Lucky...

At least I have the want to try to fix it. Unlike those that are just posting dribble and expect someone else to do it all for them. Someone else does have to do it for us. Someone else has to do it for you, too - no matter how many DIY 'solutions' you want to post here. None of us posting here has the expertise or resources to head off into the Gulf and plug the leak. no, but a completely unworkable and asinine solution we might come up with here, could give an engineer an idea that is workable. it's called brainstorming. Evidently it won't make any difference - because ideas don't actually mean anything anymore. - just see the post above yours, Just give up - don't try - lay down and roll over and submit. The New Liberal Mantra Good ideas are worth having. Half-baked ideas from people who have no clue about the engineering issues involved just get in the way. This is shaping up like the cliche about opinions.

And how many years of engineering in different areas that are still relative. This reminds me of another person, last fall, claiming he knew miles more about acft sheetmetal after having limited to no experience vs me w/25+ years exp. I'll gladly admit I have no idea as to what to do with the well simply because I don't understand the issue other than there's a big hole in teh earth spewing raw, crude oil.

At least I have the want to try to fix it. Unlike those that are just posting dribble and expect someone else to do it all for them. Someone else does have to do it for us. Someone else has to do it for you, too - no matter how many DIY 'solutions' you want to post here. None of us posting here has the expertise or resources to head off into the Gulf and plug the leak. no, but a completely unworkable and asinine solution we might come up with here, could give an engineer an idea that is workable. it's called brainstorming. I'm sure the engineers have left the drawing board and are monitoring internet clubs 24-7.

They can also throw a rock through a window, or kick open the door. Banning the sale of lockpicks isn't going to stop a criminal. Lock picks don't pick locks, people do! You'll have to pry my pics from my cold, dead fingers.

What part of Rico applies to talking about what may be legal? Even if illegal, civil or criminal RICO, I imagine you mean civil forfeiture, how is this subject to RICO? Sorry, just trying to be humorless.

by the same logic it should be illegal to own guns if you are not a LEO, don't compete and live in a nice neighborhood, as that eliminates the need to defend oneself. Seriously, as silly as some hobbies are, people are allowed to own things that can be used for criminal acts - that does not make those people criminals. For the record I own a couple of sets of lockpicks, bumpkeys, and various other tools that any BASE jumper should be proficient with. Just buy them online, and no one will ask you silly questions.

FOX is fair and balanced, everything else is just liberal propaganda.

I don't know Ohio law, but I imagine he's talking about Possession of Burglary tools. I think how it works is that you must be part of a burglary or attempted / conspired burglary and then it applies. Perhaps a convicted felon as well. It's probably most often a lesser included to burglary.

What part of Rico applies to talking about what may be legal? Even if illegal, civil or criminal RICO, I imagine you mean civil forfeiture, how is this subject to RICO?

Aside from the fact that it is a RW rag, rendering it useless as data or anything scientific must be objective, random and of a large sample size, the questions are either opinion-based or theory. Trickle down theory is still prevalent, even tho no one has ever posted 1 major federal tax cut that has led to prosperity for most. Hoover tried it, 2 1/2 years later he signed the largest-ever tax increase; from 25% to 63% as he basically admitted 'tax cuts my friends' is bullshit. Reagan treid it, cut the top marginal brkt from 70% to 28% over 6 years and the debt tripled while tax receipts didn't keep up with outlays. Clinton increased taxes from 31% to 40% top brkt and receipts went several-fold of outlays. Only a moron thinks tax cuts lead to prosperity. Someone post 1 occurrence, then post several. Even if there was one occurrence, that doesn't prove a trend but an occurrence. I can post several times where increased taxes lead to debt payment and properity for the masses. I can post where tax cuts and deregulation have led to disaster, teh Great Repiblican Depression is 1, the Great Republican recession is another. Theory is fun to banter about, application is real. I'm doing major engine mods to my little shitbox car, all kinds of people are offerring theories from 'it will blow up' to 'you need to do X Y Z or it wont work, but the truth is that I won't know until I get it going and ram it. They have data to show their % of who they find right or wrong, but no data or any kind of support to establish their theories of economics. This article is just propaganda.

Myth busters

Where'd ya go, tell us about your concern for INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS that you have morphed to really mean strict constitutional rights and have done a poor job supporting your concern for that. I just replied, let's hear your explanation.

You'll just need to hope that the voters still believe that. They won't forever, you know, even if you're right. Are you saying that unemp didn't rise 3.4% from Feb 08 to Feb 09? As for voters, they're stupid, just look at the GWB elections. Remember, the voters, altho stupid, remember the GWb era and will for quite a while, so even if not happy with Obama, it beats what we had. so, is your strategy for the Democrats this fall to insult the voters, or believe they'll do what's best (ie, continue to keep the Democratic majorities)? This is a wildly contradictory paragraph. What is contradictory about it? Yes, I hear the votes falling as people read my post . What, don't care to talk about the 3.4% freefall the year before Obama took office? Didn't think so.

Well, maybe a little harsh. Agreed. . HUH? How so? How has the left treid to make us more a police state? Most of this shit comes from courts, esp high courts which have been packed by Republicans. Likeeeeee????? Or, thank you courts for exonerating a dirty cop at all turns, all costs. Yea, they go and pass things like AZ SB 1070; I agree. That's always a good thing to publicly write. BTW, idiots who do radical things only embolden the very agenda they were trying to fight. More cops get killed = society is out of control = let's incr the # of cops. What, you get 3 preemptive strikes in most jurisdictions, not sure what you're saying.

You'll just need to hope that the voters still believe that. They won't forever, you know, even if you're right. Are you saying that unemp didn't rise 3.4% from Feb 08 to Feb 09? As for voters, they're stupid, just look at the GWB elections. Remember, the voters, altho stupid, remember the GWb era and will for quite a while, so even if not happy with Obama, it beats what we had.

>>>>>>>>> The bad news for Democrats is that those hires are likely to come off the employment rolls at the end of summer I would think that is bad news for all people who want to see the US do well. Oh yea, the real Americans, the Repuklicans want America to fail, I almost forgot. Even if the Dems are viewed as bad, they have to look atthe alternative and they are the turds who got us here, so it's more bad news for Repubs, I mean the job mess is good news for them, but the election thing is still bad. If you looka the 3.4% unemp rose from Feb 2008 to Feb 2009, the year before Obama, I think jobs are as good as could be expected. See that? Even YOU can't spin the rhetoric that got President Obama elected, the stimulus passed or omnibus passed...first it was "immediate effect" then it was "well it will take some time". Thing is, none of these guys know. What we do know is that the current "limping" isn't enough. We're 15-16 months into the administration. Blaming the predecessor doesn't work. We don't elect leaders to blame. We elect leaders to lead. There is a massive void of leadership right now. In the GD era, unemp hit 25% and between Hoovers largest ever income tax in 1932 and FDR tax increases/new deals, it took until 1937 to get unemp down to 14.3%. Then it spiked again and the war spending pulled it down, but even that toom until 1942 to get it down < 5%. 5 more years of aggressive deficit spending coupled with major tax-n-spend and it finally dropped. You act as tho this was no big deal when it was/is in fact huge. Stopping the bleeding was amazing. 3.4% gain the year before Obama took office is major. Then it rose only 2% after that with a head of steam of almost twice that the year preceeding. It capped in October 2009, just 9 months after Obama took office and implemented his stimulus. Now it's stabilized and that's not good enough for you. It was teh mess of the guy you elected, my guy halted it and that's not good enough. Hell, Reagan inherited 7.5 unemp that was stable as I recall, he blew it up to 10.8% 18 -24 months into his presidency. Here Obama inherits a skyrocketing mess, curbs it just 2 points higher and now it's shading off yet to you Reagan was a gem and Obama not based on data that clearly shows Obama is handling things better.

>>>>>>>>> The bad news for Democrats is that those hires are likely to come off the employment rolls at the end of summer I would think that is bad news for all people who want to see the US do well. Oh yea, the real Americans, the Repuklicans want America to fail, I almost forgot. Even if the Dems are viewed as bad, they have to look atthe alternative and they are the turds who got us here, so it's more bad news for Repubs, I mean the job mess is good news for them, but the election thing is still bad. If you looka the 3.4% unemp rose from Feb 2008 to Feb 2009, the year before Obama, I think jobs are as good as could be expected.

The restrictions apply to the USA, because the USA ratified them. Not to mention he wrote, "individual rights" which encompass all kinds of rights, not just all of the many codified rights, but human rights, etc

So we must call it something other than marriage then, so you are opposed to gay marriage; thx for clearing that up. From homophobia to calling a hetrosexual, homosexual; you're at your usual best. Really, individual states can outlaw it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States Abortion in the United States was legal in several areas of the country before the 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision, but that decision made abortion uniformly legal throughout the country, except during the third trimester. The effective availability of abortion varies significantly from state to state. Abortion is one of the most contested issues in U.S. society, law and politics. Even tho it can be modified to a degree by states, it is a federal law under SCOTUS case law and is mandatorily distributed to the states via the 14th. The wife argument is great on a personal level, irrelevant on a national level or statistically. But it's good to see a fine family values guy like you calling straight people, gay and advocating gay sex while denouncing gay marriage. At least the RW electorate matches their nominees/representatives. So then "Miranda rights" don't exist? http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The statement, reproduced below, exists in several forms, but all have the key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These are also often referred to as the "Miranda rights." When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been "Mirandized." Aside from that, the miranda warning is fundamental to inalienable rights, such as right to counsel, right against self-incrimination, search and seizure, etc. To think that a semantic title can separate these fundamental inalienable rights is ridiculous. If no Miranda read, then inalienable rights are jeopardized, hence Miranda is a right unless no question occurrs between police and suspect. We go back to your earlier assertion that a suspect must be Mirandized before he can be arrested. Well, that is untrue, a suspect must be Mirandized before questioning while in custody. If the police aren't going to question suspect after arrest, no Miranda is neccessary and no right to Miranda exists, once questioning is going to take place, then the rights at risk must be warned under Miranda. Again, Miranda is a warning and is a right, if questioning while in custody. Apparently you're not in step with the SCOTUS. As you stated, it sucks that suspects must be Mirandized prior to arrest, meaning you disagree with Miranda. You don't have to say you do, you are for AZ SB 1070, right? Right, but I'm sure you have no issue with prisoners being abused, after all, you call pre-convicts, dirtbags. We probably have a different definition of cruel and unusual. Edit to add: The Geneva convention protections only applies to people who abide by the Genvea convention, iirc. You just called me gay and now you're pouting? Be glad that Bill will never do anything and you can take all the shots you want and just get over it. I see your picture; speaks volumes of what you're about in correlation with what you write. I'm guessing cop. Bipolarity. From, "me feelings are hurt" to " you must be gay and you're a fucking ignorant, condescending ahole." They have pills for that condition. Capitalism: The elite running the market. Communism: The government running everything for their benefit. Socialism: The government running most things for the benefit of the people. So the far left you ask. Well, in my world that's Socialsm, in yours that's Communism. I would like Canadian Socialism or something like that. To you that's far left and then some, to me that's moderate left. That aside, how has corporate America done since fascist pig Ronnie has turned it all over to corporate America? You like the result? Debt frrom 900B to 13T? Before that taxes were always > 70% top brkt since FDR, then we entered the Republican Corporate Mess we are now in with masssive debt; is that your idea of Nirvana? Only if you want to make an argument, which is unlikely. But remember, thsi was about you saying you SUPPORT A PERSON'S INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Now you're trying to make is as if you meant strict constitutional rights. Yet we attacked Iraqi government when they had nothing to do with 911, then the subsequent prisoners were tortured. It must be fun to move the pegs as we need to. Now, back to your point: ...I believe in individual rights, including being allowed to make a mistake. It's hard to find an individual right that I don't support. Individual rights, including the right to be treated humanely while incarcerated under any condition? So even if the combatants aren't protected under Geneva, do you support a person's individual right to not be tortured? To not be humiliated for sport? Yea, perhaps whittle-down that global assertion you made to virtually nothing.

Constitution free zone. Border patrol has free reign. http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/expanding-border-powers-creating-%E2%80%98constitution-free-zone%E2%80%99-covers-two-thirds-a http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/cfz_map/Image-Map.gif Yep, as I thought. I wanted to watch them search my car to ensure they didn't plant anything or fuck anything up. I was abruptly told that wasn't an option.

Actually I think border patrol for vehicle entry have very broad search parameters; anyone know for sure? Same with customs at airports, I think they can do what they want pretty much. What questiosn were they asking? They don't need a warrant for dog sniffs, they aren't breaching anything. I was searched once coming back from Tijuana, they ripped my car apart as I was in teh office, that was the 80's and I was not allowed to watch.

and yet you think the "Czars" are a good thing? LMAO Your hero, Reagan used czars, which are just advisors, so why not? Or is it that it's was used to describe a Russian ruler, so like French Fries changing to Freedom Fries, it's all in the semantics?

Real question, not our normal silly banter. Is there -anything- a person of color could call you that you'd actually take offense to? Cracker? Whitey? Honkey? In my entire life, I can't think of a single instance or thing a person of color could actually yell at me and I'd seriously react to because nothing would actually have any meaning. In fact, the more pissed off the guy would be in yelling at me, the more I'd probably laugh because the words are so meaningless. On the flip side, I can think of quite a few things to call any one of a number of people of color that they'd have some very legitimate reasons to be pissed off about. Just that alone tells me there's a difference. Right, N*****, boy and all the others remind us that whites owned blacks and kept them down until very recently, still occurrs in some places. Cracker reminds us that minorities have no real comeback. BET reminds us that they still feel seregated. Every time a stat is released and there's an asterisks or open comment about, "first black to..." we realize that some people still think blacks are inequivalent.

I don't know why you guys don't call me stupid more often, Kennedy called me gay; nothing will happen, why not just do it more? Where's rhaig when ya need him complaining about skirting the edge of PA's? So then why not talk about the issues I presented as with your hero, fascist pig Ronnie? He signed the amnesty bill, the Repubs appointed 3 of the 5 who decided the U of M case, sounds like you guys are confused; you elect the people who do things you later whine about.

I dunno. . .I don't have any scars on me from bein' shot with a camera! No, but if the nice piggy shoots you and claims you attacked him first, that guy with the camera is a criminal.