""A real conservative thinks that the consolidation of business into the hands of the politically connected is not free market .""As I said before not a conservative since conservatives want to preserve the prerogative of business to organise however they please. Cronyism must be resisted. I think Tom you are coming to the conclusion all is not well in republican land. This often happens when you have had a polarisation of views as has happened with your Tparty. There is a difference between conservatism and right wing extremism. You do have immigration problems and a taste for cheap labour, and it appears no taste for the greater American prosperity zone, now if you would just annex Mexico and Canada your problems would be solved

Seriously, we have gone nuts. pandering to a few indigenous who might, and I say might, because they haven't been heard from, have their noses out of joint because a T-shirt suggests Australia was established in 1788. well modern Australia was actually established in 1901, from 1788 to 1900 it was a British colony and before that we could only describe it as Barbequearea or Terra Incognito, it wasn't Australia
Big W follows Aldi in recalling controversial 'Australia Est 1788' shirt - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-09/big-w-recalls-controversial-australia-day-shirt/5192784)
I wonder will they withdraw the invasion day Tshirts the indigenous wear on Jan 26 which I consider offensive

since conservatives want to preserve the prerogative of business to organise however they please
A conservative believes in free market capitalism ,and not for businesses to cut deals with government for the purpose of getting a competitive advantage .

and not for businesses to cut deals with government for the purpose of getting a competitive advantage .Liberals believe that is wrong as well.

Liberals believe that is wrong as well.

I'll believe that when I see them criticize their own for doing just that.

I'll believe that when the emperor cuts, GE probably the biggest rent seeking corporation in the US, out of their cozy exclusive place in the Obamacare industry .

Why would he? It's endemic in the system, they all do it. Having one or two people criticize it while still doing it solves nothing. You're basically saying it isn't a big issue when it's actually the biggest issue.

He isn't saying that at all and I fail to see where anyone thought 1 or 2 people criticizing their bad behavior is going to change anything. That's endemic among liberals, they SAY they believe it's wrong, whine about the problem and lecture others on it while looking the other way when their guy does it.

Here is the emperor's latest nonsensical ploy to spur the economy and wage their "income inequality" war, establishing "Promise Zones (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-to-unveil-promise-zone-economic-initiative/)."


President Obama on Thursday will unveil another facet of his plan to combat income inequality, this time focusing on a theme embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike: economic mobility.


Joined by local leaders at the White House, Mr. Obama will officially announce the administration’s first five “promise zones” -- pockets of the country that will receive comprehensive federal assistance after being especially hard-hit by the recession. The five zones will be located in San Antonio, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Southeastern Kentucky and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. The administration aims to ultimately assist 20 such regions.

I suggest he tell us how his millions invested in "Promise Neighborhoods" has worked out (http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/heather-mac-donald#) before asking us to buy into this useless idea, but I doubt that will happen or that the media will even question it.

Well, a regional development plan under another guise

We could always let Walmart's develop the neighborhoods since they get millions in local tax breaks, and wages are subsidized by welfare.

yeh Walmart as social welfare

Walmart and Obama do have something in common, they both look out for their own interests. At least Walmart gets results that make a difference in people's lives, Obama just looks out for himself whatever the cost. This is just political BS.

This is just political BS. well of course it is, another recycled program, pick it up, dust it off, give it another name, government and politics was ever so. there are no new ideas, just variations on a theme

Another example of Dems looking out purely for their own interests instead of those of the people they serve. The Senate was close to a bipartisan deal to extend unemployment benefits until Harry Reid, as is his MO, blocked Republicans from adding any amendments to the bill.


WASHINGTON — What was shaping up to be a humdrum day on Capitol Hill turned into a firestorm as Majority Leader Harry Reid proposed his own plan to extend unemployment benefits and effectively blocked Republicans from having further say in the matter.

After several days of debate over how to pass a three-month extension of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, Reid side-stepped negotiations with Republicans and offered a plan of his own to extend benefits through mid-November. In doing so he used a procedural tactic known as “filling the tree” to block Republicans from proposing any further amendments.


When Reid said at a Thursday afternoon press conference he was “cautiously optimistic,” that a long-term deal would soon be announced, what he came up with isn’t what Republicans had in mind.


“Sen. Reid announced today that he will obstruct ALL [sic] Republican amendments,” Don Stewart, a spokesman for Mitch McConnell, told BuzzFeed in an email. “It’s a real challenge to find a bipartisan accomplishment when one person shuts out the entire side of the aisle.”


“This is crassly political,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said. “They want to have something to talk about on the Sunday morning programs (http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacobfischler/harry-reid-just-made-a-whole-bunch-of-republicans-angry-over).”

More of that unprecedented era of bipartisanship Obama was going to usher in. This is not something you guys want resolved, admit it. You want to use it as a hammer for the mid-terms and that's despicable. B*tch and moan about those good-for-nothing Republicans and how they hate everyone while making damn sure nothing gets done.

The main republican amendment was to delay Obama Care for a year and that was your boy Mitch's idea. Past performance is pretty clear propose many amendments, delay a vote, then vote NO!! Since we know you think those people with no jobs are lazy bums anyway, even though they are older people who have worked and still looking for work, and who paid into the system when they did work.

It's a waste of time talking to you guys and we know that. You want out of work people to pay for help, but who pays for tax breaks for rich guys? Giving up health care for insurance benefits is your idea of fair? Of course it is.

The main republican amendment was to delay Obama Care for a year and that was your boy Mitch's idea. Past performance is pretty clear propose many amendments, delay a vote, then vote NO!!

You have no evidence for that other than Dingy the liar's "suggestion".


He suggested the Republicans wanted to offer a slew of amendments to "do nothing but whack ObamaCare."

Just like he "suggested" Romney was a tax cheat.


Since we know you think those people with no jobs are lazy bums anyway, even though they are older people who have worked and still looking for work, and who paid into the system when they did work.

Stop putting words in my mouth that have no basis in reality. There are those who work the system yes, but you'd have to be a complete moron to honestly believe that endless UI benefits doesn't create incentives to remain unemployed.


t's a waste of time talking to you guys and we know that. You want out of work people to pay for help, but who pays for tax breaks for rich guys? Giving up health care for insurance benefits is your idea of fair? Of course it is.

Talking to liberals about their hypocrisy is also a waste of time. You need a mirror, dude. You don't get to b*tch at me about do-nothing Republicans while your guys consistently shut them out. You don't get to b*cth at me about Republicans not caring about people while your guys are using them as political pawns. Time to grow up and get a spine, Tal.

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
You have no evidence for that other than Dingy the liar's "suggestion".


He said it on TV I saw it from Mitch's own mouth.


Just like he "suggested" Romney was a tax cheat.


Romney I last years news and he pays less taxes than you do, and hides his profits all over the world, tax free. Yes its legal. Harry and his republican fellow senator from Nevada have some the nations highest unemployment rate, and want to extend unemployment benefits.


Stop putting words in my mouth that have no basis in reality. There are those who work the system yes, but you'd have to be a complete moron to honestly believe that endless UI benefits doesn't create incentives to remain unemployed.


You say endless, I say emergency since there are not enough jobs. You do know anyone claiming UI benefits is required to look for work and show proof don't you? Those that don't know that are the morons.


Talking to liberals about their hypocrisy is also a waste of time. You need a mirror, dude. You don't get to b*tch at me about do-nothing Republicans while your guys consistently shut them out. You don't get to b*cth at me about Republicans not caring about people while your guys are using them as political pawns. Time to grow up and get a spine, Tal.


Wake up, because I will always have enough spine to push back strongly against the BS of your false right wing narrative. Count on it.

So something McConnell said in what, 2010 is relevant to the UI debate? What does Dingy have to fear from Republicans offering amendments for a vote? Is killing the filibuster and having a majority to kill any amendment he doesn't like not enough, he has to obstruct them from even offering a say, too? Geez Tal, this is not a dictatorship as much as you'd like it to be. The rest of your rant is just so much pablum.

Like I said, you don't get to b*tch at me about do-nothing Republicans while your guys consistently shut them out. You don't get to b*tch at me about Republicans not caring about people while your guys are using them as political pawns without being called on it. You know damn well Reid wants this to stall so he can use it to batter Republicans even though he's the one doing the obstructing, and that does nothing to help those people you pretend to care about. That's a fact, Jack.

Tal doesn't think that unemployment benefits (now a form of welfare ) should be paid for . Just add it to the debt ...no biggie. Yes ,then we need another CR before the 2014 budget resolution is ready to meet the Jan 15 deadline.

But Sen. Kelly Ayotte has a simple solution to pay for it. All they need to do is crack down on a tax credit program in which illegal immigrants have fraudulently collected billions of dollars in improper payments. Stop the fraud ...extend the benefits. It's simple ...anyone collecting benefits from the Additional Child Tax Credit must supply a Social Security number in order to collect the money. The Dems don't like it.

So something McConnell said in what, 2010 is relevant to the UI debate?

He said it on the senate floor after the cloture vote... 3 days ago!! No wonder you can't keep up.

You do know another cloture vote after the debate is coming don't you? 60 votes.

He said it on the senate floor after the cloture vote... 3 days ago!! No wonder you can't keep up.

Said what, Jack? Give me the quote, the link, the video.

I repeat, what does Dingy have to fear from Republicans offering amendments for a vote? Is killing the filibuster and having a majority to kill any amendment he doesn't like not enough, he has to obstruct them from even offering a say, too? Geez Tal, this is not a dictatorship as much as you'd like it to be.

I think tom is onto the problem, besides planning on using it hypocritically to bash Republicans the Dems don't want the voters to see any common sense suggestions such as how to pay for it by clamping down on fraud.

When you finally come to the conclusion that the filibuster has outlived its usefulness you will devise a system where amendments can be heard and voted on without obstructing the business of the senate

The Real Reason Unemployment Talks Collapsed In The Senate (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/why-unemployment-talks-collapsed-senate)


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was pushing hard to offer an amendment (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-delay-obamacare-mandate-unemployment-insurance) that pays for a revival of emergency jobless benefits by delaying Obamacare's unpopular individual mandate for one year (which is projected to save money by reducing Obamacare subsidies and Medicaid outlays, as well as raise insurance premiums). The move was aimed at whipping up fodder for GOP Senate candidates to attack Democrats in the November congressional elections, where the Republicans hope to take back the majority.

Mitch McConnell Attempts To Hold Unemployment Benefits Hostage For Obamacare Delay | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/07/3128111/mcconnell-obamacare-unemployment/)


“I'd like to propose that… my side be allowed to offer an amendment to pay for these benefits by lifting the burden of Obamacare's individual mandate for one year, and take care of our veterans who were harmed by the recently agreed to budget deal while we are at it, in the same amendment,” the Kentucky lawmaker said (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-delay-obamacare-mandate-unemployment-insurance).

nahh . Reid doesn't want unemployment benefits tied to restoring cuts in veterans' pensions .The Dems talk a big game about bipartisan solutions ;but bipartisanship is only demanded of the Repubics. Imagine.... unemployment extensions tied to restoring Vets benefits and eliminating fraud . Too much on the plate for the Dems who will do anything to keep the illegal alien constituency in their pocket. As Madame Mimi said ......“We’re all on the same page in passing unemployment insurance. We don’t think it should be paid for.”

Let the people who made 'em unemployed pay for it. Jobless workers who want to work have paid enough.

and besides ;umemployment payouts create jobs... bwaaahaaaahaaaahaaaaa !!!!!

And republicans don't create job.

Democrats create unemployed.

45461

Wish someone would fix this dang site.

yes some improvements are not always better but perhaps it's deliberate to control the amount of resources required the caption of that graph suggest the figures are artificial based on old statistics, we have moved on a long way from 2009, in case anyone hasn't noticed this is 2014 and post GFC

the new normal is that Americans are dropping from the labor participation rate at record levels . That is not 2009 .It is 2014 .....5 years into the emperor's 'recovery' . 92 million Americans have dropped out of the labor force and have become a new class of dependents of the nanny state.
People Not In Labor Force Soar To Record 91.8 Million; Participation Rate Plunges To 1978 Levels | Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-10/people-not-labor-force-soar-record-918-million-participation-rate-plunges-1978-level)

so what do all these people do all day?

Here is the emperor's latest nonsensical ploy to spur the economy and wage their "income inequality" war, establishing "Promise Zones (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-to-unveil-promise-zone-economic-initiative/)."



I suggest he tell us how his millions invested in "Promise Neighborhoods" has worked out (http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/heather-mac-donald#) before asking us to buy into this useless idea, but I doubt that will happen or that the media will even question it.

of course . The solution for areas where too much government is the core reason for their poverty is adding even more government. I'll reserve judgment until I see the details . If he mimics the Jack Kemp enterprise zone solutions there is a chance that this may work. I suspect it will be more like Solyndra unfortunately .

he is just targetting areas where there is plenty of unemployment

He is targeting areas of political importance, like mitch McConnell territory.

his MO is cronyism. As an example ,he just dumped CGI ,the firm that designed the Obamacare web site ;and has hired Accenture .John Rogers, CEO of Ariel Capital Mgt, which has a big investment in Accenture, raised $1.5 million for the emperor's campaign, comes from Chicago, and is family friends with the emperor . His ex-wife Desiree Rogers was the White House party manager who had to resign after she allowed in the two impostors into a reception for the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manmohan_Singh). So that made Accenture the logical choice to replace his other crony contractor . I suspect that his buds will be the chief beneficiary of these 'promise zones'.

Hey if I were him I would have dumped those bunch of dunces, you get no marks for stuffing up something important, and embarrassing the president and let's us remember cheney and halliburton, you can't bleat about cronieism. Who did you expect him to give the contact to, some republican flunkey. you are just unreal Tom, politicians take their supporters with them when they get elected, they all do it. this is why there must be a clean out when the power changes. But you have a problem washington never gets cleaned out, they just keep resurrecting the hacks

let's us remember cheney and halliburton, you can't bleat about cronieism
Halliburton was also Clintoon's favorite no bid contractor . Why ? Because they did the job they were hired to do better than anyone else. Guess who else hired Halliburton..... yes ,the emperor.

btw ,when she passed away ,Lady Bird Johnson ,wife of LBJ, was a major stock holder of Haliburton .

The real unemployment picture in Obama's dreadful recovery.


How Bad Is Obama's Record On Jobs? Let Us Count The Ways - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/011014-686041-counting-the-ways-obama-policies-have-failed-to-create-jobs.htm)

6.3 million: Net new jobs created since Obama’s recovery started in June 2009
13.8 million: New jobs that would have been created had Obama’s kept pace with the average of the previous 10 recoveries.

3.6%: Growth in private jobs since Obama took office.
43%: Growth in the number of temp jobs.

91.8 million: Number of people not in the labor force as of December.
525,000: Increase since November.
11.2 million: Increase since Obama took office.

6.7%: Jobless rate 54 months into Obama’s recovery.
5.1%: Unemployment rate 54 months into George W. Bush’s “jobless” recovery.

13.1%: Jobless rate in Dec. using a broader measure — U6 — which includes people marginally attached to labor force or working part time for economic reasons.
9.2%: Average U6 rate in Bush’s eight years in office.

And what do we get? Promise Zones (an interesting choice of terms from the guy who breaks all his promises), blocking a huge job creator in Keystone, uncertainty and higher costs via Obamacare and more job killing regulations. Why does Obama hate America?

Great right wing spin. Your source left out the huge profits of the private sector while NOT creating more jobs. Why do the rich hate the working public should be your question.

Hello again, Steve:

It's simple really.. The Republicans just have to pass the Democrats jobs bill. I dunno WHY you don't want Americans to go back to work.. Worse than that, I dunno WHY you like shabby 3rd world airports, highways, and railroads. I dunno WHY you like our 3rd world electric grid, or our 3rd world internet service. I dunno WHY you wanna drive us back into the 19th Century. I dunno WHY you think all that is gonna create jobs...

It CAN'T be because the rich aren't rich enough yet. That if we just made 'em a little bit richer, they'll FINALLY create the jobs you've been telling us about.. You're not gonna ply that old garbage are you??? That dog just doesn't hunt anymore. You DO know, the rich are RICHER than ever.

Maybe you don't know that. How can that be? You DO know the deficit is PLUNGING (http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/deficit-nosediving-but-gop-still-screaming-48811075601), don't you??? Maybe you don't know that. How can THAT be?

You DO know that borrowing money is almost FREE today, don't you? You DO know that we OWN those bridges, and someday in the future, we're going to HAVE to fix them. You can't PRETEND that we're not. You don't doubt that 1st class infrastructure CREATES jobs and PAYS for itself, do you? So, borrowing to finance the work is ALMOST free. We NEED the work. We HAVE the workers. It WON'T make the deficit go back up.

What is so hard to understand here??? Do you LIKE to drive on bridges that might collapse because it's 3rd world?? Oh, that's right. They don't have bridges in Texas.

excon

You DO know the deficit is PLUNGING (http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/deficit-nosediving-but-gop-still-screaming-48811075601), don't you???
Now about that $18 trillion debt......
Chalk up the deficit downturn to the wonders of the sequester. Too bad last month's budget deal ,with it's spending increases ,will halt that slide.
You can also give a hat tip to the Fed .Something about zero interest rates does wonders for Federal debt service .

You guys will never increase revenues by raising taxes on the rich guys like repubs always have done or hire more government workers, like repubs always have done or build railroads and bridges like republicans always has done, so maybe going back to what you always have done (besides holler and throw rocks, and cry beecth and moan about liberals) might do some good.

Just saying because you guys have gotten a lot heavier, and louder, and its harder to drag you along than its ever been.

Funny how you guys will blame everyone but the regime and then double down for more of the same. I'm just surprised you didn't blame it on Bush. I'm not surprised you think we should just roll over and take it in the a$$ from you. The numbers don't lie, can't say the same for libs.

The government within the week will pass a $ 1 trillion dollar spending bill. So let's stop pretending that the government isn't spending enough. Maybe there would be more for infrastructure if it wasn't spending so much on it's own "heavier" bloat .

If government cannot run a structured deficit, you will cease to have a government. Austerity without growth is another name for extraction/robbery legally through legislative chicanery. Another name is supply side economics, controlled unfettered by the interest of the very few.

Profits before people is a poor model to BUILD a growing economy that balances both supply with demand and circulation. You know something is off when economic models are the same as casino operations.

what do you consider a reasonable "structured " debt ? Don't tell me you think 100% + of GDP is reasonable . It's government spending that is sapping the wealth that builds the economy .

You are right Tom we think 10% might be reasonable but we don't think you have any hope of achieving 100% let alone 10%. There are mechanisms that might let you off the hook, rampant inflation, or chinese style growth in your economy but restricting yourselves to having better than a balanced budget that would have a catastrophic effect, you may as well do away with the house, what would they have to do but repeal all those expensive programs

I think blaming the debt for people not having well paying jobs, ergo poor wealth, is erroneous since the stock market and a small number of people are doing fantastic. More accurate I think is the relationship between the private industry and wages and business practice that are pushing more people into the arms of the social safety net.

In the world of rising costs for goods and services and severely restricted monetary circulation debt is the only way to generate demand, and that's only barely good enough to cover necessity. Believe it or not though a dollar investment in the safety net return 1.25 dollars, but a dollar of tax cut just adds to the debt in both short and long term revenues and economic activities.

To put a figure on it in GDP on a yearly basis 25% is manageable. Misleading is total debt to yearly revenue. What skews the numbers greatly on a global scale is the different regional and local standards that leaves trillions upon trillions of dollars out of circulation, and that's a recipe for the growing poverty and stagnant wages we see EVERYWHERE, except in the very narrow few of the population.

I have long held that circulation is the issue. One dollar that passes among many is more conducive to wealth than billions held onto by one person. You want more wealth, you have to have more circulation. Even Laffer curve shows that although he only deals with taxation. It's so narrowly and poor defined its irrelevant. Yes the relationship between taxation and revenues is irrelevant. But that's the supply side theory. The more consumers the greater the revenues, and the less you depend on the social safety net. (Taxpayer support)

That's the Walmart model using good wages as a baseline but of course you will never acknowledge that fiscal relationship, wonder why? That's where your deficits are. Imagine Walmart workers as consumers and do the math. If you can't, then that's a very big red flag you cannot see the real problem.

deficit stimilus to the economy is a false premise which creates the situation you now have, as are fighting wars without any return. Your snout in the trough military is a large part of the problem as are your free trade policies. You lowered taxation to the point where it doesn't support your budget as if the economy were some sort of magic pudding. What you need is a securities tax including a tax on bank deposits so that there is incentive for all that parked money to move. Lifting real interest rates will lift expectations, money has fled your economy because there is no return and you need to abandon QE it is creating a false market that can only collapse

Deficit stimulus is an emergency. A sign of worsening economic condition that's directly tied to unemployment. Cutting it without a much looser job market is economic suicide. Withdrawing the QE artificial as it is would destroy more fragile global economies, because most bonds are worthless.

Sorry tal my economic studies don't support your argument, you have passed the point of economic suicide because of deficit stimilus. It hasn't worked. governments do not create employment, they facilitate it. What world do you you in where you exercise control over global economies? QE is destroying the value of other currencies, causing the US dollar to be artificially lowered this would benefit you if you actually exported something by increasing your earnings, QE is a stupid idea, printing money always was. The only way out for you is the same path other banana republics have taken. repudiate the national debt, write it all off and start again, but before you do stand all those trough gouging politicians against the wall

Tal, apparently you've never worked with someone who doesn't deserve their pay. I'm sorry, but I am not going to pay someone 20 bucks an hour that gives me 7 bucks an hour in output. That's not only stupid but a recipe for killing your business. What the hell do you not understand about that?

Why is QE hurting you if you are so much better at economics than we are? You stumble badly when you say the US has no effect on other economies while you say in the same breath our economy hurts you. Go get your own and show us how your economic skills are so much better than a banana republic.


What world do you you in where you exercise control over global economies? QE is destroying the value of other currencies, causing the US dollar to be artificially lowered


Do your own thing and be done with our banana republic. See I just solved all YOUR problems.

QE is hurting us and other exporting economies because it makes us uncompetative when most international contracts are priced with reference to a US dollar exchange rate, but the rediculous part is you don't benefit because you have no export industries except those for which the exchange rate doesn't matter. Your manufacturing is now done offshore

We would like to be done with your banana republic but you have ingratiated yourselves to the extent that you destory our industries to protect your own. The auto industry is a case in point. Your auto companies would rather manufacture in South Korea and to do so they destroy established subsidiaries around the world

we came to recognise the banana republic syndrome thirty years ago and restructured our economy, this is why we are in better economic shape than you are, we had the foresight to see that deficits were undesirable and not sustainable long term and actually paid off our debt before the GFC hit.When you have paid off your debt you can afford lower taxes. The last generation took the pain, not the current generation and this makes us an economic dynamo, the 12th largest economy in the world dispite our small population. Do you think we might have something to teach you about economics?

It's alright Tal keep playing ostrich while all your eggs are stolen

QE is beggar thy neighbor . Clete is right on that count. We complained for years about the Chinese doing the same type of under valuation.

Tal, apparently you've never worked with someone who doesn't deserve their pay.

A lot of people find it difficult to justify their pay. Some more than others. CEO's would find is pretty much impossible.

I'm sure some can't. It's pretty simple though, for a business to succeed it has to make a profit and it's hard to make a profit if employees can't justify their expense. It's not magic, it doesn't work like the government.

The boss can and does fire people all the time. If the boss can't make a profit, it's his fault not the workers who follow his direction. Deserves got nothing to do with it.

of course . The solution for areas where too much government is the core reason for their poverty is adding even more government. I'll reserve judgment until I see the details . If he mimics the Jack Kemp enterprise zone solutions there is a chance that this may work. I suspect it will be more like Solyndra unfortunately .
From the Slimes......

In a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Obama said the five areas would become “Promise Zones,” where federal agencies will cut through red tape in an effort to give struggling residents a chance at better lives.......

White House officials said the Promise Zones initiative would not provide new money, rather it would be aimed at providing the local governments and agencies “aid in cutting through red tape to get access to existing resources.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/politics/obama-announces-promise-zones-in-5-stricken-areas.html?hpw&rref=politics&_r=0

Typical statist mindset. All they really have to do is eliminate the red tape for everyone ,and then there would be no need for this new initiative ,with all the bureaucratic effort .....saving the taxpayer even more money and reducing the size of the government .

Chemical Spill a Blow to W.Va Capital's Economy - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chemical-wva-spill-site-21494976)


"It's like a ghost town," Tammy Krepshaw said. "I feel really bad for all my neighbors. It's sad."The person she doesn't feel bad for is Freedom Industries President Gary Southern, who told reporters the day before that he was having a long day and quickly wrapped up a news conference on the chemical spill so he could fly out of the area.
"People want answers. They deserve answers," Krepshaw said.


Judge OKs $4B BP oil spill criminal settlement (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/01/29/bp-oil-spill-criminal-settlement/1874545/)


As part of the agreement, BP agreed to pay $4 billion in fines — the largest criminal resolution in U.S. history — and pleaded guilty to 14 counts of criminal acts ranging from obstruction of Congress to felony manslaughter.

last decade we had a truck full of chemicals lose control and drive off an overpass. Shut down most of the main arteries in 3 county as a result. Didn't once hear anyone calling for a ban on the production of the chemical.

Hello again,

Judge OKs $4B BP oil spill criminal settlement (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/01/29/bp-oil-spill-criminal-settlement/1874545/)
pleaded guilty to 14 counts of criminal acts ranging from obstruction of Congress to felony manslaughter.If corporations are people, how come nobody is going to jail? I know what would happen if you or I were found guilty of manslaughter.

excon

The boss can and does fire people all the time. If the boss can't make a profit, it's his fault not the workers who follow his direction. Deserves got nothing

There is a reason it's called earnings.

And your point?

Look it up

What got no point, just a rant huh? Okay I can understand it. I rant too!! :D

Yes, you're very good at it.

Is come to this.

Portland pimp sues Nike for $100 million for lack of warning label after beating victim with Jordans | OregonLive.com (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/01/nike_sued_by_portland_pimp_for.html)

Is come to this.

Portland pimp sues Nike for $100 million for lack of warning label after beating victim with Jordans | OregonLive.com (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/01/nike_sued_by_portland_pimp_for.html)

Reading the article I think it is pretty obvious the guy isn't the full quid.

"If corporations are people, how come nobody is going to jail"

Ex, I imagine the answer is that in order to individuals of a corporation to go to gaol it would need to be shown that an individual, or individuals were directly responsible for a criminal action. However, in reality it appear to be a rare occurrence.

That's the beauty of corporate personhood, the company gets all of the advantage of being an individual person while at the same time shirks the important responsibilities.

I am seriously considering turning myself into a corporation.

Reading the article I think it is pretty obvious the guy isn't the full quid.Some people seem to have a knack in trying very hard to make stupid people famous.

Yes but tutt is right a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock there

If corporations are people, how come nobody is going to jail?

it's obvious , the Justice Dept and local DAs are much better at the shakedown game than making a case stick. Manhattan's DA Cyrus Vance has only brought a criminal case against 1 bank ; a Chinese bank named Abacus.JPMorganChase, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup — are all headquartered in Manhattan. So if the lefties in power want to keep the gravy train ,they have to go easy on the prosecutions .

Reuters, in nod to stupidity, discovers the Pope is Catholic.

Pope, in nod to conservatives, calls abortion 'horrific' (http://news.yahoo.com/pope-nod-conservatives-calls-abortion-39-horrific-39-114642733.html)

Obviously this doesn't fit the "progressive" Pope narrative so teaching Catholic doctrine is now just a "bone tossing" exercise.

Progressive's agree with the pope on some things, and disagree on others. So what, aren't conservatives the same way? What's new about the pope saying abortions are bad, that's what all the popes have said. What's the big deal?

It's isn't about the Pope, it's about Reuters treatment of the Pope. It's an ignorant article, The Pope's words are not something to be bent to support the media's preferred narrative, condeming abortion as he has always done is not a political bone to toss to conservatives.

Fair enough.

It's come to this, Medicare payments for "penis pumps" have "swelled" in recent years.

Not that I'm one to put a damper on an erection, but the federal government can't even buy them at retail price.


The federal government paid more than double the retail price (http://freebeacon.com/taxpayers-paid-nearly-175m-for-penis-pumps-between-2006-and-2011/) for VES, the Department of Health and Human Services IG found (http://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region7/71205024.pdf). Medicare prices for the systems, the report said, “remain grossly excessive compared with the amounts that non-Medicare payers pay.”

Because no one needs a penis pump to give the government the shaft I suppose.

It's come to this, Medicare payments for "penis pumps" have "swelled" in recent years.

Not that I'm one to put a damper on an erection, but the federal government can't even buy them at retail price.



Because no one needs a penis pump to give the government the shaft I suppose.


Well obviously. You double the price you double the enjoyment. Everyone knows that.

Overpaying for stuff has been going on for decades. Even I sold the gov stuff at inflated prices.

yes corruption has a price

Has anyone considered the impact of corruption on the government deficit over time, if corruption had a 10% impact on the value of government contracts that would mean a $50 billion dollar hit just on the federal government expenditures alone. But corruption goes far further than that when the impact of the GFC corrupt practices are taken into account. The mortgage agencies Freddie and Fanny returned $40 billion to the federal coffers in December. Stamp out corruption and you stamp out the deficit.

Oh I have no doubt the shenanigans of both government and the private sector, and consider military contracts, and retired military and government officials who go to work for the companies they wrote laws and regulations for as lobbyist, its no wonder that the government for the people represents everybody but the people.

It definitely needs cleaning up.

no only is it not government for the people it is not government by the people, when Lincoln spoke of those concepts he was speaking about opposing the interests that tried to entrench cronyism and privilege in the government, those who had tried to enforce slavery. Actually you would have been better off if you had let them succeed, they were a backwards agrian society.

YEP.

Some governments like my city actually do live by competitive bidding which keeps our expenses down. Others not so much. The obama regime likes no bid contracts which is how we get dysfunctional websites at great expense. Another part of the problem is if a government agency doesn't spend all its budget they rush to spend it in the last month so their budget doesn't get cut whether they need anything or not. I get calls every September from government agencies wanting to buy things for that reason alone, and I COULD virtually name my price.

That's something I can agree with Speech, its been a practice for a long time.

Yep, that's been going on forever. I've been on either end of that.

There is a way to stop that practice and it is called zero based budgetting. What it means is every budget starts from scratch each year, each item is examined and agreed on. There is none of this we spent this amount last year and we will need 110% next year. The next step is the sunset clause in all contracts and projects, if not completed there are significant penalties and failure to meet specific goals means you loose the contract.

What should have been done with the ACA for example is that the insurers were set goals for participation, a market share they had to achieve and a price ceiling they had to stay under. I know it's not free market, but to borrow a quote from the movies "nothing is free in..........."

More vaping outrage. Seems congressional Democrats have nothing more pressing than this...


Senate Democrats were not amused (http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/195462-democrats-miffed-at-nbc-for-smoking-gag-during-golden-globes#ixzz2qQ5amFjt) to see Julia Louis-Dreyfus puffing away on an electronic cigarette during the Golden Globe Awards.

The lawmakers said the Louis-Dreyfus, who plays a fictional vice president on HBO’s “Veep,” helped glamorize smoking on the broadcast, and are pressing NBC Universal to ensure that the “e-cigarettes” are not featured again.

“The Golden Globes celebrates entertainers who are an influence on young fans,” the Democrats wrote. “We ask the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and NBC Universal to take actions to ensure that future broadcasts of the Golden Globes do not intentionally feature images of e-cigarettes. Such action would help to avoid the glamorization of smoking and protect the health of young fans.”

The letter was signed by Sens. Durbin (Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Edward Markey (Mass.), and sent to NBC Universal CEO Stephen Burke and Hollywood Foreign Press Association president Theo Kingma.

They probably wrote this while having a few drinks I'm guessing. Gee, is there really nothing better to be outraged about than vaping? I'm guessing they had no problem with Colorado's ridiculous Obamacare ads that just might have a much more lasting and detrimental affect on "young fans." Puff on an e-cigarette? Bad. Sell Obamacare by promoting promiscuity, good.


"OMG, he's hot! Let's hope he's as easy to get as this birth control. My health insurance covers the pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him between the covers," read the words in the risqué advertisement.

Vaping, bad, Kegstands good.

45485

How about fixing that disaster called Obamacare or balancing a budget or something?

Make you wonder if that's really thinly veiled advert for life insurance... because those guys might not make it into middle age.

all publicity is good publicity, those guys are an indication of why you should have insurance for self inflicted injury

China has listed the benefits of its smog (http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-government-tries-to-spin-smog-as-a-healthy-benefit--and-aid-to-national-defense-174649885.html).


In America, we're used to our government, our industry and our media putting a spin on events to make the world seem a brighter, better place than it really is. But some of China's media is showing some impressive spin talent of its own, with a rationalization for pollution that is, quite literally, breathtaking.

Much of China has been suffering through choking smog in recent weeks, which has hampered daily activities and forced the closure of schools. In response, state broadcaster CCTV published a list of reasons documenting the benefits of smog. Yes, benefits.


A Time magazine translator (http://world.time.com/2013/12/09/china-here-are-some-great-things-about-toxic-air/?hpt=hp_t3) indicated the following CCTV rationalizations for smog:
1. It unifies the Chinese people.
2. It makes China more equal.
3. It raises citizen awareness of the cost of China’s economic development.
4. It makes people funnier.
5. It makes people more knowledgeable (of things like meteorology and the English word haze).
That's some interesting rationalization. Following that line of thinking, hurricanes also unify people by forcing them to leave their isolated homes and gather in collectives. Tornadoes give people a sense of the power of nature. Wildfires place everyone on an equal footing by burning everyone's possessions to the ground. See? The problem isn't nature, the problem is you.



Of course this looks like a benefit...

45493

Naturally, the UN climate chief holds communism as the best cure for climate change, with China as the shining example.


United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.


China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.


“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-13/top-global-emitter-china-best-on-climate-change-figueres-says.html). “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”


Read more: UN climate chief: Communism is best to fight global warming | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/15/un-climate-chief-communism-is-best-to-fight-global-warming/#ixzz2qZiLWiKr)



You can't make this stuff up.

That is impressive spin to be sure. Many american cities have their own similar smog problems as well... they just don't spin like China does.

BTW do you know why the person in the picture is covering their mouth?

That is impressive spin to be sure. Many american cities have their own similar smog problems as well... they just don't spin like China does.

There are no cities in America that have that kind of smog problem any more.


BTW do you know why the person in the picture is covering their mouth?

The same reason everyone else is.

45495
45496
45497

There are no cities in America that have that kind of smog problem any more.A quick image search would prove that wrong. Is the EPA and Clean Air Act providing excellent results?


The same reason everyone else is.
There are various reasons, I'm sure you're aware of the culture.

A quick image search would prove that wrong. Is the EPA and Clean Air Act providing excellent results?

Well by all means, let's see 'em.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=787&q=american+cities+smog&oq=american+cities+smog&gs_l=img.3...1653.9561.0.9671.20.14.0.6.4.0.309.20 17.5j4j4j1.14.0....0...1ac.1.32.img..7.13.1111.TNv v-x2sf_8

Texas and West Virginia have had disasters as a direct result of not enforcing the rules. Ohio is closing gates to stop the chemical leak from migrating to them. These are two examples of NOT inspecting facilities. Go ahead, keep shrinking the government and doing away with people and resources to protect us.

Pay me now, or pay me later comes to mind and its always more expensive later.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=a...11.TNvv-x2sf_8 (https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=787&q=american+cities+smog&oq=american+cities+smog&gs_l=img.3...1653.9561.0.9671.20.14.0.6.4.0.309.20 17.5j4j4j1.14.0....0...1ac.1.32.img..7.13.1111.TNv v-x2sf_8)

Those pics mean nothing, tell us how many smog alerts LA has had in the last 10 years. I was there a year ago and you can see a haze but it isn't what's going on in China by a long shot.

I agree with you that big business needs regulations... and they work. Your example shows what happens when you allow it to run unrestrained.

Are you under some impression that I don't believe in regulations?

So you think the EPA is important enough to give it the resources and tools to do their job properly. Like I do?

So you think the EPA is important enough to give it the resources and tools to do their job properly. Like I do?

No I don't, it's a rogue agency with too much power.

So you would rather the chemical spills foul the water supply, or fertilizer plants blow up? Okay, I gotcha.

So you would rather the chemical spills foul the water supply, or fertilizer plants blow up? Okay, I gotcha

And that of course is the entirely predictable, faulty liberal argument. The ol' "I think the EPA is too powerful and needs more oversight therefore I love dirty water and air."

Try arguing honestly.

I guess the left is going to blame a shrinking government for Benghazi... The NSA spying, the IRS shakedown thugs and global warming.

Right, because as we all know government is not nearly big enough or intrusive enough.

And that of course is the entirely predictable, faulty liberal argument. The ol' "I think the EPA is too powerful and needs more oversight therefore I love dirty water and air."

Try arguing honestly.

There are not enough inspectors or inspections was my point.

There are not enough inspectors or inspections was my point.

LOL, borrow some from the IRS. We have more than enough freakin' bureaucrats to go around. Perhaps if they weren't busy doing Star Wars skits, sipping champagne in hot tubs, creating criminals to bust (http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atf-uses-rogue-tactics-in-storefront-stings-across-the-nation-b99146765z1-234916641.html), harassing conservatives and just hanging out thinking up new regulations to saddle us with they might have time to inspect something.

Perhaps if they were inspecting the right thing there would be enough to go around

When are the vaporizors for Crack and Meth coming out?

A surrogate for Mitch McConnell's Democratic opponent compared defeating him to liberating Europe from the Nazis.


http://youtu.be/A_XlIU0AaQM

Yeah, I'm sure Kentuckians feel like their senator, not governor, king or emperor has abused his Hitleresque "reign" over them.

Cumoe says pro-lifers have no place in the state of New York.


Andrew Cuomo: Pro-Life People "Have No Place in the State of New York" | LifeNews.com (http://www.lifenews.com/2014/01/17/andrew-cuomo-pro-life-people-have-no-place-in-the-state-of-new-york/)

You have a schism within the Republican Party. … They’re searching to define their soul, that’s what’s going on. Is the Republican party in this state a moderate party or is it an extreme conservative party? That’s what they’re trying to figure out. It’s a mirror of what’s going on in Washington. The gridlock in Washington is less about Democrats and Republicans. It’s more about extreme Republicans versus moderate Republicans.…

You’re seeing that play out in New York. … The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

If they’re moderate Republicans like in the Senate right now, who control the Senate — moderate Republicans have a place in their state. George Pataki was governor of this state as a moderate Republican; but not what you’re hearing from them on the far right”

Good to know the governor of your state thinks there's no place for about half his people. I'm not surprised, libs don't believe there's any room for anyone that doesn't walk in lockstep with them, that's their idea of diversity.

Here is NY ,he's used to the Repubics already hanging their heads in defeat before a vote is cast. I got news for him when he comes out his insular cocoon. He's going to be considered a 'progressive ' when he throws his hat in the ring. He'll be going after Evita Milhouse from the left . But he shouldn't ignore his own left . He might be surprised .The authentic native American Elizabeth Warren is but one of the potential challengers who won't have to defend some of the decisions he's made as Governor .

Press his on fracking ... He's run out a real reasons to stall .

25 Stylish Photos of the Duck Dynasty Cast Before and After the Beards - Refined Guy (http://www.refinedguy.com/2013/03/27/duck-dynasty-cast-before-and-after-style-pics/#25)

Preppies can be rednecks too can't they? Sure they can, for ratings. Cha ching!

So they aren't just rednecks, eh? Phil was a damn good quarterback and has a Masters, but they didn't grow those beards overnight for money. it takes a while.

Congrats to Denver and Seattle on earning a trip to the first Choom Bowl. Shame they're playing in NJ and not Denver in the Mile High Bowl. Maybe Christie can arrange some traffic problems, "weedgate."

wonder what the tradtional mayors bet will be this year ?

It's come to this, the regime is celebrating the anniversary of Roe v. Wade with a statement. They're committed to abortion on demand "Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams."

Unless you're one of the 55 million or so that didn't get that chance.

freedom comes with a price apparently, the price of an abortion

It's come to this, the regime is celebrating the anniversary of Roe v. Wade with a statement. They're committed to abortion on demand "Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams."

Unless you're one of the 55 million or so that didn't get that chance.

Or the millions who have died by a nut in a movie theater, school, or playground, church, in there own homes, in foreign lands, or get hit by drunken drivers.


freedom comes with a price apparently, the price of an abortion


You can choose not to have one.

You can choose not to have one.

tell that to the 55 million. I'm glad my mother didn't take that choice

Good for YOU! Now go tell those other than abortion dead why you are not as outraged by their deaths as you are the unborn!! From what you have written many times, those refugee's garner little sympathy, or empathy. Nor do minorities. So spare me the champion for the unborn crap.

Most of those people that died by a gun were people trying to rob someone else... thieves do not have a right to life... ever... but then what has a fetus ever done to anyone to deserve it?

Anyone that is anti capital punishment and yet pro-abortion has a serious problem with their priorities. Spare the criminals who deserve to die....but kill the fetus who never harmed a soul. Yeah....perfect logic in that line of thought........I however can't see it.

Personally I don't care if certain groups murder their kids.....it reduces their numbers and future capacity to over breed, a good thing. I also think anyone sentenced to life without parol should be taken out back and shot.....save the taxpayer a lot of money.

Good for YOU! Now go tell those other than abortion dead why you are not as outraged by their deaths as you are the unborn!! From what you have written many times, those refugee's garner little sympathy, or empathy. Nor do minorities. So spare me the champion for the unborn crap.


Refugees have my sympathy but illegal immigrants do not, there is a distinction. Those who legally come here and there are many, are accepted without question, but what they do later may be questioned. I have no sympathy for attempts to change our society into the hell holes they emerged from. Which minorities do you speak of, some minorities are more equal than others. I have no sympathy for the gay community, in my opinion they are too vocal and I don't like their lifestyle. I have little sympathy for those who will sit on their backside and take welfare and not do anything to help themselves, but if someone is prepared to have a go I have sympathy for their difficulties, which is one reason why I think there should be a fair minimum wage.

So Tal you take your radical leftist views and condemn others for not thinking to same as you, I will always be for a "fair go" which is why I support proper access to medical services, access to unemployment support in need, regulation of the market place and the right to life as an inalienable right just like other rights

How are they changing your world (illegal immigrants)? Just curious.

How are they changing your world (illegal immigrants)? Just curious.

My personal world; they live far away, but there is little doubt that immigration from the trouble spots of the world fuels violence in the society. I have corns between the ears listening to the debate in the media and parliament

The nation; it is spending a great deal of money and resources on controlling the flow, housing the arrivals. This money and resource would be better spent in addressing internal issues such as lifting the indigenous out of poverty, or in international aid assistance. The nation has had to establish processing centres and camps offshore to access claims and where these illegals are found to be economic migrants return them to point of origin. Recent issues have strained the relationships with neighbouring countries who fail to take responsibility for transit of these people through their borders and with international agencies such as UNHCR. I think we are reaching a point of loosing patience, I know I am

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/pm-prods-indonesia-over-boat-turnbacks-20140122-31972.html


The Prime Minister said Australia was entitled to protect its borders and would continue to do so, irrespective of Indonesian concerns over territorial incursions.

Statue of bigotry

45529

When Ed Koch was running against Mario Cuomo 1977 ,the Cuomo campaign (managed by young Andrew ) put up these campaign posters that said 'Vote for Cuomo,Not the homo" . Both Cuomo s denied they were involved . But Koch never forgave either .

well you could hope voters followed that advice

Not only do Dems not care that the IRS was and still is targeting conservatives, they're currently investigating a Hollywood conservative group, Schmucky wants them to do so more aggressively.

Chuck Schumer Call on IRS to Crack Down on Tea Party Funding: ‘Redouble Those Efforts Immediately’ | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/24/chuck-schumer-calls-for-irs-to-crack-down-on-tea-party-funding/)

Add Cuomo saying conservatives have no place in his state and leftists trying to blacklist people (Phil Robertson, Maria Conchita Alonzo) and it's starting to feel like a new McCarthyism. What ever happened to your philosophy of live and let live? How does this fit in with your diversity and tolerance rhetoric? Come on Admit it, you don't tolerate anyone that doesn't tote your water and you're perfectly willing to use the government to target your fellow Americans. Payback is hell you know.

Hello again, Steve:

Not only do Dems not care that the IRS was and still is targeting conservatives,Well, I'm not a Dem. They're too right wing for me, but I DO care if my president is using the IRS to go after his enemies..

In fact, I care VERY, VERY, VERY much. I just need a little PROOF. A tad'll do. I don't need much. You don't need ANY.

excon

Chuck Schumer Call on IRS to Crack Down on Tea Party Funding: 'Redouble Those Efforts Immediately' | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/24/chuck-schumer-calls-for-irs-to-crack-down-on-tea-party-funding/)




The Blaze says in the first paragraph:

Sen. Chuck Schumer said Thursday that the Internal Revenue Service should should be used more aggressively to keep Tea Party funding in check explaining that this would help "weaken" and "exploit" the conservative movement.


Using two isolated words from persons speech suggests quote mining. It is dishonest to insert these words ( "weaken" and "exploit") into the journalists commentary on the speech. There should be the opportunity to view the whole speech.

It is very poor journalism that suggests a dishonest agenda.

Meanwhile mall shootings and school shootings continue in the US as it were a normal daily occurrence. It's come to this.

Using two isolated words from persons speech suggests quote mining. It is dishonest to insert these words ( "weaken" and "exploit") into the journalists commentary on the speech. There should be the opportunity to view the whole speech.

You sure seem to expend a lot of effort trying to discredit me. Why is that? It's a known fact that Schumer wants to annihilate the Tea Party (http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/schumers_plan_to_abolish_the_tea_party.html) and it's clear he'll use any means necessary, lies, smears and now force of government specifically to marginalize the Tea Party. But whatever, here's another link (http://atr.rollcall.com/schumer-administration-irs-must-redouble-efforts-on-campaign-finance-enforcement/).


Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said Thursday that Democrats, the administration and the IRS must immediately “redouble” efforts to close loopholes created by a recent Supreme Court ruling that opened the floodgates for money into politics.


“One of the great advantages the tea party has is the huge holes in our campaign finance laws created this ill-advised decision,” said Schumer, referring to Citizens United, in an afternoon speech at the Center for American Progress. “Obviously, the tea party elites gained extraordinary influence by being able to funnel millions of dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government.”


Most of Schumer’s remarks focused on his ideal Democratic political playbook against conservatives. He argued that Democrats could combat the tea party by more openly discussing the benefits of government involvement in everyday Americans’ lives.


Schumer suggested administration action on campaign finance at the end of his speech — making it appear like an afterthought. But his remarks on campaign finance — a frequent topic for the senator — provided one of the few actionable items for Democratic efforts to marginalize the tea party.


In 2013, the administration and the IRS came under fire for targeting political groups.


“This is not the place for a broad discussion of this issue, and it is clear that we will not pass anything legislatively as long as the House of Representatives is in Republican control, but there are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies – we must redouble those efforts immediately,” the New York Democrat continued.


“Tea party members realize importance of this issue,” Schumer continued. “In the recent budget negotiations House Republicans nearly blew up the entire agreement because we would not put in the bill a provision that would prevent the IRS from moving forward and administratively closing some of the Citizens United loopholes.”


Schumer appears to be referring to a standoff, first reported by Politico (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/international-monetary-fund-internal-revenue-service-spending-bill-102347.html), stoked by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, to attach a rider to the budget deal that would have prohibited the Treasury Department from issuing new rules to the IRS on political activity by tax-exempt organizations.



To discuss campaign finance reform is fine, but to do so in the context of specifically shutting down your enemies is not.

Back to the real world, along with the shootings on campuses, and malls we have this,

Brain-dead, pregnant Texas woman taken off life support; unclear if case will spark law change | Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/242163411.html)

You sure seem to expend a lot of effort trying to discredit me. Why is that? It's a known fact that Schumer wants to annihilate the Tea Party (http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/schumers_plan_to_abolish_the_tea_party.html) and it's clear he'll use any means necessary, lies, smears and now force of government specifically to marginalize the Tea Party. But whatever, here's another link (http://atr.rollcall.com/schumer-administration-irs-must-redouble-efforts-on-campaign-finance-enforcement/).



To discuss campaign finance reform is fine, but to do so in the context of specifically shutting down your enemies is not.



There is a bit of a difference between the two articles. As far as I can see, nowhere in the two articles do the quoted words "weaken" and "exploit" appear in the actual first person narrative.

This of course doesn't mean that he didn't use the words in his speech. It is possible that these words may have not been used in relation to the IRS.

For example, the word, "exploit" may have been used to point out the weakness in the natural divisions that exist between the wealthy elites who provide the funding and the grass roots movement. That would be a legitimate political tactic.

The point is we don't know unless we see the words within context. I am not trying to discredit you. I am happy to accept the Blaze report provided there is evidence. I think this is a reasonable position to take.

By being critical of the Blaze article I am not discrediting you, I am discrediting the source you are providing. I dislike left-wing dishonesty, but for some reason I dislike right-wing dishonesty even more. I guess that's just my politics.

Removed.

It's come to this, Wendy the shameless liar Davis posing...as the poser she is.

a pretty picture, soccer Mum?

What offends you now about that pic?

guns and flags in the same image

Offends? It's hilarious, nothing like an anti gun lib trying to look like a bada$$ to get votes. It's like Dukakis in a tank.

Gee, that's so interesting.

Hello again, Steve:

It's hilarious, nothing like an anti gun libI'm for a universal background check. To YOU, I spose, that makes me anti gun too. But, like Wendy, I'm a westerner. I grew up in a gun culture. I have marksmanship medals from my time in the military.. I LOVE guns. If it weren't for certain circumstances, I'd have a gun TODAY.

What's hilarious, is your refusal to support a universal background check. That would PREVENT people like me from getting guns. But, noooooo... You think that if you made it IMPOSSIBLE for me to buy guns at a shop OR a gun show, you believe I'd just waltz on down to the hood and buy one from my fellow criminals..

But, lo and behold, I'm OLD, WHITE, and I DON'T have tattoos.. If I wandered down to the hood to buy a gun with CASH in my hand, I'm gonna get my little white, excon a$$ shot off. There are MILLIONS of people like me. Seems like you'd WANNA stop us from getting guns... But, nahhhhh.. You don't. I thought you didn't LIKE criminals...

excon

Offends? It's hilarious, nothing like an anti gun lib trying to look like a bada$$ to get votes. It's like Dukakis in a tank.

Sarah was hilarious too (still is!! )! 90% of Americans support gun safety/control, but 10% are holding it up. What's wrong with that picture?

A) we already have background checks and B) I pay no attention to stats pulled out of your arse and C) Texans pay no attention to fakes like Wendy Davis.

Hello again, Steve:

I don't mind arguing with you over what the FACTS on the ground MEAN. But, it's difficult to argue with you when you DENY the facts on the ground..

Fact #1. There are NO universal background checks. I can buy a gun at a gun show WITHOUT going through a background check.. That's just so.

Fact #2. Apparently, you think I'm the ONLY old, white, tattooless, exconvict in the land, who have NO contacts with the criminal underground.. That's so, too.

Fact #3. If Texans didn't care about Wendy, WHY, oh WHY would you post about her and spend so much time putting her down? Oh, you care... You REALLY care, cause she's gonna WIN.

excon

Fact #1 is incorrect. Can you explain what your trying to talk about?

'Universal background check:' What does it mean? - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/us/universal-background-checks/index.html)

Just how many gun purchases don't require federal background checks, and how does that happen?


Forty percent of all firearms purchased in the United States are sold without background checks because the guns aren't purchased from a federally licensed firearms dealer, Nichols said.
Rather, those weapons are bought at gun shows, on street corners, over the Internet or from friends or neighbors, Nichols said.


If you're criminal, you give a non criminal a few bucks and they buy a gun. Or 20, or a hundred. The bigger question is in light of the evidence of major shootings being done with guns purchased legally how do you stop crazy people from getting them? Or a gang banger with no record?

For many though background checks are NOT universal,

"We don't know what (is the) percentage at gun shows. It may be 10%," Keene said. "It's not such a loophole at gun shows. But it's like if you sell me your shotgun, that's a private transaction. Just as if I sell you a car, I don't have a dealer's license."
Ten states and the District of Columbia have their own laws requiring background checks for any firearm sold at a gun show, Nichols said.
Six more states require background checks for gun-show sales of handguns, but not for rifles or shotguns, Nichols said.
In total, 16 states and the District of Columbia require background checks on handguns sold at gun shows, Nichols said.
These states that close loopholes, however, provide exemptions for gun transfers between immediate family members and between licensed dealers, Nichols said.

Wow. Somebody needs to fact check better if they are going to write a reputable article on such a hot button issue. It is Illegal to buy a gun over the internet as if it were a private sale. All guns sold over the internet that are not subject to private sale must go through a FFL of some kind unless you have a license yourself to own the gun like under the rules of CC&R.

Buying a Ton of Guns on the Internet Is Cheap, Legal, and Shockingly Easy (http://gizmodo.com/5928889/buying-a-ton-of-guns-on-the-internet-is-cheap-legal-and-shockingly-easy)

GunAuction.com - How To Buy a Gun Online by Manny DelaCruz (http://www.gunauction.com/help/How-To-Buy-A-Gun-Online-Page-1.cfm)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/seeking-gun-or-selling-one-web-is-a-land-of-few-rules.html?pagewanted%253Dall&_r=0

Did my home work. There are obviously holes in the law that need closing.

You can't close loopholes in the law, Tal the Republicans are agin it. They's like their loopholes in the tax law, in the gun laws. where do you think these loopholes came from?

Nope Tal. Looks like you get an F on your homework. Sure you can buy a gun through internet sales. But dont be mistaken. That gun is going to come with a background check. To do otherwise would be highly illegal. The gun unless sold through private sale will pass through a FFL holder.

I stand by what I said earlier. Now what loophole are you talking about ?

Well Dad the way I see it, ordinary law abiding citizens aren't the problem. It's the criminals and crazies that are. You may go to an FFL guy, but they never do. But we seem to be always talking about undiagnosed or fall under the radar psychopathic nut cases who buy guns LEGALLY. Then kill people. There is a hole in the law somewhere.

What's your solution? Since you deny any criminals (or crazy) can get guns at will from many sources.

Tal you know the solution as well as I do, you have to remove the access to guns to all but essential services and licenced shooters but you also have to vet the licenced shooters so that their guns are kept in a safe place, proper gun storage and limit the number of weapons they possess. If you get a drivers licence you don't just get it forever and it should be the same for a gun licence. You should have a special licence for high powered weapons and have to show justification why you should own it, You also have to remove the access to certain weapons. I know it is a cultural thing, a macho thing, but surely community safety is more important than gun ownership for the sake of gun ownership

Clete, For the most part here in America if you get a drivers license it is for a lifetime so long as you pay the renewal fees and dont do anything that takes it away.

Restricting ownership means restricting choice. So your trying to say no one should be a collector because it is too many guns. Many guns under ownership are parts of personal collections and never fired. Why the need to ban those?

The idea dad is that where such collections exist they can be a source of weapons for criminals by way of them being stolen, if you want to have a collection have it in safe storage, but be specifically licenced and your security checked regularily. look, in my nation we used to allow possession of automatic and semi automatic weapons, after the Port Arthur massacre the right of such possession was removed and there has not been another occurence of such an event. We proved conclusively that gun control works, yes sometimes there is death by shooting, criminals still acquire illegal weapons but they do not acquire them legally. Most gun violence is criminals on criminals with few ordinary citizens being killed by guns. I have had personal experience where the ownership of such weapons offered opportunity for them to be stolen and used in a seige situation by a disturbed person. this was before Port Arthur and wouldn't be likely to happen today. There has been no attempt by government to force extremism either right or left on the nation, in fact we feel safer because we know a neighbour won't have such a weapon if they go nuts

Hello again,

I went to a gun show up at Evergreen Fairgrounds. You can tell who the FFL's are. They have SIGNS, and BOOTHS, and stuff. You KNOW they're dealers.. Then, when you look around, you see some guys hanging around with several gun belts over their shoulders, and guns sticking out of every pocket.. He's NOT shopping. He's STANDING there.

Now, both you and I know what he's doing there. I'm not suggesting that he's doing anything illegal, but he is SELLING guns. And, if I buy a gun from HIM, I don't have to go through a background check... Now, I suppose I could have found him on the internet or though an add in the paper... But, I didn't. I found him at a GUN SHOW. And, IF I buy a gun from him, I don't have to go through a background check.

You KNOW that to be so, but you'll probably deny it anyway.

excon

Fact #3. If Texans didn't care about Wendy, WHY, oh WHY would you post about her and spend so much time putting her down? Oh, you care... You REALLY care, cause she's gonna WIN.

LOL, she stands as much a chance as the Broncos did last night.

After being harassed by the feds for most likely political reasons (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/052313-657569-gibson-guitar-raid-like-tea-party-intimidation.htm?p=full) Gibson is celebrating with its first Government Series II Les Paul guitar.


Government Series II Les Paul (http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/Les-Paul/Gibson-USA/Government-Series-II-Les-Paul.aspx)
Great Gibson electric guitars have long been a means of fighting the establishment, so when the powers that be confiscated stocks of tonewoods from the Gibson factory in Nashville—only to return them once there was a resolution and the investigation ended—it was an event worth celebrating. Introducing the Government Series II Les Paul, a striking new guitar from Gibson USA for 2014 that suitably marks this infamous time in Gibson’s history.

From its solid mahogany body with modern weight relief for enhance resonance and playing comfort, to its carved maple top, the Government Series II Les Paul follows the tradition of the great Les Paul Standards—but also makes a superb statement with its unique appointments. A distinctive vintage-gloss Government Tan finish, complemented by black-chrome hardware and black plastics and trim, is topped by a pickguard that’s hot-stamped in gold with the Government Series graphic—a bald eagle hoisting a Gibson guitar neck. Each Government Series II Les Paul also includes a genuine piece of Gibson USA history in its solid rosewood fingerboard, which is made from wood returned to Gibson by the US government after the resolution.

And because it’s a Gibson, the Government Series II Les Paul is a pure and powerful tone machine. Aided by a pair of Dirty Fingers+ pickups, among the hottest humbuckers Gibson has ever produced, this historic Les Paul is ready and willing to wage war on tonal timidity—and to get you heard in the process! Add a set of high-quality Grover™ tuners, a black hardshell case with Government Series graphic, a Certificate of Authenticity personally signed by Gibson CEO Henry Juszkiewicz, and legendary Gibson quality and craftsmanship: this is one mighty Les Paul that you’ll want to confiscate quickly and turn to your own creative devices. The Government Series II is limited by the availability of qualifying woods, so seize yours now from your authorized Gibson USA dealer.

LOL, go Gibson.

ex, I have seen the same thing except they hang out outside and not inside where the gunshow is. If the State where this took place allows for private sales then yes it is a reality. Many gun shows now do not allow parking lot sales. They self police and police are at hand to remove people from the premisis including the parking lot. Universal background checks would eliminate that part of it. The holding point is nobody wants it to turn into universal registration of guns. There is a difference.

So fear of universal registration is the reason NO actions are taken?

>Knock knock?<

>Who's there?<

>The gun collector, we want your guns!! <

Really?

Lets look at an example Tal. New York, San Francisco and Chicago. Need I say more ?

I dont object to gun background checks. I do oppose registration.

If you legally own a gun what's wrong with registration?

And Detroit, whose formerly pro-gin control police chief refuses to back down (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140131/METRO01/301310074#ixzz2sAqCoSOS) from encouraging citizens to own guns.

Here's the thing, the gun control crowd won't stop at whatever harmless sounding measure they're trying to get past us and there is no reason to trust them one bit. You can't have my guns.

Hello again,

Right wingers believe we CAN'T make laws because Obama won't enforce them any way... So, it's Obama's fault that they block everything..

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

exon

Left-wingers believe in magic and fairy dust, so what's your point?

By the way, congrats to the Seahawks...they kicked butt just like Abott will do to that sneaker wearing liar Wendy Davis.

Left-wingers believe in magic and fairy dustThe religious right you mean.

BTW who is trying to take away your guns?

The religious right you mean.

I didn't stutter.

Yes you did, you make a mistake.
What does "i didn't stutter" really mean anyway? It's text, not speech.

eh, eh, eh,

NeedKarma Posts: 10,370, Reputation: 1665Uber Member #427 Report Today, 06:06 PMYes you did, you make a mistake.What does "i didn't stutter" really mean anyway? It's text, not speech.

No I did not make a mistake, that's what "I didn't stutter" means. I'll gladly put the practicality of right wingers up against the fairy dust of let wingers any day. We aren't the ones that believed Obama would slow the rise of the oceans and think you can spend money you don't have to make everyone wealthy magically.

We aren't the ones that believed Obama would slow the rise of the oceans

only the climate change freaks could possibly believe that anyone can turn the tide of climate change, but the King Canutes of this world continually believe that rubbish. No the great black hope couldn't do that, or even get the population of the US covered for health care fairly, he could not reverse the GFC, but he has been able to turn the tide of republican wars. You have to face it, you have created a vortex of easy money and you are going to be swallowed by it and no politician is equal to the task of drawing back far enough. What you have done is borrowed from future generations, you have spent your grandkids wealth and what did you get for it. Absoluely nothing.

This is why you gun control freaks terrify us. Massachusetts is considering banning innocent people from buying a gun (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/370251/massachusetts-considers-denying-constitutional-rights-innocent-arrestees-charles-c-w).


What is it about school shootings that so lobotomizes the political and academic classes? Per Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/02/03/panel-recommends-that-mass-tighten-gun-laws/oBBQzr1C9FcKDm5v0bLOnM/story.html):
More than a year after the school shootings in Newtown, Conn., a panel of academic experts today released a long-awaited report recommending that Massachusetts tighten its gun laws, which are already considered among the toughest in the country.


The panel made 44 recommendations, including that Massachusetts join a national mental health database for screening potential gun owners, that it beef up firearms training requirements, and that it eliminate Class B gun licenses, which are seldom used.
It recommended that the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association help define a series of factors that could be used to prohibit “unsuitable persons” from acquiring firearms. The panel said the current process allows local law enforcement officials too much discretion to determine whether a person is suitable to be granted a license to carry.

This is your standard reactionary nonsense, guaranteed to have no effect in a state that already boasts some of the strongest gun-control laws in the United States and designed primarily to make people who know nothing about firearms feel better about themselves. But it is what comes next that should horrify one and all — regardless of their politics:
It also said Massachusetts should require anyone wanting to purchase a hunting rifle or a shotgun to pass those standards of suitability. That could allow local police chiefs to deny gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime.


Let’s just repeat that, for clarity’s sake: Massachusetts is considering denying “gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime.” In other words, an American state is thinking about denying a constitutional right to the innocent because they happen to have been picked up by authorities that couldn’t prove that they had done anything wrong. One hopes I speak for everybody here when I say, No, no, and no again. No to the abject hysteria that has slowly grown in small parts of the country; no to the ignorance that is striping like acid through reason and through the law; and no to a cabal of politicians whose disdain for the Second Amendment is so pronounced that they are happy not only to undermine that provision in pursuit of their quixotic goals but to dilute the rest of the American settlement into the bargain. Enough is enough. Where art thou, ACLU?






What's next, confiscate our guns because we have allergies? You can't have someone holding a gun that needs to sneeze.

Why can't we wait and see if a person gets convicted or not before he can buy a gun? What the hurry to give a potential felon a gun depending on the charges he faces? You don't get excited about holding someone that can't make bail until they have a trial do you? Why is making a potential felon wait before he can buy a gun a big deal?

To carry your argument to the extreme as allergies is to distract the merits of the restrictions of defining a process to keep guns out of irresponsible hands. Now you say a guy can buy a gun before he is cleared of his arrest? I think you have proved that YOU are the problem with your attitude that anybody who wants a gun should have one without verifying they are law abiding honest citizens.

Your stance is irresponsible. And you are scared of US? Of course you can't see the down side of allowing people who have bailed out of jail after being arrested being able to buy a gun.

Since when does someone lose their rights for the simple act of having been arrested? What do you not get about our rights?

What could possibly go wrong giving a potential felon a gun?

Everyone is a potential felon. Again, what do you not get about our rights?

Some have greater potential than others, and an arrest is a sign of GREATER potential. Naw, make 'em wait. Just to be on the safe side for any potential victims sake.

Obviously you don't give a damn about our rights and that's why people like me are rightfully concerned.

Obviously you don't give a damn about public safety and cannot see that giving an arrested fellow the right to buy a gun is a lousy idea.

Hello again, Steve:

Since when does someone lose their rights for the simple act of having been arrested?Since ALWAYS.

Haven't you heard of people being required to hand over their passport BEFORE they're convicted? I have. It AIN'T right, I tell ya. If I was charged with murder, it would be MY preference to travel to a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US. Do you think THAT should be rescinded???

When people make bail, and not having been convicted of ANYTHING, they're OFTEN times put under the supervision of the court. It's very similar to being on probation... They wanna KNOW what you're up to. Should THAT be rescinded?

There's more - LOTS more, but that's enough for now.

Finally, this gun thing has got you wingers so twisted into knots, that you find yourself supporting criminals in a way that I never thought possible.. That MUST be scraping hard on your right wingerism, isn't it?

excon

Haven't you heard of people being required to hand over their passport BEFORE they're convicted?

You have a constitutional right to a passport? I didn't know that, but I do know I have a constitutional right to own a gun and I don't lose my constitutional rights when arrested, period.

Obviously you don't give a damn about public safety and cannot see that giving an arrested fellow the right to buy a gun is a lousy idea.

People get arrested for lots of things, it doesn't mean they're violent, it doesn't mean they'll ever be convicted of anything nor does it mean they lose their constitutional rights. What's so difficult to understand about that? Which constitutional rights do you lose just for being arrested??? Hmmm???

Hello again, Steve:

Man, oh man, don't those twists HURT??? Do you DENY that we have FREEDOM of movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement), and if your passport is withheld, that freedom is denied you???

Never mind.. I can see that you won't be deterred until EVERYBODY, including the likes of me, and some NOT so nice, are WELL ARMED. I can't wait.

excon

So you do have a constitutional right to a passport? Where is that found exactly?

Hello again, Steve:

The Ninth Amendment... What? You STILL deny that you have the right to move about as you wish?? They do that in North Korea, and the failed Soviet Union. We don't do that..

excon

I don't need a passport to drive to Lubbock, do you? The point is the cops would have the discretion to determine who are "unsuitable persons" based purely on the fact they've been arrested, in spite of no conviction. It means they could prevent you from buying a gun for the simple fact you were arrested 5 years ago, but not convicted, of buying weed.

We do not lose our constitutional rights when we're arrested, we do not have a constitutional right to be allowed entry into another country as far as I know and I'm really surprised you're on the cops' side in this.

Nobody has said that, you just keep adding on to the facts and getting wound up. Chill baby chill.

Nobody has said what, and what facts exactly am I adding?

"It means they could prevent you from buying a gun for the simple fact you were arrested 5 years ago, but not convicted, of buying weed."


You went from arrested, to arrested 5 years ago.

Hello again, Steve:

Why shouldn't I be on the cops side??? You're on the crooks side? This isn't a matter of sides, anyway. You asserted that NO rights were lost if you were arrested. I was just saying that there were. Of course, I don't AGREE with those restrictions, and I don't think people should be restricted from owning a gun simply because they've been arrested.

But, IF you were arrested for a violent crime, and the court KNOWS you have guns, it's gonna DEMAND they be turned over the cops pending the outcome of the case... That's so even if they've NEVER been convicted. I have no problem with that. Why shouldn't that person, or ANY person who's been arrested for a VIOLENT crime, be prevented from BUYING a gun???

excon

What 's the difference if it's 5 years or 5 minutes? It means the same thing, police can "prohibit people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime" from buying guns by designating them "unsuitable persons" under the proposal.


It also said Massachusetts should require anyone wanting to purchase a hunting rifle or a shotgun to pass those standards of suitability. That could allow local police chiefs to deny gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime.

In fact, it sounds as if they already may use that discretion with handguns. Tell me where the box is on the application of whether or not you've been arrested. Are people, not incarcerated for any crime no longer innocent until proven guilty? Where did anyone say this doesn't apply to past arrests?

Why shouldn't I be on the cops side??? You're on the crooks side? This isn't a matter of sides, anyway. You asserted that NO rights were lost if you were arrested.

No, I'm on the side of innocent people, the constitution and not allowing cops the discretion to decide who is "unsuitable" based merely on the fact of an arrest, any arrest.

you really haven't got it, it is a police state, eh?

Hello again,

It HAS come to this... A lady at a Republican town hall, shouts out about KILLING Obama, and the Republican answers her cordially. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/congressman-cordial-chat-execute-obama)..

You guys are getting LOWER, and even LOWER than that... You CAN'T make this stuff up.. If I was a Republican, I'd KILL myself..

excon

And here I thought you were for freedom of speech ? I watched the video and he didnt rally the troops into support of what the lady was saying instead he just moved things right along without elevating it. I dont see anything wrong with the situation I saw on that video.

Being statesmanlike like with your constituents, even when they're nuts, is "low?" Geez, I guess they should just smack 'em around like Dems want to do (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/06/wisconsin-democrat-tells-female-constituent-he-wants-to-smack-her-around-in-message-audio/).

And here I thought you were for freedom of speech ?

Try making sense.

Guess I'll have to explain it to you.

A repub calls calls out about killing Obama. Cdad shrugs it off under the guise of freedom of speech - it's in the post right above yours.

You post about a dem wanting to smack around another dem. Isn't it the same issue as above?

And which is worse in your opinion: calling for the death of the president or someone saying they want to smack another around?

Pay attention, my answer was no more about about speech than ex's was, it was about the character of two politicians, the Republican was statesmanlike in the face of intolerance, the Dem was an a$$ apparently just for the hell of it. It's that simple. Got it? Cdad made the free speech remarks, not me bucko.

Ok bucko :-) So what do you think about what cdad said?

It was spot on, I have always defended the first amendment, I don't pick and choose which parts of the constitution can be violated at will.

And a private comment is a big deal?

People say "smack ya upside the head" all the time in jest.

And a private comment is a big deal?

That makes it better how? That just makes it cowardly bad behavior.

You are nit picking. No telling what a guy like Christy says when the mike is off, given what he says on mike.

Nit picking? At least mine has teeth, ex is attacking a buy for being nice. Geez, Tal, get your priorities right. You want more examples? Try this (http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/03/9146-leaked-email-from-democrat-alabama-lawmaker-sending-constituent-perverse-racist-email/), or this (http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/pennsylvania-democrat-apologizes-for-attacking-his-constituents-with-fake-online-accounts-yeah-ri/question-3719673/?link=ibaf&q=democrat+attacks+constituent), or sending union thugs out to harass citizens, asking people to snitch on their neighbors, invoking Nazi comparisons, telling them to bring a gun to the fight (while pushing for gun control no less).

Pretty useless comparing my guys to yours. You have as many as I do so what's the point?

Goes back to ex's original complaint, what's the point of criticizing a Republican for being a gentleman statesman? You guys have more than enough work to do keep your own in line.

He chose not to admonition over the top language. I don't think that's being a statesman. Does he condone that type of over the top rhetoric? Don't know.

Apparently no lack of despicable people in the US, you guys could go on all day...

He chose not to admonition over the top language. I don't think that's being a statesman. Does he condone that type of over the top rhetoric? Don't know.

Oh give me a break, it is not a congressman's job to admonish constituents, it is his job to LISTEN to them and REPRESENT them not confront them. That's what Dems do and you have NO room to talk about over the top language going unanswered.

Apparently no lack of despicable people in the US, you guys could go on all day...

Tend to your own a$$holes, there are no shortage of them in Canada either.

But you post yours here every single day, non-stop.
We're doing quite well here, thank you.

But you post yours here every single day, non-stop.

First of all that's not true, we do talk policy and second of all, no one cares what happens in Canada - that's why you pester us here.

no one cares what happens in CanadaI know. You are in your own little world... small-minded.

I know. You are in your own little world... small-minded.

Ah, back to the insults and still missing the point. A) again it was sarcasm and B) I'm not the one obsessed with hating on our friends across the border. That's what you do.

I'm not the one obsessed with hating on our friends across the borderBut you're the one that keeps giving your a$$holes their day in the sun by showcasing them here. Otherwise we'd never know.

But you're the one that keeps giving your a$$holes their day in the sun by showcasing them here. Otherwise we'd never know.

Excuse me, but excon is the one trying to make a congressman being civil out to be a lowlife. You should expect a response.

"And there I thought you were for freedom of speech."

You First Amendment does not give the absolute right to free speech. There are legal provisions that cover the potential of such scenarios.

Yes, Tutty, I was going to get to that point eventually. Apparently some think you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater but you can threaten to kill the president - it's OK if the president is part of the other political party then the one they support.

Yes, Tutty, I was going to get to that point eventually.

Sure you were.


Apparently some think you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater but you can threaten to kill the president

If she threatened the president then that's law enforcement's job to address, but there was no threat involved.


it's OK if the president is part of the other political party then the one they support.

Which of us ever condoned threatening to kill the president? Hmmm???? Either put up or shut up. Meanwhile enjoy some real hate:

‘Piece of Sh** Should Die’: 10 of the Most Vile and Virulent Responses to President Bush’s Heart Surgery | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/06/piece-of-sh-should-die-10-of-the-most-vile-and-virulent-responses-to-president-bushs-heart-surgery/)

Bill Maher Sorry the Assassination Attempt on Cheney Failed (http://newsbusters.org/node/11169)


(http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=529)Bill Maher Wants To Celebrate Cheney's Death (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/01/bill_maher_wants_to_celebrate__cheneys_death.html)



(http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=529)

See... the US is full of people who hate. Quite sad to see, but glad I'm not part of it.

See... the US is full of people who hate. Quite sad to see, but glad I'm not part of it.

In other words, you're shutting up now. Too bad we aren't as tolerant as you.

'Get Out Of J'lem Or You're Dead' Isn't Hate Crime - Global Agenda - News - Israel National News (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/177033#.UvlYybQpeZQ)

Burning Jews Not a Hate Crime in Canada (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60308)

Hahhaha... CanadaFreePress is a kook site not even written by Canadians. You'll believe anything if it fits your agenda.
But I see that you believe in hate crime laws so that's good.

yep they hate to be beaten

Sure you were.



If she threatened the president then that's law enforcement's job to address, but there was no threat involved.



Which of us ever condoned threatening to kill the president? Hmmm???? Either put up or shut up. Meanwhile enjoy some real hate:

'Piece of Sh** Should Die': 10 of the Most Vile and Virulent Responses to President Bush's Heart Surgery | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/06/piece-of-sh-should-die-10-of-the-most-vile-and-virulent-responses-to-president-bushs-heart-surgery/)

Bill Maher Sorry the Assassination Attempt on Cheney Failed (http://newsbusters.org/node/11169)


(http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=529)Bill Maher Wants To Celebrate Cheney's Death (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/01/bill_maher_wants_to_celebrate__cheneys_death.html)



(http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=529)


Actually I had this in mind this:

" The US. Supreme Court has held that government may not prohibit free speech that advocates illegal or subversive activity unless 'such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action that is likely to incite or produce such action' "


legal dictionary/free dictionary.com

And Tut, I believe I said if there were an actual threat then law enforcement should get involved, so what's the discrepancy in your position and mine?

NK, you're brilliance is astounding. I am in awe of your awesomeness.

speech it is always a question of jurisdiction, a threat against the president involves the Secret Service so stand aside and let the g-men do their job

Yes, that changes my answer how? The Secret Service is a law enforcement agency.

there was no threat .

No there wasn't a threat.

Meanwhile, you just can't make this stuff up. A guy who championed NY's SAFE act violated the law by carrying his permitted gun into a school, causing a lock down and his buddies defend him, saying his presence with a gun could have saved students if there were a real problem. Gee, that argument sounds familiar.

Associates defend man who had gun in school - City & Region - The Buffalo News (http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/buffalo-public-schools/associates-defend-man-who-had-gun-in-school-20140207)

you really have to get a grip on this gun thing

I have grips on my guns.

Guns arn't the answer, they never were, they didn't protect you in 1812 and they don't protect you today

Guns arn't the answer, they never were, they didn't protect you in 1812 and they don't protect you today

And yet that's exactly the point made by associates of the guy in the article who wanted stricter gun control laws while violating them.


In an ironic turn of events, Ferguson was charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon under that law for Thursday’s incident. The law carries a maximum sentence of up to four years in state prison.

Some gun advocates opposed to the SAFE Act have argued that the law actually makes schools less safe since law-abiding handgun owners cannot possess their weapons on school grounds, while mass murderers have never heeded laws making schools gun-free zones.

Ferguson held a New York State licensed pistol permit, but that makes no difference under the law.

“The more they make these gun-free zones, the more they make people vulnerable to mass killers like at Columbine and Sandy Hook,” said Stephen J. Aldstadt, a Colden resident who serves as president of the state Shooters Committee on Political Education.

Some of Ferguson’s supporters echoed similar criticism, saying that carrying a weapon meant Ferguson could have helped police in the event there was a gunman actually threatening students.

“Dwayne probably was in a position to help the police not knowing that he was the one they were looking for,” said George Johnson, president of Buffalo United Front,

And then there's this.

Home Invasion Attempt Stopped By Woman WIth A Shotgun - Los Angeles Local News | FOX 11 LA KTTV (http://www.myfoxla.com/story/24652592/home-invasion-attempt-stopped-by-woman-with-a-shotgun)

You worry about your country, leave my rights alone



(http://www.myfoxla.com/story/24652592/home-invasion-attempt-stopped-by-woman-with-a-shotgun)

Things You Should NOT Do In Public - iVillage (http://www.ivillage.com/things-you-should-not-do-public/7-a-561761?nlcid=P1|02-11-2014|&_mid=5163632&_rid=5163632.35500.538477.1)

No there wasn't a threat.

Meanwhile, you just can't make this stuff up. A guy who championed NY's SAFE act violated the law by carrying his permitted gun into a school, causing a lock down and his buddies defend him, saying his presence with a gun could have saved students if there were a real problem. Gee, that argument sounds familiar.

Associates defend man who had gun in school - City & Region - The Buffalo News (http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/buffalo-public-schools/associates-defend-man-who-had-gun-in-school-20140207)


Just in the interests of good journalism.

As far as the report in the paper is concerned there was only ONE person actually supporting the Shooters' Committee on Political Education. The other quotes don't actually support that position.

not the point I was making Speech, the number of times carrying a gun has averted an incident is few, knowing there was an armed population didn't frighten the British off. If you are not allowed to carry guns in some places this does not breach your constitutional rights. The whole point is to keep guns out of the hands of F**kwits who think they are the law as well as keeping them out of the hands of nuts, crims, kids, in fact anyone who doesn't have a legitimate reason to have one, therefore the ID of gun owners should be checked regularly and their storage checked also

If this represents what you call a "few" then can I get a "few" dollars from you?

Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US (http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm)

Interesting statistics I suppose you will tell me next that the 30000 people who lose their lives in gun violence every year are the perps and not the victims. You are in deniel, the level of gun violence in your society correlates to the level of gun ownership, the more guns they more gun violence, not less. What you are also telling me is you need 250 million guns to prevent 2.5 million crimes, I would say the deterrent isn't very effective as the effectiveness is only 1%.

You know the crimes guns don't prevent, drug distribution, driveby shootings, fraud but what they enable is mass murder. You want to rid the world of WMD, I say you start with guns