tkhayes

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-pollution-northeastern-china-20131022,0,5024464.story#axzz2iXfle1Et Sure because environmental issues do not have any effect on jobs. Except when your govt shuts down your City because of the pollution. I am really looking froward to the chemical laced water I will get out of my well once the EPA is gone... because as we all know, benzine is a naturally occurring ingredient in fresh water... http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/tests-reveal-chemicals-in-23-more-jackson-wells-b9946404z1-214289551.html I could go on, but I expect I am talking to a door.

Dear right-winger....here's why I am so hostile: Sarah Palin Michelle Bachmann Alan West (no longer important) Sean Hannity Bill O'Reilly Rand Paul Ted Cruz Koch Brothers Todd Akin I can go on. Your party is on the fringe of lunacy and you are all OK with that. There are plenty of things to talk about and plenty of things that are not right, but when you stand there and spout rhetorical lies/bullshit/made-up-crap, then you are party to just that - and you will be summarily dismissed as such. http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-do-crazy-things-because-they-have-crazy-beliefs-2013-10

I never claimed they did not happen. My point is how people are surprised when things happen behind closed doors. I mean really? All Republican meetings are out in the open with full live media coverage? I think not.

I love the closed door meeting conspiracy. It's like no one else except the people you don't like ever had a meeting behind closed doors.

attached

Well THAT certainly adds credibility to it all. stop sniffing the fumes Ron.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/28/uk-iceland-crisis-idUKBRE8BR0EW20121228 Iceland, they went to jail. The country took over some of the banks. Pretty sure that will not happen again. They do not go to jail in the USA mostly because they can easily argue that they did nothing illegal, given they they bought the politicians and helped write the laws that they follow, which in turn, all them to run away with it all. The fixes are actually very very simple. And they will not happen unless we vote out every single incumbent in the House and Senate.

Remington 700 BDL in .30-06, I customized the stock a long time ago and have used it for 25 years. Leupold 6x Wide scope, allows even my sorry old eyes and ass to shoot a nice group at 150yds. Easy to clean, solid, well built, Of course I have never seen or shot the Tikka either.

And the problem with the right wing's 'claims' start with having no alternative to spiraling health care costs or a plan at all for the future health care needs of the country. 1/2 (at least) of the ACA is about cost controls and incentives to improve quality and bring down costs. The rest of the world IS doing it better for cheaper. I am amazed at how many seemingly intelligent people can't figure that out.

I agree that there is a lot of hype - Even GM going bankrupt was supposed to be the end-of-times, but if you had not noticed, they are passing bills every day to fund things, so in effect, the Republicans are caving in anyway - they are just not calling it that. We are still spending money and the one thing we can all agree on (I think) is that the only thing getting in the way of this government saving some money is the government

It's kind of like climate change. The vast majority of scientists say it is so. The vast majority of economists and 'people in the know' deem this to be a disaster if it happens. Moody's has one memo to the contrary, plus you have a bunch of GOPs that want to simply rename it to change the tone of it. Nice cherry-picking - you and the Paul/Cruz/Bachmann club members. And the government will continue to pay it interest and principle with what money? They will simply print more, except that it will be worth less due to the economics of money and world markets, which will surely downgrade the USA. But the good news today is: http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/republican-party-favorability-sinks-record-low.aspx

My point is that we do not have the numbers and neither do you. To conclude that more guns have reduced the gun murder rate is just as erroneous as concluding that the reduction in the murder rate is tied to the decrease in the median household income rate over the same period. We do not have the numbers.

it's hard to argue with the numbers of homicides going down, but keep in mind, MORE guns are being purchased, yet FEWER households and people are buying them. That means, the gun people are building arsenals, and lots of people are not buying them at all. So I am interested in seeing the numbers on whether or not gun crime is going down because more people are carrying guns with permits.......I doubt that number is out there and I doubt it is even measurable given the constraints placed on collecting gun data. And it could simply be because fewer people have guns out there. But I expect that the answer is far more complex that any guess by anyone. I am all for tracking all the gun data, from purchase to disposal and from crime to crime. Too bad the gun lobby continuously blocks that collection of data.

I think you missed most of the post that I wrote. as well as the one prior to that. But whatever. continue to rant about it. The USA will do the right thing after we have exhausted every other possible option.

they probably do. But that does not change the purpose of the weapon. A handgun was DESIGNED to kill people as a military weapon. that is fact. There are a graveyard full of rockets over at NASA that do absolutely nothing. They were DESIGNED for flight into outer space. But yes, they can be used for other purposes. A mousetrap can also be used as a tie clip, but it was DESIGNED to kill mice. Not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse or just trying to play dumb, but I cannot believe the ridiculousness of your statements about 'your guns' My premise is nowhere near 'flawed: http://www.remington.com/en/products/firearms/tactical/shotguns/model-870-express-tactical-blackhawk.aspx tactical special ops. http://www.gunsamerica.com/957212594/Cobray_12_ga_Street_Sweeper.htm yep they call it the street sweeper because it is used for ducks.... http://us.glock.com/products/sector/law-enforcement I wonder what that cop in the picture is meant to be pointing at? And I would like to see the recent 'standards' introduced for firearms improvements regarding the reduction of death by firearm. The Colt 1911 has not changed much since well....1911. Still kills people exactly the same way. Just in automobiles alone, we have made hundreds, if not thousands of improvements to cars to help save lives. Guns? OK, we invented trigger locks and gun safes. But we put another 100,000,000 guns out there in the past 30-40 years. I never said anything about banning ANY guns. If long guns were all we had, then the problem of 8000-11000 dying each year would be largely solved. Long guns are OBVIOUSLY not the problem. Handguns sure as fuck are part of the problem. I notice that the gun lobby loves to bring up the long gun numbers and conveniently ignores the handgun numbers. got it. Maybe having fewer handguns (buyback incentives? - OH yes that's right the NRA lobbied to outlaw buybacks.) and making them just a bit harder to own could (over a generation) reduce the number of people dying by them. I know - that's crazy talk....[sheesh] If carrying around guns helps to reduce gun violence, then with fewer guns as in 50 years ago, we could assume that gun violence would have been through the roof, and that is not the case. There are plenty of reasons for reductions in our definition of violent crimes, guns may or may not be a part of that reason. Of course you want to believe that, but the study needed is far more vast than that, and the data to support either case simply does not exist. I have asked my Congressman to support the collection of ALL the data. (NRA also blocks those laws - I wonder why)

no one is making that claim nor trying to reach that goal. But an achievable goal might be a healthcare system that works for more people for less money. Not so. There are already many examples of healthcare systems around the world that provide better results for less money for all citizens. Ignoring them does not make your case. Medicare can easily afford all the healthcare people need. Again, already being done in other countries. For start, we should combine Medicare, Medicaid, VA and whatever other govt-run plans into one. It does not make sense to have the overhead of managing multiple systems. If you are handing out healthcare, then hand it out, from one agency. And just because people complain does not make a system invalid. If that were the case, then the US system was fucked a long time ago. And yes, there will be broken parts. read my 2nd sentence again.

A burglar comes into your house and you pull out your gun, turn on a light and he runs like hell. You chalk one up for a defensive use of a gun to prevent a crime. A burglar comes into my house and I turn on a light and he runs like hell. I chalk one up for a defensive use of a light bulb to prevent a crime. Not every defensive use of a gun required(s) the use of a gun. It was handy and you used it. great for you, but to state that therefore guns are good, when other things may have worked just as well (i.e. owning a dog) is not terribly noteworthy. If you ask a gun-owner for a solution to a problem like that, their solution will likely include the use of a gun. If I ask a neurosurgeon about my bad back, I will get a neurosurgeon's opinion. Same goes for an Orthopedic surgeon and a Physical Therapist. different solutions for the same problem. Let's find the data whereby a gun was the ONLY solution for the problem. Then I am all ears.

Then why don't I see you trying to ban pools? Why don't I see you trying to ban bikes? because pools and bikes are not weapons and they serve other purposes than to kill people. And every year, we raise the standards for and build better pools and bikes to help with the death rate by pool or bike. We do no such thing for guns. And a handgun, unlike a bike, is meant to kill people. That is what it was designed for and pretty much its sole purpose. Especially when you carry it around with you for the expressed purpose of 'defense'. You have every intention to use it as needed to take a life. [email]However, I have not asked for a ban on anything. If you bother to read my posts. The CDC report does not say that guns increase violence. nor does it explicitly state that it DECREASES violence either. And the same study showed an INCREASE in suicide by gun. But it fails to show how many guns are in the hands of whom, how many people are shot by their own guns, how many defensive guns uses could have been 'defended' via any other means or a host of other possible questions. I realize that the gun data did not back up the case for a gun ban, but again, i am not asking fro a gun ban, nor have I ever asked for a gun ban. But once again, if the gun data is so overwhelmingly in favor of everyone carrying a gun all the time in the interests of public safety, then why does the NRA constantly block any attempt to gather gun data by the CDC, the ATF or the FBI? I would think they would RELISH that data. yummy!

um....I did say that I think the ACA will fail. that's called 'optimistic' ? And I do not care much about what CNN says about skydiving. In the end, skydiving is small. Healthcare is not.

I believe the ACA will likely fail, because it was half-assed and only addresses small bits of the overall problem. But that's OK, because my predication has always been that we will then replace it with a public/private, universal and/or single payer system that does actually work. "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." - -- attributed to Winston Churchill but disputed by some.

yes and the accidental death rate for children all around is far worse for the USA than other civilized countries. Just like gun violence, its something to be proud of and relish.....[bat-shit crazy]

except that the CDC does not really have any data about guns, only bits and pieces. Mostly because the gun lobby rallies to defund and make illegal such research. Make it known to all.....I am ALL FOR THE RESEARCH. Let's open it up. Let's fund it. Let the CDC (or whomever or whatever agency) do the numbers on gun violence, data, shootings, ownership etc. Let's let the chips fall wherever they may statistically, and I will drop my case if the numbers add up in favor of everyone being allowed to carry guns as a public safety policy. But I expect the numbers are not actually there. I await your letter to Congress stating your support for funding the research by the CDC. i am all for it.

"Such shite I have never heard"

You are one of the 'arrogant self-proclaimed' watchmen on the wall. It must be amazingly comforting to know that only you know all. I had no idea that such arrogance could be a virtue that your god would choose to bestow on you.....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/11/guns-child-deaths-more-than-cancer/2073259/ And pretty much every year, far more are shot and killed unintentionally that would have EVER been killed in any mass shooting. You are trading poison for poison.