Comment Re:It's not Google's fault (Score 2) 593
I'm out of mod points, (and you posted as AC), but someone should mod this up.
No, I meant Libertarian, you know, the group that thinks that government should be as small as possible, and takes the more "Laissez Fair" approach to government involvement with businesses and persons. I was not confusing the two, and as a Libertarian, would not do so.
I also said conservatives, rather than Republicans on purpose too, for while they are usually interchangeable terms, they are not the same either, I would look more at the Tea Party as being conservatives, while "Established Republicans" are closer to Democrats than many people want to admit. That's why the GOP is factioning within the party, because the established republicans want the same goals as many democrats, they just want to go about it a different way. The established Republicans want a bigger government (with almighty powers) just like the democrats in the end. While "true conservatives" and libertarians want it smaller, and not meddling in the affairs of everyone.
Never once did I ever mention republicans, because yes, they (the RINO's) were on the same side as most of liberals at the time of the bail-out, the liberals wanted to bail out GM, and the RINO's wanted to bail out the banks. Both groups believed that it was governments job to prevent job-loss of private jobs, and that is where they are both wrong. It's not the governments responsibility to pick and choose and help keep businesses that were ran poorly (or illegally in the case of some of the banks) from going out of business because of it, no matter how big they were.
Or in the case of the situations and environments I work, your statement should read: "Move the applications to where they are not accessible when you have no internet connection while you need to do your work".
Not everyone works on their computers in a cubicle with the company or home LAN available 24/7. My work is often on construction sites where the network infrastructure is non-existent, or at client sites, where the IT crowd won't let vendors on their network to access the internet. You have what you brought, and if your lucky you might have enough cell service to get a data card to work if you have one.
This is the funniest comment I've heard. While I'll admit, most republicans and conservatives alike (yes, there is a difference), don't like some of the tactics and fundamentals of unions, your comment is highly ironic. I don't think the republicans WANT to force the company out of business, I think most conservative groups and libertarians were agains the auto bail-out in general. Mostly because it goes against free market principles, and also rewarded specific companies for mismanaging the company into bankruptcy. This is true of the auto companies that were bailed out, as well as the banks that were bailed out. The UAW took a big hit, because a big chunk of the bailout went to make sure the Union still got it's demands met, for hourly wages and retirement perks, all from a dying company. If any other company was about to founder, the last thing most employees would get would be raises and more pay. I certainly didn't when I worked for a company that was going under, they told us the truth, they were hurting, they enacted unpaid furlough days, and froze all pay increases as a step in trying to save the company from going under. While us workers didn't like this necessarily, it was better than all of us get let go when the company goes under.
The part of your comment about forcing them at gunpoint to sell cars at a loss is the ironic part of your statement. Just WHO do you think is the party and groups that are pushing the hardest for electric car sales? Who is pushing the hardest for higher, hard to meet CAFE standards for gas mileage, and who is behind the electric car subsidies to try to entice the general public to purchase these overpriced, under-performing, cars? Here is a hint... it's not conservatives.
Probably not, they have to meet CAFE standards. For every car they sell that gets less than the mandated average, they have to sell one that gets more. The mandated average is just that, it has to be the average fuel economy of all the cars the manufacturer sells on a yearly basis.
Sounds like the CEO is basically saying that they have to sell it in order to meet CAFE standards, and due to caps put on the electric cars, they can't charge what the car actually costs to build and markup. So he intends to sell just enough of them to meet these CAFE requirements in fuel economy and no more.
You can buy a car without having a drivers license, you can use it on private property without needing a license. The act of taking it out on public property (ie: streets and highways) is only when a license is required. You don't have to have a license or pass any kind of qualifying tests for merely buying and owning a car. Same with registration tags, you don't have to have valid registration if it's parked on your property and not driven on public roads.
Same with political speech, you can do that on the internet from your house no problem, without a license, it isn't until you want to assemble on public property that may interfere with the public use of the property that you have to get a permit for it. Some would argue, and have valid points, that needing a permit for a rally or protest somewhat invalidates the freedom to peacefully assemble however (especially if a permit for a rally is denied for some reason). So using that as an argument is somewhat wishy washy.
Same with voting, several states have tried to imposed voter ID laws that simply require the voter to show state ID when casting a vote at the polls, and have been shot down and sued by the Justice Dept. for discrimination. These laws were for the sole purpose of validating that the person who was voting was the person they said they were, and that they are legal qualified to vote (ie: a citizen of the US). Voter registration is a joke, and if you want that kind of 'license' for firearms where NO ID is required, and its a honor system then good luck, because that's not what most people are demanding when it comes to firearm licenses and registration.
In most states (with the exception of a couple like Arizona), the act of carrying a weapon in public concealed requires a license already, approved and signed by the local sheriff or law enforcement, or the state. Why the should the mere act of owning a firearm be licensed though, this doesn't hold to the other examples arguments.
If firearms are treated like autos, then someone should be able to purchase as many as they like, with no license, no registration, unless they want to carry them i public. The current laws in most states are already more strict than this. Last time I checked, each firearm I purchase is put into a state database and registered when I buy it, I have to pass a qualifying written test every 5 years in order to purchase handguns, and I can't carry it out concealed in public without a CCW permit (carry license) which in the case of firearms, most counties in CA deny to everyone but politically connected people.
California is a good example of how the permit system can be mis-used. Because the law requires a permit for CCW, without a permit, you are not allowed to carry. The sheriffs here deny all persons (even persons with no criminal background and who would otherwise meet all criteria to carry) because it's the agenda of the political forces to not allow carrying. How would this go over, if all permits to hold political rally's were denied without review. Wouldn't that be considered bypassing the constitutional right of assembly and stifling free speech. All you need is a permit, but when no permits are issued, there becomes a big problem.
Gun owners have fallen for these traps time and time again over the last few decades, and are not falling for it anymore. We know what the end game of all this is, if the gun-control advocates get their way. The gun-control advocates say they will be happy if "X" happens, then laws are changed to require "X", time passes, then the gun-control advocates want to go further and suggest "Y". Rinse & repeat until the end conclusion is a total ban on all firearms to civilians.
given that there are only about 230 justifiable homicides a year, and 60,000 cases where the gun is presented but not actually used
Correction... Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day. http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c...
The people we are worried about are those who feel the need to amass arsenals of weapons and ammunition but refuse any attempts to legislate that they be held responsible if any of those weapons are stolen and used in crimes.
And why should I or anyone be responsible for what someone does with something they STOLE from me?! If someone steals your car, should YOU be held responsible for them running over people with it, or using it in a bank robbery? The idea that the victim of one crime (theft) should be held responsible for a second crime that they also had no part in, is absurd at best. It might make sense to you gun-control person to say what you said, but when you switch "GUN" for any other object or item, it sounds as crazy as it really is on every level. Yeah, lets make the victim a victim twice. Do you think the people that have their guns stolen asked for them to be taken? Do you think they are happy that they were taken? I can see your point, if you wanted an owner to be responsible for negligence if they 'lost' their firearm in a public place, but you are actually condoning holding someone responsible for being the victim of a crime.
The kind of people who carry AR15s to the grocery store because it is their 'right'.
And how many people have YOU ever seen do this, be honest? I'm guessing the answer is none.
The kind of people who feel the need to constantly walk around armed because they truly believe (despite having minimal training) that they would be the right person to intervene in the unlikely event that violence breaks out (personally I think they have watched too much TV).
If you were in the middle of a violent crime, I would almost guarantee you that police response would not feel "fast enough" when your life is on the line. And often times it isn't, by the time the police get there, the crime has already happened, and the police are the clean-up crew. So if you don't take the responsiblity to be your own protector, then don't whine when there isn't anyone else around to help.
Look at the recent shootings that the gun-grabbers like to hold up as poster examples. Both Newtown, Colorado Theater, Virginia Tech, Columbine, and many others examples the damage was done by the time the police arrived on scene, how many people did the police save in those situations? Even the Fort Hood shooting, that was stopped by a police officer, still had many casualties and injuries, as the response time is too long when a situation like that happens. It's hard to imagine that at that point, ANYONE on the good side with a firearm couldn't have helped, regardless of skill level.
One man had just bought an Uzi, because he feared that once Obama they would be banned. When asked what we was going to use it for the answer was 'personal protection'. Where the gun store was located? Cheyenne, Wyoming. The people who think there's a threat level in Cheyenne that warrants having an Uzi on hand, those are the people we are worried about.
While I somewhat doubt your claim here, as it sounds made up or slightly exaggerated... Either way, you do realize that an Uzi is a class 3 firearm and falls under the tightest of federal regulation for obtaining and owning. If it was in fact a Real IHI UZI, and not a 'look alike', then the purchaser would have to pony up some major money to buy one, plus go through not only the normal background process for purchasing a firearm, but an extra scrutiny version required for class 3 firearms. Plus pay for a 'tax stamp' for said Uzi. After all the paperwork, that weapon would come in somewhere in vicinity of $10K or more, and the owner would be thoroughly background checked (more so than normal).
What you probably saw, was someone buying a knock-off Uzi carbine, that is either a 22LR version (not a real Uzi), or a 9mm SEMI-AUTOMATIC version, which is no different than any other 9mm semi carbine. These versions are more affordable, more readily available, and are all semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) rather than Full-automatic. These are a completely different class of weapon than an original, real UZI sub-machine gun.
Which explains why guns are pretty useless for self-defense, as it takes way long than a second to get your gun out, load it, disable any safety, and aim it remotely accurately. Unless you're speaking about police officers, wild west shoot outs, or our soldiers we keep trying to kill in wars. Of course for all those people, there'd be no reason to have a "smart" system (a simple key lock-out would do).
I've taken training classes, and have the ability to draw a concealed handgun from under a shirt, from a holster, aim and shoot a 'controlled pair' in about 1.5 seconds with both rounds on target (hitting the thoracic cavity) from 5 yards. I would argue against your comment about guns being useless for self-defense. The only reason my guns are useless for self-defense has nothing to do with my level of training, but everything to do with the fact that the bureaucrats and sheriffs in my state/county do not trust us peasants with carrying a concealed firearm, and insist on infringing our constitutional right at every turn.
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne
