or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Miscellaneous News.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Miscellaneous News. - Page 36

post #1401 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The first part lays out the rationale for the Amendment. The second part establishes the right itself. Now, we clearly don't have a need for a militia any longer. However, that doesn't change the right we have and the meaning of the second part. The government has clearly and unequivocally infringed on citizen's rights.

No, the definition and scope of 'arms' has changed. The word of the law has not changed, but the meaning has. And the law states the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify the kind of arms. We can obviously lawfully restrict people from bearing RPGs. Can't we? Then if we can do that, then why can't we stop people from bearing sawed off shotguns and semiautomatic assault rifles? The law doesn't specify. Let's restrict people to bearing the type of firearms that were available when the constitution was drafted. That would be perfectly constitutional.

But that ignores the point I made that this type of debate on this is not enough, which is why we need to amend the outdated part of our great constitution that is causing tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths each year.
Quote:
If idiots didn't vote, the Democratic party would never be in power again.

Which explains why those who are college educated overwhelmingly support the Liberals, and high school dropouts overwhelmingly support the Repubs. And yes, education does make people smarter and helps them make more informed choices.
post #1402 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Let's restrict people to bearing the type of firearms that were available when the constitution was drafted. That would be perfectly constitutional.

Possibly. Possibly not. Then we'd have to wrestle with why they we're more specific at that time. Because arms certainly included things like canons and mortars, wouldn't you agree? The other thing you'd have to deal with is the 9th amendment. Finally, you need to deal with the core principles that the founding fathers seem to have had that were trying to limit government...not limit the people. You appear to want it the other way around.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And yes, education does make people smarter and helps them make more informed choices.

Sometimes. Sometimes it just makes people think they're smarter.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1403 of 2686
Thread Starter 
Cameron get's out out of potentially highly embarrassing pat down on trip to US, as pat downers could well find nothing at all, to pat down-

"The president and Prime Minister will say that the essential relationship is a partnership of the heart, as Mr Cameron flies to America for a three-day visit.

Official talks are likely to focus on the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, with a handover to Afghan troops now expected as soon as mid-2013.

Mr Cameron will today become the first foreign leader to accompany Mr Obama on board Air Force One, the official presidential aeroplane.
~ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ationship.html
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #1404 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Cameron get's out out of potentially highly embarrassing pat down on trip to US, as pat downers could well find nothing at all, to pat down-

"The president and Prime Minister will say that the essential relationship is a partnership of the heart, as Mr Cameron flies to America for a three-day visit.

Official talks are likely to focus on the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, with a handover to Afghan troops now expected as soon as mid-2013.

Mr Cameron will today become the first foreign leader to accompany Mr Obama on board Air Force One, the official presidential aeroplane.
~ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ationship.html

It is good to see England and the U.S. with friendly relationships between the 2 leaders.
post #1405 of 2686
Thread Starter 
"So as the value of financial assets held by American households increased by $1.46 trillion in the fourth quarter, the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans became $1.3 trillion richer, and the wealthiest 1 percent became $554.8 billion richer.

But at the same time, as the value of household real estate fell by $367.4 billion in the fourth quarter, homeowners -- mostly middle class -- lost over $141 billion (owners' equity is 38.4 percent of total household real estate).

Presto. America's wealth gap -- already wider than the nation's income gap -- has become even wider. The 400 *[many of whom are close relatives with at least one other in the 400] richest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 *[it's actually at least 185] million Americans put together.

Yale Professor Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott have proposed a 2 percent surtax on the wealth of the richest one-half of 1 percent of Americans owning more than $7.2 million of assets. They figure it would generate $70 billion a year, or $750 billion over the decade. That's half the savings Congress's now defunct Super Committee was aiming for."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...b_1341473.html

* Edits by me.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #1406 of 2686
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1407 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No, the definition and scope of 'arms' has changed. The word of the law has not changed, but the meaning has. And the law states the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify the kind of arms. We can obviously lawfully restrict people from bearing RPGs. Can't we? Then if we can do that, then why can't we stop people from bearing sawed off shotguns and semiautomatic assault rifles? The law doesn't specify.

I agree with banning assault weapons and the like. There is clearly no legitimate, modern purpose for those other than..well...assault.

Quote:


Let's restrict people to bearing the type of firearms that were available when the constitution was drafted. That would be perfectly constitutional.

That's just ridiculous. So they have to use muskets and hatchets?

Quote:

But that ignores the point I made that this type of debate on this is not enough, which is why we need to amend the outdated part of our great constitution that is causing tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths each year.

This is where you're wrong. These deaths are not caused by assault rifles. They are primarily caused by handguns. That's what we're really talking about. Do you support banning handguns? Do you support the government deciding what a "good reason" is for you to own one?

Quote:

Which explains why those who are college educated overwhelmingly support the Liberals, and high school dropouts overwhelmingly support the Repubs. And yes, education does make people smarter and helps them make more informed choices.


No it doesn't. It explains how our education system is a liberal indoctrination machine from public school through college.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #1408 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

These deaths are not caused by assault rifles. They are primarily caused by handguns. That's what we're really talking about. Do you support banning handguns? Do you support the government deciding what a "good reason" is for you to own one?

I agree, and yes, I do. I suport the government regulating who and who cannot own a handgun. Handguns didn't exist when the constitution was drafted. If we can legally restrict the type of guns, i.e. no assault rifles, then we can restrict handguns. You don't get to pick and choose what the 2nd amendment allowed us to restrict when it's not spelled out in the law.
Quote:
No it doesn't. It explains how our education system is a liberal indoctrination machine from public school through college.

Ignorance is Strength!

The fact is that reality is a liberal indoctrination machine. The more you know about reality, the more liberal you become.
post #1409 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The fact is that reality is a liberal indoctrination machine. The more you know about reality, the more liberal you become.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by liberal and liberalism.

For example, I'd use the word liberal to describe my political philosophy...classical liberal (or possibly neoliberalism).

You, of course are a social liberal.

So you appear to be claiming that:

The more you know about reality, the more of a social liberal you become as opposed to more of a classical (or neo) liberal you become.

So we're clear on the terms and claims, is that what your claim is?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1410 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I agree, and yes, I do. I suport the government regulating who and who cannot own a handgun. Handguns didn't exist when the constitution was drafted. If we can legally restrict the type of guns, i.e. no assault rifles, then we can restrict handguns. You don't get to pick and choose what the 2nd amendment allowed us to restrict when it's not spelled out in the law.

We already regulate handguns. What you're saying is that the government should take handguns away from certain people. Now, who shall that be?

Quote:

Ignorance is Strength!

The fact is that reality is a liberal indoctrination machine. The more you know about reality, the more liberal you become.

I suppose that's why people tend to become more conservative as they get older?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #1411 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We already regulate handguns. What you're saying is that the government should take handguns away from certain people. Now, who shall that be?



I suppose that's why people tend to become more conservative as they get older?

According to that logic, the 50 and 60 year-old professors wouldn't be "indoctrinating" us in universities.

Unless it's just the less educated people who become more conservative as they get older. Then that would make sense.
post #1412 of 2686
Thread Starter 
I'd be interested in hearing the rights take on the following. These companies make billions and get billions of government money. Why the bleep can't they fund it?

"North Sea oil companies will win a major concession in next week's Budget with a permanent lock-in on tax reliefs that could trigger at least £20bn of investment in the oilfield.

Treasury sources said the Government has agreed to deliver the certainty that the industry has been demanding over who will pay the £30bn bill for dismantling old platforms.

Current tax relief of between 50pc and 75pc of rig decommissioning costs will be locked in through a financial contract signed between companies and the Exchequer, George Osborne is expected to reveal in the Budget.

The contract will remove the risk of future governments lowering or even scrapping relief limits in an attempt to gather more tax, giving the industry permanent guarantees over the cost of winding down old infrastructure.

Independent estimates suggest that certainty over decommissioning tax relief would lead to the recovery of 1.7bn barrels of oil and gas equivalent that would otherwise be left in the ground.

Mike Tholen of industry body Oil & Gas UK said: "The additional recovery of the UK's oil and gas would drive growth by securing highly skilled jobs, supporting energy security and driving additional capital investment, in our view, to the tune of tens of billions of pounds.""
~ Sorry, mobile link. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/b...nvestment.html
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #1413 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

According to that logic, the 50 and 60 year-old professors wouldn't be "indoctrinating" us in universities.

Unless it's just the less educated people who become more conservative as they get older. Then that would make sense.


I don't have any hard data at present to support this...but anecdotally, are you actually disagreeing that people tend to get more conservative as they get older?

Edit: You also ignored my question about who shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #1414 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't have any hard data at present to support this...but anecdotally, are you actually disagreeing that people tend to get more conservative as they get older?

In the past this has been true, but as a larger part of our population becomes better educated, we'll see the trend reverse. Stupid people who get old don't suddenly become wise because they get old.

Quote:
Edit: You also ignored my question about who shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

All I care is that it's heavily regulated and confiscation and lifetime bans are regular punishment for misuse or mishandling.

For instance, these are hypothetical suggestions about how this might work:

Only people who have undergone complete training in firearms safety should be able to own any kind of gun. Training must be safety related, not skill related, and should include statistical data, storage requirements, accident prevention, theft prevention, etc. No one except the military and law enforcement should be allowed to own semiautomatics or other specialized weapons such as high accuracy sniper rifles, etc.

Biometric locking mechanisms should be required on all newly manufactured firearms. REQUIRED.

Use of a non-registered firearm for any activity should require jail time and a lifetime loss of privileges. Use of a registered firearm for unauthorized purposes or where banned should result in jail time and a lifetime loss of privileges. Unregistered sale or transfer of a firearm should require jail time and a lifetime loss of privileges. Having a firearm stolen or lost should be a serious offense resulting in a fine at least the cost of the firearm plus an extended period of privilege loss.
post #1415 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We already regulate handguns. What you're saying is that the government should take handguns away from certain people. Now, who shall that be?



I suppose that's why people tend to become more conservative as they get older?

Regulate gun control in every state in this country and maybe the murders and crimes will be less.These guns are in the wrong hands.
post #1416 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We already regulate handguns. What you're saying is that the government should take handguns away from certain people. Now, who shall that be?

Please allow me to answer this:

1: Anyone convicted of a violent crime.
2: Anyone who doesn't agree to undergo safety training with a set curriculum.
3: Anyone who has ever illegally transferred ownership of firearms.
4: Anyone who has ever caused a firearms related accident to happen or who was responsible for firearms used by someone else in a crime or accident.
5: Anyone who fails to submit to periodic checks of registered firearms.
6: No one should be able to own more than one of each type of firearm made for specific uses, i.e. one handgun, one shotgun, one hunting rifle, etc. Collection should not be an authorized reason to own a firearm. Think about it... If a gun is for legitimate private use, there's no need to own more than one of each type for specific uses.

You may call this authoritarian, but it's absolutely guaranteed that measures like this will greatly reduce the illegal gun trade and gun related crimes and accidents.
post #1417 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Please allow me to answer this:

1: Anyone convicted of a violent crime.
2: Anyone who doesn't agree to undergo safety training with a set curriculum.
3: Anyone who has ever illegally transferred ownership of firearms.
4: Anyone who has ever caused a firearms related accident to happen or who was responsible for firearms used by someone else in a crime or accident.
5: Anyone who fails to submit to periodic checks of registered firearms.
6: No one should be able to own more than one of each type of firearm made for specific uses, i.e. one handgun, one shotgun, one hunting rifle, etc. Collection should not be an authorized reason to own a firearm. Think about it... If a gun is for legitimate private use, there's no need to own more than one of each type for specific uses.

You may call this authoritarian, but it's absolutely guaranteed that measures like this will greatly reduce the illegal gun trade and gun related crimes and accidents.



How about the same for any and all drugs?

Maybe something similar for allowing people to home school their kids?

Maybe car ownership also?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1418 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

In the past this has been true, but as a larger part of our population becomes better educated, we'll see the trend reverse. Stupid people who get old don't suddenly become wise because they get old.

Right. So you're making a prediction then. Got it.

Quote:



All I care is that it's heavily regulated and confiscation and lifetime bans are regular punishment for misuse or mishandling.

For instance, these are hypothetical suggestions about how this might work:

Only people who have undergone complete training in firearms safety should be able to own any kind of gun. Training must be safety related, not skill related, and should include statistical data, storage requirements, accident prevention, theft prevention, etc. No one except the military and law enforcement should be allowed to own semiautomatics or other specialized weapons such as high accuracy sniper rifles, etc.

Biometric locking mechanisms should be required on all newly manufactured firearms. REQUIRED.

Use of a non-registered firearm for any activity should require jail time and a lifetime loss of privileges. Use of a registered firearm for unauthorized purposes or where banned should result in jail time and a lifetime loss of privileges. Unregistered sale or transfer of a firearm should require jail time and a lifetime loss of privileges. Having a firearm stolen or lost should be a serious offense resulting in a fine at least the cost of the firearm plus an extended period of privilege loss.

Those are all good ideas. But there's on little problem: According to the Bill of Rights, owning a gun is not a privilege...it's right.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #1419 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Please allow me to answer this:

1: Anyone convicted of a violent crime.

That's already the case, isn't it?

Quote:
2: Anyone who doesn't agree to undergo safety training with a set curriculum.

A curriculum set by whom?

Quote:
3: Anyone who has ever illegally transferred ownership of firearms.

OK.

Quote:
4: Anyone who has ever caused a firearms related accident to happen or who was responsible for firearms used by someone else in a crime or accident.

What? An accident?

Quote:
5: Anyone who fails to submit to periodic checks of registered firearms.

So the government storm troopers get to knock on my door and come into my house without a warrant...to "inspect" my firearms and my ability to keep them. Wow.

Quote:
6: No one should be able to own more than one of each type of firearm made for specific uses, i.e. one handgun, one shotgun, one hunting rifle, etc.

Why? Do people with more guns commit crimes in greater numbers than those with fewer guns? Why ban someone from owning a few shotguns?


Quote:
Collection should not be an authorized reason to own a firearm. Think about it... If a gun is for legitimate private use, there's no need to own more than one of each type for specific uses.

Wait...you'd ban people from COLLECTING guns? Even if made inoperable?

Quote:

You may call this authoritarian, but it's absolutely guaranteed that measures like this will greatly reduce the illegal gun trade and gun related crimes and accidents.

With the exception of a few of those...they are beyond authoritarian and won't do anything to reduce illegal gun ownership. They will only increase it by making everything illegal.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #1420 of 2686

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1421 of 2686

Saw that yesterday. Was waiting to see whether the usual suspects had any qualms about their president assuming such broad powers even prior to a national emergency.

Could you imagine the response had the Bush admin done such a thing? And by Executive Order?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1422 of 2686
Didn't you know, Frank777?

To oppose such audacious usurpations of power by Republicans is good and patriotic.

To oppose Obama - for any reason - is racist.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1423 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Saw that yesterday. Was waiting to see whether the usual suspects had any qualms about their president assuming such broad powers even prior to a national emergency.

Could you imagine the response had the Bush admin done such a thing? And by Executive Order?

They'd be going bat shit crazy and the posters and signs depicting Bush in full Hitler regalia would be on display.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1424 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by mj1970 View Post

they went bat shit crazy and the posters and signs depicting bush in full hitler regalia were on display.

tftfy
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #1425 of 2686
Thread Starter 
Food for thought, only-


Some examples-


"One church down in Louisiana was recently ordered to stop giving out water because it did not have a government permit.
Well, I don’t know about you, but I sure am going to give a cup of cold water to someone if they need it whether I have a permit or not.
It is as if common sense has totally gone out the window in this nation.

Philadelphia

Mayor Nutter recently banned feeding homeless people in many parts of Philadelphia where homeless people are known to congregate….
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter has announced a ban on the feeding of large numbers of homeless and hungry people at sites on and near the Benjamin Franklin Parkway.
Mayor Nutter is imposing the ban on all outdoor feedings of large numbers of people on city parkland, including Love Park and the Ben Franklin Parkway, where it is not uncommon for outreach groups to offer free food.
Nutter says the feedings lack both sanitary conditions and dignity.

Orlando

Last June, a group of activists down in Orlando, Florida were arrested by police for feeding the homeless in defiance of a city ordinance….
Over the past week, twelve members of food activist group Food Not Bombs have been arrested in Orlando for giving free food to groups of homeless people in a downtown park. They were acting in defiance of a controversial city ordinance that mandates permits for groups distributing food to large groups in parks within two miles of City Hall. Each group is allowed only two permits per park per year; Food Not Bombs has already exceeded their limit. They set up their meatless buffet in Lake Eola knowing that they would likely be arrested as a result.

Houston

Down in Houston, a group of Christians was recently banned from distributing food to the homeless, and they were told that they probably would not be granted a permit to do so in the future even if they applied for one….
Bobby and Amanda Herring spent more than a year providing food to homeless people in downtown Houston every day. They fed them, left behind no trash and doled out warm meals peacefully without a single crime being committed, Bobby Herring said.
That ended two weeks ago when the city shut down their “Feed a Friend” effort for lack of a permit. And city officials say the couple most likely will not be able to obtain one.
“We don’t really know what they want, we just think that they don’t want us down there feeding people,” said Bobby Herring, a Christian rapper who goes by the stage name Tre9.

Dallas

Dallas has also adopted a law which greatly restricts the ability of individuals and ministries to feed the homeless….
A Dallas-area ministry is suing the city over a food ordinance that restricts the group from giving meals to the homeless.
Courts dismissed Dallas’ request for a summary judgment last week, saying the case, brought up by pastor Don Hart (in video above) may indeed be a violation of free exercise of religion, as protected by the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the blog Religion Clause reported.
In the court filing, the ministry leaders argue that their Christian faith requires them to share meals with the homeless (Jesus did!) and that the requirement that even churches and charities provide toilets, sinks, trained staff and consent of the city keeps them from doing so.

Las Vegas

A few years ago, Las Vegas became the first major U.S. city to specifically pass a law banning the feeding of homeless people….
Las Vegas, whose homeless population has doubled in the past decade to about 12,000 people in and around the city, joins several other cities across the country that have adopted or considered ordinances limiting the distribution of charitable meals in parks. Most have restricted the time and place of such handouts, hoping to discourage homeless people from congregating and, in the view of officials, ruining efforts to beautify downtowns and neighborhoods.
But the Las Vegas ordinance is believed to be the first to explicitly make it an offense to feed “the indigent.”
That law has since been blocked by a federal judge, and since then many U.S. cities have been very careful not to mention “the indigent” or “the homeless” by name in the laws they pass that are intended to ban feeding the homeless.

New York City

New York City has banned all food donations to government-run homeless shelters because the bureaucrats there are concerned that the donated food will not be “nutritious” enough.
Yes, this is really true.
The following is from a recent Fox News article….
The Bloomberg administration is now taking the term “food police” to new depths, blocking food donations to all government-run facilities that serve the city’s homeless.
In conjunction with a mayoral task force and the Health Department, the Department of Homeless Services recently started enforcing new nutritional rules for food served at city shelters. Since DHS can’t assess the nutritional content of donated food, shelters have to turn away good Samaritans."
~ http://www.infowars.com/feeding-the-...ver-america-2/
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #1426 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Food for thought, only-


Some examples-


"One church down in Louisiana was recently ordered to stop giving out water because it did not have a government permit.
Well, I dont know about you, but I sure am going to give a cup of cold water to someone if they need it whether I have a permit or not.
It is as if common sense has totally gone out the window in this nation.

Yeah, that's dumb.

Quote:

Philadelphia

Mayor Nutter recently banned feeding homeless people in many parts of Philadelphia where homeless people are known to congregate.
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter has announced a ban on the feeding of large numbers of homeless and hungry people at sites on and near the Benjamin Franklin Parkway.
Mayor Nutter is imposing the ban on all outdoor feedings of large numbers of people on city parkland, including Love Park and the Ben Franklin Parkway, where it is not uncommon for outreach groups to offer free food.
Nutter says the feedings lack both sanitary conditions and dignity.

I'll disagree on this one as I'm familiar with this story. The problem this addresses is the homeless literally lining up for food to basically be tossed from the windows of passing cars. It is a major problem for the city sanitation-wise, and really was not in the interests of the dignity of the homeless.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #1427 of 2686
This is big.

Santorum endorses Obama over Romney!

And I quote:

"If they're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future."

Now the conservatives who are on the fence leaning toward Santorum will vote for Romney. Romney has won the nomination.

But then, the hardcore buttschluff supporters may actually take Santorum's comments seriously and vote for Obama, costing Romney the election.

Yeah, I know Rick is being a facetious ass, and maybe doing this as a final hail Mary.

But gee, this is fun.
post #1428 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This is big.

Santorum endorses Obama over Romney!

And I quote:

"If they're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future."

Now the conservatives who are on the fence leaning toward Santorum will vote for Romney. Romney has won the nomination.

But then, the hardcore buttschluff supporters may actually take Santorum's comments seriously and vote for Obama, costing Romney the election.

Yeah, I know Rick is being a facetious ass, and maybe doing this as a final hail Mary.

But gee, this is fun.

Facetious or not, I'm not sure he's wrong.

At this point my best hope is Republican control of House and Senate (with no veto-proof majority) with dipshit staying as President.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1429 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Facetious or not, I'm not sure he's wrong.

At this point my best hope is Republican control of House and Senate (with no veto-proof majority) with dipshit staying as President.

That is the ideal outcome at this point. In some respects, I think that is even more preferable than a Ron Paul presidency. The problem is that the President can and will bypass Congress completely through the Executive Order.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1430 of 2686
Thread Starter 
Now this is funny-

"Kazakhstan's shooting team has been left stunned after a comedy national anthem from the film Borat was played at a medal ceremony at championships in Kuwait instead of the real one.

The team asked for an apology and the medal ceremony was later rerun.

The team's coach told Kazakh media the organisers had downloaded the parody from the internet by mistake.

The song was produced by UK comedian Sacha Baron Cohen for the film, which shows Kazakhs as backward and bigoted.

The spoof song praises Kazakhstan for its superior potassium exports and for having the cleanest prostitutes in the region."
~ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17491344
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #1431 of 2686
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

That is the ideal outcome at this point. In some respects, I think that is even more preferable than a Ron Paul presidency. The problem is that the President can and will bypass Congress completely through the Executive Order.


Are you and mj basing this reasoning on that less can get done if there's both dems and repubs in power? I can't think of any other reason.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #1432 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Are you and mj basing this reasoning on that less can get done if there's both dems and repubs in power? I can't think of any other reason.

Yep. That's it. And the last time this scenario existed, there was a balanced budget because the Republican-controlled Congress forced the Democratic President to sign a balanced budget. Maybe that will happen again.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1433 of 2686

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1434 of 2686
Thread Starter 

That's because 50% of Americans are obese.

Seriously, why did you post this?
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #1435 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

That's because 50% of Americans are obese.

So the DHS it going to put a bullet in the obese ones and still have some left over in case anyone else decides to have a Big Mac?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Seriously, why did you post this?

Seriously, because I thought it was just interesting news. Why do you care?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1436 of 2686
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Seriously, because I thought it was just interesting news. Why do you care?



I thought by posting it, you might be suggesting it portends to some violent government control in the wake of some kind of event. Maybe if they typically ordered a few hundred thousand, this would indeed be ominous.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #1437 of 2686
Why must there always be some ulterior motive behind a post? It's news. Infer from it what you will.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1438 of 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I thought by posting it, you might be suggesting it portends to some violent government control in the wake of some kind of event. Maybe if they typically ordered a few hundred thousand, this would indeed be ominous.

Not at all. I'm sure they have purely peaceful intentions with 90 million rounds per year (or about 1.7M per week.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1439 of 2686
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Not at all. I'm sure they have purely peaceful intentions with 90 million rounds per year (or about 1.7M per week.)

That's a lot of peace keeping.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #1440 of 2686
Thread Starter 
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Miscellaneous News.