Strictly Street

This winter stuff is getting old... The waves of rain right now in Cbus suck too.

Corrected

Interesting turn of events.

http://www.guns.com/2014/03/27/ny-state-police-update-ny-safe-guide-will-enforce-7-round-mag-limit/ The plot thickens...

As you point out this is a "science" if you will, that is still taking baby steps. It can only get better or worse depending on your point of view as time goes on. At this time there are paid "shills" who do go on-line to promote their agenda. Pretty common on the bigger news sites. They do get sarcasm, innuendo and the like being real people. Even so, they are called out often by the other posters. Not to mention the private campaigns. I've read a couple of articles by people who did this for a living for awhile. Mostly collage kids. Comp-Sci people who know how the net works and can cut a corner here and there. Not suggesting anybody here is one, don't get me wrong on that one by any means. We also have the rise of "Bot Journalism" where multiple sites are scraped and summaries are posted on an aggregating site that no real person ever wrote. Read a few interesting articles on that too. Robot authors are an offshoot of the studies onto artificial intelligence. Even robot book authoring programs are out there right now. The political angle on all this as you pointed out is also troubling such as the Obama administrations ‘Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs’ that would dispatch researchers from the federal agency “to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run.” A great idea from their point of view so they control all the media "spin" but not such a good idea if you want to know what is really going on. Consider also the The Free Flow of Information Act (And other attempts) would shield anyone associated or once associated with a news-gathering operation. Which by defining who is a bona fide journalist would bring them in line with government policies by exempting potential whistle blowers as non-journalists while allowing them to be charged with a crime to effectively silence them. It does make a difference of who is out there and what they are saying. Re-writing history so it says what you want it to say is a common practice and one of the many complaints against the "Common Core" brand of education going on right now. Who are the "bad guys" and who are the "good guys" makes a difference in how we see things and what we judge to be our own attitudes. On the other hand a fine source of news might be http://www.theonion.com/. there you go, sarcasm in action!

Wonder who is going to post bail - that would be a nice follow up to the article. An irony would be if he had to sell the x-box to get out of jail.

"Sound Bite Mentality" + "Political Correctness" = intellectually disabled

You may have misread the post. Pretty sure you missed the point of the last line. ""USA Police force to the world" seems to be what your really upset about. Not sure I can argue that one." Your post indicates that you don't think we should be the worlds policeman. My last line of my post indicates that I'm not sure i could make an argument against your statement. It does cost a lot of money that could be spent elsewhere for results that aren't always clear.

Do you think a time machine could help Obamacare?

Sorry you don't like the source, I would have quoted somebody more "mainstream" if they wouldn't refuse to cover it. Must be part of the Amnesty program. Free health care, drivers licenses and voter registration cards.

Easy there, lets dial it down a notch or two please. There is no question that he had them and used them on the Kurds in 1988 for one. The the Shiite uprising of 1991 was another example. The political theater provided by the blaming Bush for not finding them doesn't really have much to do with whether or not Hussein had them. Pretty clearly he did, and clearly he used them. How many he had isn't so clear. A former General said he was moving them as early as 2003 perhaps before. He even detailed how they were moved in his book about it. (Georges Sada's book “Saddam’s Secrets”) I don't know why he would lie about it at this point in time. Keeping in mind he is a former Air Force General for Iraq and probably doesn't play American politics. Perhaps he and others who claim they were there are keeping the "Convenient rumors" alive. It's not beyond believability or even military tactics and planning that Hussain would not want to be caught with them. It's also pretty believable that he knew something was going to happen. He may have been deluded into thinking he had a chance of winning but it isn't likely and he wasn't stupid enough to not cover his bets. The claim that Bush knowingly lied about Saddam’s WMD does not pass the logic test. If President Bush fabricated claims about WMD, then he would have known in advance that the WMD stockpiles would not be found. If Bush was so unethical and unscrupulous as to lie to start the war in the first place, the logical course of action would be to import WMD along with Coalition military supplies being shipped to Iraq. Bush could have planted fake WMD and arranged to have the UN inspectors and the ISG find them. He would have been vindicated in the eyes of the world. Instead, Bush was as surprised as the rest of the world when Saddam’s stockpiles were not found. The egg on Bush’s face is the strongest argument in favor of his honesty. Being wrong is not lying. Lying requires an intent to deceive that is absent from Bush’s Iraq claims. So when it comes to "Convenient rumors" I have to ask who are the rumors convenient for? It would seem they aren't really convenient for anybody. The USA has a long history of interfering in the affairs of the Middle East. Obama's backing of the loosing side in Egypt shows that we are still at it. "USA Police force to the world" seems to be what your really upset about. Not sure I can argue that one.

The Obama administration has been helping to facilitate a series of events nationwide at Mexican Consulate offices to enroll people in Obamacare – and a key activist says the efforts are “our responsibility” regardless of citizenship. “Whether they’re Mexican nationals or whether they’re United States citizens or whether they’re in transition-- and if they’re there it is our responsibility within all of America to educate on the Affordable Care Act,” Enroll America Field Organizer Jose Medrano told Breitbart News on Wednesday. Health Care insurance navigator groups hosted an Obamacare enrollment fair on Tuesday in the Mexican Consulate’s Brownsville office, The Rio Grande Guardian reported last Friday, where Mexican nationals among others were counseled about enrolling in the ACA. “The Mexican consulate is a very reliable source of information to the Latino community. And therefore when they host their events, yesterday being the health fair, there are several hundred people that show up,” Medrano said. Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) undocumented immigrants aren't supposed to be receiving government-run health benefits or subsidized coverage. However, President Barack Obama told Latinos in early March that the Healthcare.gov website would not be used to find out about an individual’s immigration status. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/27/Obamacare-Navigators-Help-Enroll-At-Mexican-Consulates

Actually they were rumored to have been moved to Syria where they turned up during the Syrian civil war. Remember that Obama drew the "Red Line" in the sand over their use? After Assad fell there was that clean-up operation where Russia took most of them for safe keeping. Odd nobody remembers that. I guess enough time passed that Bush couldn't be blamed for it so nobody bothered with it. Still a favorite talking point though. Continue...

In further revelations that Democrats do not commit voter fraud I give you this gem. No Justice Department Charges Against Ohio Woman Who Voted Six Times for Obamahttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/22/No-Justice-Department-Charges-Against-Ohio-Woman-Who-Voted-Six-Times-for-ObamaNo Justice Eric Holder is right on top of this one too! Slap on the wrist and you can go now. Wonder what would have happened if she voted for the other guy?

Very true. Under the old system nobody got refused treatment. Under the new system nobody will get refused either. Both systems generate a bill for the patient. No real change there. Unpaid bills get paid by the taxpayers in both cases. The only difference is the perception of who is paying. In the end it is still the taxpayers. Putting the poor on free Medicaid is still being paid by the taxpayers. Subsidies are still being paid by the taxpayers. In short you have been paying for it and you will continue to pay for it. Nothing has really changed except your perception of who is paying and how much you will pay. Amen to that. How many time have you seen a prime-time ad on TV for a drug that you can't even figure out what it's supposed to be for? Or seen of or heard of a bill that seemed ridiculously expensive for basic services. The real problems are that 1.) Health Care in the USA costs too much. 2.) Politicians are bought by lobbyists who represent the Health Care Industry and not you the consumer. Be careful not to fall for the class envy argument. Blaming everything on "The Rich Guys" isn't really fair because you lump "them" all into one category. In fact there are some on your side and some that aren't. Once you buy into an argument like that you are quickly diverted into other false trails and wind up loosing sight of the real argument. Which is or should be 1.) Health Care in the USA costs too much. 2.) Politicians are bought by lobbyists who represent the Health Care Industry and not you the consumer. "Rich Guys" need health care too, they can afford it though unlike others.

You've been doing that for years already. That is how Hospitals dealt with emergency room visits that went unpaid, through tax credits. In turn they admitted everyone. A novel idea might be to just pay the bill yourself for an emergency room visit. But if you don't need it and don't want it and don't want to pay for it at the end of the year because you didn't pay for it, why pay for it? Or to put it another way, if you think the law sucks, and enough other people think it sucks too and none of you pay, the law will collapse under it's own weight. Then they will have to come up with a better law or criminalize non-payment and foreclose on your house, take your car, pets etc and/or build a lot of new jails. Then you could get coverage for free because you are now homeless or in jail. Or maybe they will just attach your paycheck to make it a de-facto single payer system. Remember the intent of the law is to get the healthy people to pay for the sick ones. That's why they need x number of people to sign up in the first place to make it self sustaining. Or you could write a letter to your Senator knowing that will surely get their attention and your concerns will be addressed.

As of now the IRS has no authority to garnish wages, put a lein on your house or demand payment for the "Shared Responsibility Tax" or as others call it the the Obamacare penalty tax. We are told that they will do nothing if you owe this but pay the rest of your taxes. For now the IRS will take or deduct it from what once was your yearly tax refund. At least that is what we have been told. (Does anyone really think that it will stay this way?) In any case as a matter of civil disobedience or protest regarding the law as it is now you can try to calculate your withholding tax to make it zero out and then not pay the "Shared Responsibility Tax" leaving the IRS with no option to collect it. (Again does anyone really think that it will stay this way?) The IRS has provided a handy calculator for individuals to do just that. http://apps.irs.gov/app/withholdingcalculator/index.jsp If your a business and pay quarterly your already paying so it is too late to plan your already in the thick of it. Try it with a different number of dependents and see how it comes out. You'll be surprised at your vanishing refund. This post is not to advocate evasion of taxes rather it is to provide an intellectual exercise of "What if".

.00004% of cast votes, that are prosecuted, that end up in convictions instead of being "swept under the rug". Which by definition means your number isn't as meaningful as you think it is. What do we do with situations like this? http://wreg.com/2014/03/20/felons-allowed-to-vote-former-bolivar-official-convicted/ Want to guess on what is going to happen on April 11? Which side of your statistic will this case fall on? Let's just make it legal then there won't be any fraud. There you go, problem solved!

Pennsylvania Democrats were caught on surveillance tape reportedly accepting cash bribes in return for opposing voter ID in the Pennsylvania legislature. Gifts of Tiffany’s jewelry were also given to Democrat legislators from Philadelphia, reportedly in exchange for “NO” votes on a Pennsylvania voter ID bill that passed in 2012. The point of the voter fraud tag was that to get it passed they had to bribe the lawmakers. Paging Eric Holder is referencing the idea that the feds should pick up on a clearly biased AG who will not prosecute her buddies. The sarcasm is for the fact that not prosecuting his buddies is what Eric Holders trademark is and what he is best know for. More sarcasm and derision because its not about crooked Democrats, clearly it's racism, that article says so, it must be true. If we gave given up the rule of law during this administration, which we have from the top on down, the law just doesn't seem to matter anymore. So sure, why not, it isn't corruption it's lollipops or unicorns. The fact this is centered around voting laws and fraud makes it all the more ludicrous. How do we have any serious discussion of voter fraud when our government it shown to be bought so easily?

No, they are called "Bribes". Learned about them when I was a kid watching "Perry Mason".

http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-17/news/48269239_1_investigation-kane-ali http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2014/03/19/pa-democrats-took-bribes-to-oppose-voter-id-where-is-holder/ It's a good thing that we can count on the Attorney General to oversee investigations into corrupt politicians when it comes to voter ID laws. Opps, my bad, he's a Democrat too! Nothing to see here, move along citizen, move along... They don't even try to hide corruption anymore.

Add another one: http://nypost.com/2014/03/17/investment-banker-leaps-to-his-death/

Thanks for the info

Not sure of all the details due to legal moves on both sides which seem to be on-going but the main issue seems to 80% lowers for AR-15 style rifles 80% lowers are not firearms by definition. They are only partially machined and need finished in a machine shop to be functional. Ares Arms sold the 80% lowers as a firearm related part but did not register them with the ATF or do the Federal background checks. The ATF apparently acknowledges that 80% lowers are not in their jurisdiction but wanted to confiscate them anyway. That and all customer records for the company. Which is the real problem it would seem. The ATF wanted the records more than they wanted the 80% parts. They pulled some rather shaky legal moves to get a shaky search warrant to do it too. Here's some links to this. http://weaselzippers.us/179529-breaking-ares-armor-raided-by-atf-for-customer-files-despite-restraining-order-from-judge/ http://weaselzippers.us/179587-more-video-and-pics-from-atf-raid-on-ares-armor/ http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/03/robert-farago/breaking-more-video-of-atf-ares-armor-raid/#more-304389 Does anybody have more information on this? Sure sounds like the Feds are stepping out of line and using extra-legal means to justify their actions. Or is this just another knee-jerk reaction to the scary "Black Rifle"? On a related note, isn't it legal to build your own firearm? For any FFL dealers out there does a store have to keep customer records of non-firearm sales?

Maybe and maybe not. The actions of law enforcement don't leave much wiggle room. If they come to your door your options are limited. Insist on seeing a warrant? Umm.. to what end? Just because they are there you are already going to jail. Warrant or no. Refuse to let them in? Umm... don't think that will work. They will kick in the door and arrest you and add resisting arrest to the rest of the charges they file. Start a shoot out? Umm... don't think that will work. They will be better armed than you are. Re-enforcements will be available to them but not to you. Start a standoff? Umm.. don't think that will work. They will shut off the power and water just wait you out.