kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus
ERMD wrote:Well one could say F the leftist libs for overspending what's not theirs.



Doc, I really dislike the left. I dislike a lot of what they're doing. I dislike their spending. The shutdown has nothing to do with spending and the debt ceiling needs to be fixed. If your house is on fire, you don't take time to turn the oven off before running out. [/i]But, but, but the oven staying on could cause a fire.[/i]

The gov't is shutdown and the Obamacare portal is open. That failed and it has pissed almost everyone off. This hurts the republican party's ability to affect change from a position of power.

How in the hell is allowing the gov't to default going to prevent over-spending? This mess has done enough damage to the pub party. Do you really think they should slit their own throats to gain nothing?

Hubris is a poor political strategy.

And by the way, both sides have overspent. Obama and the democratic party is absolutely responsible for it the past 5 years. I seem to remember 8 years before that though, so let's not pretend this is a single party issue.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
ERMD wrote:Well one could say F the leftist libs for overspending what's not theirs.



One could say F all of them, for various reasons. I think part of the problem with the tea party is they're a disappointment. What have they accomplished here?

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
ERMD wrote:Well one could say F the leftist libs for overspending what's not theirs.

.. and Reid's obstructionist tactics of absolutely
refusing to bring any of the house appropriation bills to a vote in the Senate, for years.

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:.. and Reid's obstructionist tactics of absolutely
refusing to bring any of the house appropriation bills to a vote in the Senate, for years.



I do not like him. I think I have to wait until 2016 to vote for...whoever is not-him.

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:How in the hell is allowing the gov't to default going to prevent over-spending?

"Default" isn't going to happen, even if nothing passes; unless Obama refuses to, as required by law, make interest payments. We have about 10X the funding coming into the Treasury to make those payments. Will spending priorities have to be shifted? Absolutely.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus

I understand that there are lots and lots of issues with the "liberals." Seriously. Ignoring the "conservatives" and any issues they may or may not have, there are issues with the "liberals." Is this really the time to fight those battles and to air those grievances?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:"Default" isn't going to happen, even if nothing passes; unless Obama refuses to, as required by law, make interest payments. We have about 10X the funding coming into the Treasury to make those payments. Will spending priorities have to be shifted? Absolutely.



My understanding, which could be wrong, is that we will, according to the definition of "default," default. We may be able to pay the interest on loans, but that's not paying on debt. Checks owed to millions of Americans will stop. Payments to our debtors will stop. Tomorrow? Probably not. In three days? A week?

This seems pretty unbiased and argues we've already defaulted.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:My understanding, which could be wrong, is that we will, according to the definition of "default," default. We may be able to pay the interest on loans, but that's not paying on debt. Checks owed to millions of Americans will stop. Payments to our debtors will stop. Tomorrow? Probably not. In three days? A week?

With all due respect, I think you've partaken in a bit too much of MSM hype and spin, but given how this is playing out in most media outlets and to most people, totally understandable.
You may not like or agree with the messengers here, but give THIS and THIS a read.

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:With all due respect, I think you've partaken in a bit too much of MSM hype and spin, but given how this is playing out in most media outlets and to most people, totally understandable.
You may not like or agree with the messengers here, but give THIS and THIS a read.



I can't take the second one seriously. But even the first one - these necessary reductions in spending they mention - what are they and how are the Republicans working toward these reductions?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:With all due respect, I think you've partaken in a bit too much of MSM hype and spin, but given how this is playing out in most media outlets and to most people, totally understandable.
You may not like or agree with the messengers here, but give THIS and THIS a read.



No offense taken. I'll read both links and report back. Em's awake now so it may be a while, though.

Edit: read the first and I understand. I think the writers are using a "loophole" in their myth 2 section. While not paying Medicare and SS wouldn't be considered "default" and this is backed by the SC, I think it's a horrible idea to stop paying on such things. But conceded, this doesn't constitute default.

The second article you linked is absurd. You told me that I'm getting my info from the mainstream media and that it's all doom and gloom. Agreed. But this guy is the kind of guy that the article I linked a while ago talked about -- conspiracy theorist extraordinaire. I admit I stopped reading it. Somehow, this guy knows Obama's secret plan. Uh huh. But let's play along. He knows it. If it is indeed his plan, then let him do it, impeach him, and problem solved. My favorite part from what I read:

...phony law professors from liberal institutions, by liberal think-tanks...



They're not really law professors?

Sorry for being so long-winded, but this hasn't changed my mind about any of it. Problems abound from both sides. Holding the American people hostage, even if we don't legally default, is bad policy. Fix the problems of spending? Absolutely. But to return to my previous metaphor: our house is on fire so I'm not really worried about the oven being on.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:They're not really law professors?

Sorry for being so long-winded, but this hasn't changed my mind about any of it. Problems abound from both sides. Holding the American people hostage, even if we don't legally default, is bad policy. Fix the problems of spending? Absolutely. But to return to my previous metaphor: our house is on fire so I'm not really worried about the oven being on.

Levin is vocal, but he is a very well informed vocal.
WIKI
He takes a bit of getting used to, but not like Michael Savage or Alex Jones. Try the latter if you really are into conspiracies.
Agree, it would not have been pretty.
However, if what I heard on the way home is contained in the bill the Senate passed, we've been sold down the creek by Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell and the House has abdicated control of the debt limit to the president.
If true, we all loose.
Breitbart article
Louisville NPR article
for a 3B earmark for Kentucky.
TOOL!
The 'career polls' have to go, and despite a few good ones, it looks like we really need term limits to clear both houses.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus

I agree with everything you said above, Ron. Any were likely going another round in three and four months. That $2B isn't going away, though.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee

Great, all those Fed's are back at work. There goes all my tax money straight down the drain. TOUCHDOWN! research, when has science ever done anything for me! Also, now that the FBI is back, I'll probably lose most of them off my payroll, and JUST when I was about to become the real life Walter White!

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee

AND DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THE NSASI'S! all listening to my interception again. They don't need to know that I need to get milk and cheese on the way home tonight!

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus

I was really pissed at the pubs for trying to throw things into the agreement that didn't belong. And the dems actually got one, as Ron said earlier. So how do we burn McConnell at the proverbial stake? He and Feinstein (sp?). $3b total?! Unbelievable. All of 'em should go.

Also, completely unrelated: the website for Obamacare is apparently an absolute mess. Just saw a commercial software programmer absolutely rip it apart.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:I was really pissed at the pubs for trying to throw things into the agreement that didn't belong. And the dems actually got one, as Ron said earlier. So how do we burn McConnell at the proverbial stake? He and Feinstein (sp?). $3b total?! Unbelievable. All of 'em should go.

I've not vetted a report I read yesterday re: the McConnell earmark, but I believe I heard, per his office, he "had nothing to do with it", it was put in by a dem.
Where is that oceanfront property again?

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:I've not vetted a report I read yesterday re: the McConnell earmark, but I believe I heard, per his office, he "had nothing to do with it", it was put in by a dem.
Where is that oceanfront property again?



Fox News says it had Feinstein's prints all over it. They "quoted" her, but they eviscerated what I assume were at least sentence-long quotes into three word phrases.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:Fox News says it had Feinstein's prints all over it. They "quoted" her, but they eviscerated what I assume were at least sentence-long quotes into three word phrases.



I can believe that, but somehow I doubt McConnell had nothing to do with it. Maybe he was framed! lol

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:I can believe that, but somehow I doubt McConnell had nothing to do with it. Maybe he was framed! lol

I'd believe more back-room bull-interception going on.

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim

TIL that Obama is going to implant chips in us to control our every move. Also, the chips contain cyanide so they can kill us easily if need be.

http://www.libertyfederation.com/nbc_predicts_all_americans_will_receive_a_microchip_implant_in_2017_per_obamacare_videos

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:TIL that Obama is going to implant chips in us to control our every move. Also, the chips contain cyanide so they can kill us easily if need be.

http://www.libertyfederation.com/nbc_predicts_all_americans_will_receive_a_microchip_implant_in_2017_per_obamacare_videos

we are past Mar. 23, 2013...

CT

slm9951


quality posts: 14 Private Messages slm9951
chemvictim wrote:TIL that Obama is going to implant chips in us to control our every move. Also, the chips contain cyanide so they can kill us easily if need be.

http://www.libertyfederation.com/nbc_predicts_all_americans_will_receive_a_microchip_implant_in_2017_per_obamacare_videos



I read that in a sci-fi book a long time ago. All people were required to insert their arm into a device to get their daily "nutrients" every day. At a certain age, guess what you received in your daily injection? You got it- some sort of euthinasia. The people were all oblivious until a small group of rebels figured it out and rebelled. Sorry I can't remember the name of the book

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim

You mean this isn't a real threat?

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:we are past Mar. 23, 2013...



No, no, now it is supposed to be in 2017.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
rjquillin wrote:we are past Mar. 23, 2013...



The website malfunctioned.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus

The govt can't set up a simple purchasing portal. I'm not too worried about them microchipping me and being able to actually do anything after.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim

So, there was a school shooting in my town yesterday. A 13 year old kid got his parents' gun and shot two students, killed a teacher.

What is the answer here? Clearly parents should keep their guns secured, but it's probably tough to keep anything out of a 13 year old's hands if he's determined to find it.

I'm not for gun control because I think it punishes the innocent instead of the guilty. But damn...killing with guns seems to be just too easy, too convenient.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus

Just saw that on the Today show. So sad and so unbelievably unnecessary. My dad has lots of guns. I was never interested in them. Even still, they've always been in a key-code gun safe. I know the code and have known it for a while, but I didn't know it when I was 12 or 14 or 16.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
chemvictim wrote:So, there was a school shooting in my town yesterday. A 13 year old kid got his parents' gun and shot two students, killed a teacher.

What is the answer here? Clearly parents should keep their guns secured, but it's probably tough to keep anything out of a 13 year old's hands if he's determined to find it.

I'm not for gun control because I think it punishes the innocent instead of the guilty. But damn...killing with guns seems to be just too easy, too convenient.



How tough is it really to kill 1 person while killing yourself?

The fault lies with whatever system[s] failed to detect whatever was going on to/with this kid, and clearly with his parents who'd irresponsibility is what enabled this to happen.

Even a <$10 trigger lock could have prevented this! This is a <$250 option that leaves instant access an option...

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
mother wrote:How tough is it really to kill 1 person while killing yourself?



Well, I guess it depends on the person. I would find it physically and emotionally easier (I think) to shoot rather than stab or bludgeon. Volatile young kid, with access to easy and convenient method of killing? Bad, bad, bad.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
chemvictim wrote:Well, I guess it depends on the person. I would find it physically and emotionally easier (I think) to shoot rather than stab or bludgeon. Volatile young kid, with access to easy and convenient method of killing? Bad, bad, bad.



How about just floor you car and run them over? Anyhow this is a silly discussion, none of us want to murder people. (I hope)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus
mother wrote:How about just floor you car and run them over? Anyhow this is a silly discussion, none of us want to murder people. (I hope)



This is a stupid discussion because I really don't think preventing this kind of thing is difficult. People get upset when we blame the parents. You're an adult (or there are two adults). You have a gun. Make it unavailable to your middle school-aged son. And that's ignoring, for the moment, that you didn't do the aforementioned and your son has psychological issues. God damn, people are stupid.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
kylemittskus wrote:This is a stupid discussion because I really don't think preventing this kind of thing is difficult. People get upset when we blame the parents. You're an adult (or there are two adults). You have a gun. Make it unavailable to your middle school-aged son. And that's ignoring, for the moment, that you didn't do the aforementioned and your son has psychological issues. God damn, people are stupid.



That's the problem in a nutshell. I would think kids would wise up and not do this anymore since ya know it's always possible the kid comes back and shoots you. This sounds like maybe he was pissed at his friends. Would have been nice if the former MARINE teacher had been allowed to carry.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

BTW You can instantly tell if the "news" source has an anti-gun agenda when reporting this story: they'll call it a "semi automatic handgun".

Which is pretty much like saying "a winged airplane".

Seriously...

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
mother wrote:BTW You can instantly tell if the "news" source has an anti-gun agenda when reporting this story: they'll call it a "semi automatic handgun".
As
Which is pretty much like saying "a winged airplane".

Seriously...



Serious question, is a revolver considered semi auto? Are there types where you don't have to pull the hammer back each time? I'm not a gun person. Nothing against them, lots and lots of them in the family, they're just not my thing. So I'm pretty ignorant of terms. I think if I could get a silencer I'd like them more. I hate loud noises.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
bhodilee wrote:Serious question, is a revolver considered semi auto? Are there types where you don't have to pull the hammer back each time? I'm not a gun person. Nothing against them, lots and lots of them in the family, they're just not my thing. So I'm pretty ignorant of terms. I think if I could get a silencer I'd like them more. I hate loud noises.



Yes Yes, technically revolvers are not "semi automatic" because the energy to advance the next round is supplied by your finger, not the explosion. So on that case you win (and since I'm usually Mr. Picky about being technically correct about firearm terminology, I hereby cede 1 Internets to you)

Modern revolvers generally don't require the hammer to be cocked for each shot like the old-west revolvers did.

If I had said pistol and not handgun, I would have technically been correct, but the media chooses not to simply say "pistol" or "revolver" but the scary sounding "semi-automatic handgun."

Also technically there are full-auto handguns, but they're pretty stupidly useless (and illegal).

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
mother wrote:Yes Yes, technically revolvers are not "semi automatic" because the energy to advance the next round is supplied by your finger, not the explosion. So on that case you win (and since I'm usually Mr. Picky about being technically correct about firearm terminology, I hereby cede 1 Internets to you)

Modern revolvers generally don't require the hammer to be cocked for each shot like the old-west revolvers did.

If I had said pistol and not handgun, I would have technically been correct, but the media chooses not to simply say "pistol" or "revolver" but the scary sounding "semi-automatic handgun."

Also technically there are full-auto handguns, but they're pretty stupidly useless (and illegal).



Whoo hoo! I love winning games I'm not playing. Not sure what I will do with my internets though. I would say that the ease of pulling the hammer back essentially makes it semi-auto though. You don't have to load the bullets individually. I'm satisfied calling it semi-auto and EVIL!

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
mother wrote:Yes Yes, technically revolvers are not "semi automatic" because the energy to advance the next round is supplied by your finger, not the explosion. So on that case you win (and since I'm usually Mr. Picky about being technically correct about firearm terminology, I hereby cede 1 Internets to you)

Modern revolvers generally don't require the hammer to be cocked for each shot like the old-west revolvers did.

If I had said pistol and not handgun, I would have technically been correct, but the media chooses not to simply say "pistol" or "revolver" but the scary sounding "semi-automatic handgun."

Also technically there are full-auto handguns, but they're pretty stupidly useless (and illegal).



Second serious question: What is the difference between "handgun" and "pistol?" I thought they were interchangeable, but they aren't?

Are revolvers handguns and pistols the magazine fed kind? (notice how I did not say clip)

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
bhodilee wrote:Second serious question: What is the difference between "handgun" and "pistol?" I thought they were interchangeable, but they aren't?

Are revolvers handguns and pistols the magazine fed kind? (notice how I did not say clip)



Handgun is the broad category, and pistol and revolver are sub categories...

I believe the technical definition of a pistol is a handgun whose [firing] chamber is integral to the barrel.

Revolvers are inherently not that, since each bullet fires where it sits in the revolving bit of a revolver...

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
mother wrote:Handgun is the broad category, and pistol and revolver are sub categories...

I believe the technical definition of a pistol is a handgun whose [firing] chamber is integral to the barrel.

Revolvers are inherently not that, since each bullet fires where it sits in the revolving bit of a revolver...



Makes sense

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)