floplag

Obama has said he would defeat it, which i of course applaud, but at some point if they keep hammering this up there its going to slip by.

All its going to take is for some cyber terrorist to actually do something for the people to get the panties in a twist and boom, there we go, partiot act all over again.  franly im rather shoked it hasnt happend yet, the cyber attack that is... knock on wood.

I don't think expanding the background checks will stop these kind of mass murders but I do think they are a good idea and I am not opposed to them being implemented. I don't know of any compelling argument against them. 

How about a compelling argument FOR them?  I am still waiting for even one logical argument that gun control would actually accomplish in any form, but i digress.

Seriously, what does it mean, how far does it go...how far does it get expanded?  gun shows and internet ok, that makes some sense and should be regulated as any other source of purchasing weapons, thats logical.. but limiting sales within a family is a bit dangerous a precedent to me that i for one wasnt comfy with

Not to mention that part of this had nothing to do with background checks at all but included more bans in the process, which is likely why it was voted down, but the media of course doesnt mention that part.

http://www.zdnet.com/cispa-passes-u-s-house-death-of-the-fourth-amendment-7000014205/

This is pathetic, more random witchhunts, invasion of privacy, and looking for something for nothing more than the sake of looking for something... because knowing who is surfing porn or posting on facebook at work is sooooo critical to national security.

Why should the minority party have the right to prevent the will of the people? And why can they only do it ijn one house of Congress. The filibuster system is complete nonsense.

the will of the people implies a sense of universal agreement, clearly this is not the case.. will of the majority is not the same thing

People have short term memory loss when it comes to voting out incumbants.

no, they have long term "the letter next to the name matters more than the name itself" issues.

as mentioned by others i think we have to ask ourselves exactly what gun control may actually accomplish?

will it stop crime?  no.  most criminals dont exactly use their own guns

will it stop the violence?  of course not, just changes it to something else.
will it make people safer?  no, if anything it could be the opposite as criminals could become more arrgoant knowing they have the edge

what exactly does any law affect?  those who folow the law.. and none of what i mention above has anything to do with that so.... at the hend of the day what would any of these laws actually do?

I have never been one to bag the manager, hes not the one throwing the pitches, or swinging and missing... but after listening to a piece on mlb network radio yesterday i have to wonder if Scoscia's voice is being lost right now.  The point of the discussion is that sometimes, even when the manager is good, a change i needed.  They used the issue of Francona leaving Boston as part of it.. and it got me thinking.

In recent years we have had far too much talent to under perform as we have, there seems no sense of urgency, no caring about whether we win or lose, and a general lack of either intestinal fortitude or genitals in the way the team plays.

At some point, you have to look at the voice at the top.

We have now changed GMs, Owners, virtually everything in the last decade since the WS win, except the manager

I think either Scoscia has to change how he is delivering his message, or it may be time to change the man delivering the message.

Yes, part of this is frustration at watching this team play so poorly and inconsistantly so often in the last few years, almost embarrasingly so, and listining to the endless string of cliches and redundant sound bites, but the bottom line and recurring themse expecially in the last few years has been under perfomance.  When everything else has been changed, you have to look at what remains as the most likely cause.

Is that what you are told?

Thats what all the pro gun control people tell us, its supposed to stop crime and prevent these things from happening.... of course its complete bullshit but it suits their agendas so.... yeah

From using guns, yes.

well i guess that settles it then, lol

but but but, gun control is supposed to stop the maniacs i thought, isnt that what we are told?

Games in April/May don't count as much as "clutch" games in September so nothing to worry about here

yeah i mean a bad april never lost a season since... well last year

The destruction of the Taliban.

 

I know, it's probably not possible without destroying the country. So why the hell are we still there, ten years later?

 

And how many more years should we stay? Five, ten, twenty, fifty??

• Like This

• Quote
• MultiQuote
• Delete
• Hide
• Edit
• Blog This
   
•  

How exactly do you kill an ideal?

There can be no victory that clear cut, it does not exist.

i do not condone this, but is it really any big shock?
people can live better off the government than they can with so called minimum wage or entry level jobs

we have created an economy that wants multiple skillsets for minimal wages because people are deperate enough to take jobs that pay half what they should pay all while the same companies bitch about a skills gap that doesnt exist so they can bring in more underpayed foreign workers.

You cannot seperate the word marriage from the equation, creating some seperate word to appease the religious is basically going back to the days of seperate but equal and seperate water fountains etc...

i do agree completely that this isnt a government issue, it also isnt a religious one as the right wants it to be... its s imple matter of equality, period.

besides, ill listen to the church talk about morality when they stop molesting children and covering it up

So the only basis for law that you would not agree with is religious?

 

Interesting.

i did not say this, please do not make assumptions about people you do not know.

the point is that any law that affects a larger group should not be based on the personal views of any one portion of the group.

we can all agree that muder is wrong, we do not all agree which god to worship, pretty simple right?

Every law goes against at least someone's viewpoint. 

of course, but it isnt typically due to religion.  any law will go against some peoples views, its the basis of the law that comes into question.

i find this intriguing.. where exactly is this money going?  it isnt the classroom, it isnt teacher salaries... this may be the best graphs of a corrupt system ever put forth.

id also like to point out once again that using religion, or any other personal viewpoint as the basis for making laws that govern people that do not share your religion or viewpoint is precisely the kind of thing this country was supposed to be against.

Religion is not a shared basis in virtually any community in this country, nor should it be.  base laws on those things that affect us all, common sense, civility, anything, and i mean literally anything, but religion.

There is no difference at all between using Christian "views" to force gays into the closet as there is using muslim views to rape 12 year old girls or murder infidels.  Think about that next time you wanna use your personal views to tell someone else how to live based on your personal views.

the hypocrisy of the religion blows my mind.  those who sin in the name of god are the worst sinners of them all.

More pressing issues sort of implies this issue is even a little pressing. I don't see how it's the government's or societies job to enforce marriage being between a man and a woman. It's sort of silly to ask the government to do so.

...more pressing, of course, but more likely to help win elections, no.  Which is of course the only thing any politicians actually gives a rats arse about.

way to deflect the anger on a day when the messiah passes a 1 trillion tax bump to pay for his platforms...

seriously, neither side has ANY higher moral or ethical ground, i feel for those who actually think they do as their minds are completely closed and made up and there is no discussion on anything.

If we dont get something useful, why make the deal?

the yanks are deserate, and are getting a good deal for a guy that can put up power, and in that park will not be terrible.

i dont get banging this deal, why give up depth for nothing, are we suddenly desperate to save payrol?

i dont know the yankee system well enough to know who it might be, but if its some AA nobody then this was a bad deal

But then the stupid unions will rear their ugly heads and make it unprofitable to hire more American workers.

unions jumped the shark long ago, they care nothing for their people and only for their pwn power.

that having been said the minimum wage is a patheic joke that cant sustain even a single person living in their parents basement so its rather moot anyway

oh the governemnt cares about people, just not those within its borders unless they are wealthy enoug to sway elections.

there is zero chance that decades worth of off shoring can suddenly be just brought back... it shoukd have been stopped long ago.  the only answer now would be to make it cost less to bring them back and rebuild here, a la more corporate tax breaks, than to continue to do it, and that is simply not possible under the watchful eyes of obamacare and that nasty old minimum wage which is still not even close to the poverty line.

Do you guys pronounce this broad's name FeinSTINE? Or, FeinSTEEN?

 

I go with "Steen" usually.

i usually just say crazy bitch in sacramento.. people know who you mean.

Nice 1 Triilion tax increase.. thanks Dems