nut", but I have no problem requiring NICS checks for private sales at gun shows, however I'm not in favor of requiring it for private sales elsewhere, as it'd be pretty much unenforceable anyway. Unfortunately, none of the groups wanting to close the "gun show loophole" are interested in addressing just the gun-show part, which I'm certain many pro-gun people would support - they want to essentially ban all privates sales w/o an NICS check. You are correct in saying it would be unenforceable, but the consequences of getting caught not complying could be severe and thus serves as a deterrent. I can see that, but it would do little to deter the criminal element, defeating the point of the law in the first place. It'd serve as nothing more than a nuisance for the law-abiding.

There is alwasy the chance he wouldn't have. But we know that if a check isn't run, he would slip through every time. True. At every gun show I've been to, the vast majority of the sellers have been gun dealers, who have to run the NICS checks anyway. I think most of them would be happy to run the NICS check on behalf of a private seller for a small fee, provided such a thing is legal. I'd consider myself a "gun-nut", but I have no problem requiring NICS checks for private sales at gun shows, however I'm not in favor of requiring it for private sales elsewhere, as it'd be pretty much unenforceable anyway. Unfortunately, none of the groups wanting to close the "gun show loophole" are interested in addressing just the gun-show part, which I'm certain many pro-gun people would support - they want to essentially ban all privates sales w/o an NICS check.

Though I am a life member of the NRA, I don't agreee with them on everything. Background checks should be required on ALL firearm transactions, not just those involving a licensed dealer. Would this have prevented the nut from getting a gun? Probably not. But it would have made it much more difficult and the person who sold it to him could also be held partially responsible for his actions. As it stands the guy who sold him the handgun(s) can claim he broke no laws or rules and went by the book. Given the lightning-quick speed that government seems to work at, I'm curious if he'd have shown up in NICS anyway.

I keep hearing that greed on Wall Street is the cause of this crisis, but it doesn't really make sense. Did they suddenly become greedy, or have they always been greedy? Stating that greed is the cause implies that the level of greed somehow increased and resulted in the crisis. Assuming the level of greed has stayed the same (a safe assumption), has the level of risk decreased? Given that the government has bailed out many firms, in addition to things like the greenspan put, I think it's safe to say that the risk level has definitely decreased. What do people do when you eliminate any risk associated with their greed-motivated decisions? Why should the entities that enabled the people responsible for the crisis be trusted to avert another one?

Depends on whose version of paradise you're speaking of. Certainly no trouble in mine.

Hey you left out Harry Reid If people are going to start naming names it's going to be a long list.

Non-interventionism. Two very different things. No. The "stick" tends to have lots of enemies. I'd rather it not be us. How about we fix stuff here before trying to fix stuff halfway around the world?