meangreendork

Actually, this tariff act was a response to US industries losing out to international outfits beating them by exporting their goods to the US. To try to gain back some sort of balance, the act was passed to keep more money stateside by tacking on more tariffs to more imported goods and materials. But instead of providing more of an incentive for US consumers to buy US goods, the countries importing to the US simply just started to send less, and that strangled trade nearly to death. Basically, the act caused other nations to kick their own tariffs into gear and aim them at US goods. Lots of countries did this sort of thing after WWI to prevent themselves from being dependent on any one country for goods and materials that may be needed in time of war, or that may be used as a cause for, or leveraging tool prior to an attack. You have to look at the surrounding history here. But in short: "we're gonna tax your stuff so no one buys it" and that's met with a "well, we're gonna tax yours too so no one over here buys it either". Funny thing is that the tariff wasn't nearly as big a part of the nation's overall economic health compared to other factors.

Might as well. If they're already a burden, they might as well pay their fair share, but toss in some language classes and basics about how to integrate into society. I really don't even think a mass deportation would be possible, PC or not. There'd be a ton of money spent on sending people home, and then more money spent to keep them out.

Well damn, now we have a problem. I'm with the DHS, and you're going to have to come with me, sir.

I think most of her stuff is comped off by the designers of those particular clothing items.

Jackson does.

1.) If you're Catholic, you're okay with Bush bowing to him. If you're skeptical about organized religion in general, then you're neutral about this photo at best, and "hey now, separation of church/state" at worst. 2.) I'm optimistic about the stimulus package and I also think the whole thing is rather pricey and needs to be checked over again.

I'm okay with tossing out nukes. We've got enough conventional firepower to turn NK into one big sheet of glass or to nail each and every government center in one fell swoop. The Cold War is over, and the old mutually assured destruction policy doesn't much work against terrorist organizations who don't have specific, nationalism-based ties to a particular nation, and often operate out of nations that aren't their nation of origin. North Korea doesn't have much for us to import. Plus, we've tariffed the crap out of anything of value that the NK's could send to us, so I'm kinda like, "wait what?" on your statement.

Oh no.

So I'm discussing this exact topic on another board, and they're having a crapfit about Powell's actions, but they're not being half as reasonable as we are here. They've pretty much ignored all the red flags that Moats and party put up that would get Powell's suspicions up. Not that anyone is cutting him slack, but they seem to think that the Moats group is entirely blameless here. They're not, but that also doesn't take away from the fact that Powell did go way, way past the line. Admittedly, I think that had Powell pulled over 3 dangerous people and had he gotten out of his car alone, he probably would've been killed. He should've stayed in his car.

"Consumers Suck"? Blahaha, that's one of the most amusing things I've ever read. Okay, okay, I don't normally have problems with whatever young revolutionary groups say, but this is absurd. I mean, I don't think they can sit there and tell me that they don't have one thing at their home that wasn't mass produced, and that all of their belongings were items they made themselves. Everyone in a consumer in the modern world. It's just a matter of how much a person uses up and how much they give back that really matters. These guys, as much as I understand what they're attempting (not doing it successfully) to say, need to have a reality check and look in the mirror first. Besides, I'd bet half of these yucks are hipsters anyways. Spoiled kids using mom and dad's money to look like they're broke. It's like those "I'm against anything mainstream" kids who shop at Hot Topic. Hah. Please.

You'll need an EUID and login to access them, when you find them, btw.

It seemed a bit disjointed. It seemed more like 2 instances of groups taking their rights to bear arms horrifically out of line, and then one instance of a situation that was badly timed and had equally bad timing in photography. I don't really think that Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians are examples of tyranny, just examples of the above issue AND government organizations being horrifically mismanaged and not so much outright evil. That's really why it made little sense to me.

Wait, what's this got to do with 2nd Amendment Rights? It's more like showing the Branch Davidians and Ruby Ridge as groups that took the 2nd Amendment too far, and then showing Elian Gonzales as this random red herring. I mean, I do side with you, but still, wtf.

It's like this: If I'm a whackjob criminal, I'll get a gun. I may not get it from a store. If there's a ban on guns, and I want one enough, I'll get my hands on an unregistered, unlicensed gun and still go about my business of killing people. If I'm aiming to kill and get away, I really don't want a gun that can be traced, either. What I don't want to do is stroll into a shopping mall where people have CHLs, and get shot up because I'm outnumbered. Who knows if those with a CHL are just everyday store clerks or a pistol marksmanship instructor, and I don't wanna find out the hard way. Part of this is the deterrent effect. Part of this is also giving people a fighting chance if they're in a situation where they can't simply escape (and that is always, ALWAYS, the best option). If something happens in a public space and I can't get away, I'd rather face someone using a pistol as opposed to just my everyday knife. Even if I've barely fired a few thousand rounds at the range in my life, my odds are still better. Really, I'm not worried about the dude who goes out of his way to buy the proper permits (and spend a ton of money on it, too) for class 3 weapons. I'm not worried about that guy at all. I'm worried about the guy who bought his weapon out of the back of a truck behind a decrepit stop-n-go.

I got you on this one. Probably because it lets those with a CHL give themselves an opportunity to defend themselves if they can't get away from an armed attacker. Mind you, CHL classes right now don't teach a great deal, and even trained shooters will miss when they're under duress, but it's better a pistol than nothing if someone is trapped. A knife isn't all that useful unless you actually know what you're doing with one. That said, I'm worried about this becoming an issue where someone reaches for their pistol like that whackjob did at a kid's baseball game. But more strict laws on guns (background checks, background check requirements for sales at gun shows, etc.) can solve that.

Oh, these photos are from a current Talon's dad. Turns out he had a bunch of photo slides laying around so she went and did scans of them and loaded them to Facebook. There's actually about 70 shots that her and her dad scanned in.

Christ, are you that obtuse? You're either: A.) Trying to rake some Islamophobia by starting a thread asking, "what could go wrong?" in a demeaning tone, or at least harshly sarcastic one. B.) Seeing as how many of the people on this list are African American, you may also have a problem with African Americans. or worst yet: C.) You're trying to stir the flames about both Muslims and Blacks. or finally: D.) You're making some poor attempt at trolling. But you're doing it by being proven that you're off the mark. Which, is actually failtrolling.

You know, I'm glad this isn't the second World War because I'd probably be towed off to a damned camp for just being slanty-eyed with thinking like this.

CBL, hope you're being sarcastic. However, I do like Americorps and what it does now, and the positive impact it can have. The state of Israel puts a mandatory military service burden on all of its citizens. It's a preventative measure to ensure that everyone there at least has some semblance of fighting knowledge, and it also helps maintain a standing military. Of course, there are post-service benefits that they get for this. I'm kind of thinking, "hey, what's wrong with a little civil service?". It depends on how you do this whole thing. I think some colleges set up mandatory community service for their students to graduate, depending on their major. But they allow the student to do it via X-numbers of whatever community volunteer work. Doing civil service work in exchange for college money isn't a bad thing. I mean, that is in essence, what the Montgomery GI Bill is all about anyways. You know, "join the service, serve your country, then let your country serve you by helping you get at least most of your first degree". Voluntary, non-uniformed is fine. But when it starts to reach towards military stuff, I'm gonna have to stamp a 'NO' on that. I'd suggest that everyone read other sources that aren't coming out of an opinion column before they make a yes/no on the bill as it stands. OP/ED is really not the best place to grab factual info.

Her whole thing about illegal immigration and how restricting that is un-American was retarded. Restricting legal immigration is un-American. We're all immigrants short of the native Americans. But openly allowing illegal immigrants across the border is dangerous and burdensome to the American people.

You're fast becoming a favorite poster of mine. Redstate, WND, Alternet and HP all tend to be really skewed. One needs to intake a large spoon of salt with both sources.

We almost always never see eye-to-eye... ...But I can't stand Pelosi. She makes all politicians look bad.

Heh. Pretty much sums my post.

Do they not have a goal line set?

Both are very, very cool. I also recently read up on an invention by this genius kid in Israel. It improves fuel efficiency and reduces air pollutant output by purifying and improving the quality of the air going into the engine. From what I understand, it basically improves efficiency by getting more combustion power out of the engine by cleaning excess particles from the air and reduces pollution by preventing those same excess particles from being burned off.