Young Turks: Sarah Palin’s embarrassingly hypocritical PAC expenses.
Kimmel: This week in unnecessary censorship.
Maddow: NC GOP takes war on voting to college students:
Young Turks: Weed wins.
Stephen on ‘Morning Joe’ supporting Mark Sanford.
Bill Press: Shocking statistics on poverty in America.
Young Turks: Michelle Obama, the single mom.
Sam Seder with an episode of Random Rush.
WA tries to close down private clubs that serve pot vapor.
Bearing Arms:
- Sam Seder and Cliff Schecter: This week in gun control
- Young Turks: Jim Carey and “Cold Dead Hands” fallout.
- Thom: Let’s start treating guns like cars.
- Bill Press praises CT for passing gun safety laws.
- Sam Seder: The “Family Protection Ordinance”
- Young Turks: The disasters and the successes in gun safety regulations
- 154 rounds in 4 minutes.
- Obama speaks on reducing gun violence
- Mark Fiore: Your Daily Gun.
- Susie Sampson’s Tea Party Report: GOP leaders reveal opinions on kids with guns:
Young Turks: The craziest conspiracy theories believe in.
Pap on the G.O.P. autopsy.
Sharpton: The Republican War on Women is revived.
Sam Seder: Idiot conservatives think that Google honored Hugo Chavez on Easter.
Cracking up over global warming.
Maddow: Once again, GOP embarrasses the U.S. on the world stage.
Sharpton: Bestiality is “The Stupid Party’s” new obsession.
Thom: The Good, The Bad, and The Very, Very Ugly.
Lawrence O’Donnell: How wrong the G.O.P. has been on marriage equality over the years.
Young Turks: Morning-after pill restrictions thrown out by judge.
Stephen takes down Jeremy Irons.
Fox & Rice:
- Jon on Sean on Rice.
- Young Turks: FAUX News disappointed more coaches aren’t abusing players.
- Sam Seder: FAUX News and the ‘wussification’ of America!
White House: West Wing Week.
Young Turks: Obama and the “best looking Attorney General”.
Lawrence O’Donnell: Hillary tops challengers for 2016.
Maddow: Defying extremist’s threats, clinic reopens with community support.
Jon: What is it with Republicans and animal fucking?!?
Sam Seder: Where are the female Libertarians?
Maddow: America’s other Tar Sands oil spill:
Young Turks: VA’s ‘criminalize blowjobs’ gubernatorial candidate.
Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.
Very interesting survey that the United Transportation Union conducted in three conservative districts about Amtrak. The results are surprising, for some. The support for Amtrak is still pretty good, but each district polled had some service.
http://www.narprail.org/news/h.....ril-5-2013
Now one thing about Sanford, is that in a way, one should support redemption, but he did abandon his state without telling anybody, and wasn’t he a proponent of the Clinton Impeachment?
A little humorous rail photo. It is part of a news photo about the continuing delivery of new Light Rail Vehicles to Minneapolis. The inscription on the shrink wrap I mean. It is an instruction to yard crews that it is important cargo that must have extra care, and at classification yards cannot be sorted via the artificial hill and gravity method. I have seen this before, but it was a photo of an old streetcar from Minneapolis being sent to a new operator.
http://www.startribune.com/loc.....39541.html
While da perfessa is into personal denigration and attack with his kings/queens of leftist comedy (TM), Puddy is into keeping your PC clean from threats. This lawsuit went class action. So as a public service here is what you need to validate on your system. Here is what you need to perform.
Someone better alert the mini-PUTZ ekim and ol’ ArtFart cuz they skip over PuddyPosts or ridicule them because their too factual! Mrs Rabbit, you better read this cuz Ol’ crusty Roger has been exhibiting mental acuity problems lately!
Why do people keep using IE? IE 10 already has a bad vunerability and it recently appeared from MSFT!
Kinda strange only Colbert comments on Jeremy Iron’s gay commentary. What if it comes to pass? Maybe libtards didn’t see this one so attack it now. Let Comedy Central ridicule it. Or as most libtard msm sites did… ignore it.
Projecting.. This right wing jerk passed a smellyl brain fart about Russia in the last Open Thread.
Right wing idiocy is a brain wasting disease!
Bye..
Six Americans were ambushed and killed in Afghanistan overnight. Six more reason to end this excursion into a world and culture we simply don’t understand and can’t control.
We’re getting nothing out of these stupid adventures. Just leave!
GOP Poll Tax On Families Of Students Who Register To Vote
It won’t survive a constitutional challenge in court, but that won’t stop Republicans from passing it.
http://americablog.com/2013/04.....dents.html
@4 At least I had to get old before having mental acuity problems. Yours started at birth.
One of the reasons why I don’t post much here anymore is that this site has been degraded by certain trolls that really cannot stop lying. The infantilism demonstrated by one certain individual makes it impossible to counter that individual’s second-grade level of argument.
One cannot engage in rational discourse with a mentally ill seven year old except to make sure they are properly medicated and given a hard smack upside the head when they start acting out too much.
That being said, the NARasite/John Birch neofascists that dominate the conversation in my local newspaper here demonstrate clearly the fact that there are a lot of folks out there who stopped maturing when they reached adolescence. They cannot debate, they cannot establish a semblance of factual reference and must constantly lie, outright, to maintain their position. Now that I am approaching 50, this has become emotionally exhausting. It really stopped being fun for me when I realized that most of them have never read a book for pleasure, nor have they ever considered any source material outside of their religious texts to be of any importance.
They’re just fucking STUPID.
One cannot be rational with stupid people who consider money the only thing of importance in the world. More important than their own families, more important than insuring the survival of Liberty, more important than the rule of Law itself. They cut their noses off to spite their faces, and then blame everyone else for the mess it makes on the floor.
No more Mr. Nice Guy.
@ 11
Now is that any way to talk about people whose taxes pay you for not working, Deathfrogg?
I know you have all the free time in the world to read books for pleasure, but you might recall that it’s a little more difficult to find the time if 40 hours of your week are spent working for a living.
I’ll take stupid and able to hold a job over somewhat more intelligent and permanently unemployable any day.
The anti-gun fascists deserve to be gassed.
@12 What tax money does he receive?
From 13,
I don’t think the anti-gun crowd can be described as “fascists.” “Liberal-progressive” might be a more accurate label.
Serial Conn is just upset he got called out as being a money lover.
@13 Ah yes. This comment is right up your alley.
“A Maple Valley veterinarian is awaiting a decision by prosecutors whether he will be charged for shooting two people on his property early Friday. One of the intruders died at the scene. The other is listed in critical condition at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle. …
“The homeowner called 911 just before 4 a.m. Friday to report that two people were breaking into a shipping container on his property …. Before deputies could arrive, the homeowner called again to say he had shot the suspects, King County sheriff’s Sgt. Cindi West said. … In the past eight days, West said, the 66-year-old homeowner had reported three other burglaries.”
http://seattletimes.com/html/l.....eyxml.html
Roger Rabbit Commentary: First of all, shooting someone because they’re breaking into a storage shed or shipping container on your property isn’t self defense. A container is different from an occupied dwelling, and stealing from a shed is different from posing a threat of harm to you and members of your family. That’s why the law (generally) allows you to shoot intruders in your home, but (generally) doesn’t allow you to shoot trespassers or common thieves. The law places higher value on human life than mere property, and stealing isn’t a capital offense under our laws. That’s why the law — and prosecutors — (generally) don’t allow homeowners to appoint themselves as judge, jury, and executioner when someone breaks into a shed or storage container on their property.
The superheated political debate over tougher gun controls (read: gun show background checks) in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School slaughter of innocent kids by a deranged madman whose mother collected guns and didn’t lock them up so her mentally ill son couldn’t access them (read: irresponsible gun owner) has the NRA and gun lovers in a dander about their gun rights. Add to that a racially-charged vigilante shooting in Florida and you’ve got a bunch of paranoid armed people loudly talking themselves into a mistaken belief that they have a “right” to shoot anyone they subjectively feel is threatening them or their property rights.
Let’s forget about the moral implications of paranoid, armed, trigger-happy yahoos convincing themselves that shooting human beings is the preferred solution to any social problem (such as petty crime). These people don’t have much conscience or moral sense to begin with, so you’re probably not going to persuade them on that level, and it’s a waste of time to try.
So let’s jump over that and go to the main point: People who have talked themselves into mistakenly believing they have a “right” to shoot anyone they subjectively feel is a threat to them or their property rights have set themselves up for (a) huge civil liabilities, and (b) serious criminal charges.
That’s right, whether you believe you have a “right” to shoot a given person under given circumstances is irrelevant. It simply doesn’t count. What matters is how the law will deal with the situation. And if you’re wrong about what the law is, and you illegally shoot someone in the mistaken belief that you had a “right” to shoot them, well, you’ve got problems my friend.
We can all empathize with this veterinarian, and understand his frustration. The people he shot were trespassers and thieves. But that didn’t give him a right to shoot them, and if prosecutors decide not to charge him with homicide, that will be the gift of a lifetime. It certainly shouldn’t be interpreted as a precedent for others to act upon, because the fact is, Washington law allows you to shoot and kill someone only if they pose an immediate threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or another person you’re trying to protect. In this state, you can’t shoot people to protect property, period. Our law says that’s murder, or at least manslaughter, and while you may get a break from the police or prosecutors, you can’t count on receiving such a gift from the authorities and you may end up (a) getting sued for everything you own, in which case your efforts to protect your property will prove to be counterproductive in the extreme, and/or (b) going to prison, and being branded as a killer and felon for the rest of your life.
And, of course, if you’re a convicted felon you can never own or possess a gun again; and you’ll also lose (at least temporarily) your right to vote for the Republican candidates you so assiduously support.
So, in conclusion, your gun rights — whatever they are — are not a license to kill. Some people believe they are, but they’re not, and if you act on that belief you will expose yourself to some potentially very unpleasant legal consequences. Just ask George Zimmerman.
@ 17
That’s why the law — and prosecutors — (generally) don’t allow homeowners to appoint themselves as judge, jury, and executioner when someone breaks into a shed or storage container on their property.
On the other hand, RR has no trouble deciding the facts in advance of being aware of them.
If the homeowner can credibly claim he was being advanced on at the time he pulled the trigger, it doesn’t matter whether he was inside his house or outside his storage shed.
He’s on his own property, it’s dark, he’s in his 60s, and it’s a two-against-one situation.
I suggest the wiser move is to STFU until you know more.
Former attorney and judge, my ass.
@18 I based my comment on the facts reported in the news story. You are changing the facts, and your “facts” are speculation, nothing more. Legal outcomes always depend on the facts of the case, so of course you can “win” an argument about a legal situation simply by changing the facts of the case! But that’s not actually winning the argument, it’s merely changing the subject.
But let’s play your game and address the changed factual situation you’ve offered. Let’s assume the homeowner saw trespassers breaking into a storage container on his property, called police to report the break-in, then went outside and confronted the burglars. What happens then, legally?
Something like this: Confronting the burglars may not be good judgment, or a safe thing to do, but the homeowner is where he has a right to be (on his own property) and is doing what he has a right to do (telling the burglars to get off his property). The legal result depends on what happens next.
If the intruders decide to leave, the homeowner can attempt to make a citizen’s arrest and hold them for the police, but he can’t shoot them to prevent them from escaping.
On the other hand, if one of the intruders attacks him with a deadly weapon (say, a gun, knife, axe, crowbar, hammer, etc.), he can legally shoot the attacker in self-defense. If both intruders attack him with deadly weapons, he can legally shoot both of them.
But what happens if one intruder attacks him with a deadly weapon, but the other does nothing? In that case, he can shoot the attacker, but he can’t shoot the other intruder.
What if one or both of the intruders attack him, but not with weapons? Suppose they just push him, punch him, or wrestle with him? Things get legally murky here, but my guess is the prosecutor won’t charge, regardless of what the legal technicalities are.
In short, the homeowner has a right to verbally confront the trespassers and order them to leave, or, if he chooses, he also can order them to stop breaking into his shed, tell them police are on the way, and demand they wait for the police to arrive and take them into custody.
But he can’t shoot them to stop the break-in, nor can he shoot them to prevent them from leaving the premises. He can shoot them in self-defense, i.e. if he’s attacked he can shoot as necessary to stop the attack. And that’s the only justification the law gives him to shoot.
@18 “I suggest the wiser move is to STFU until you know more.”
Sorry, bub, but the rules of engagement don’t allow you to add facts, assume facts, or change facts.
“Former attorney and judge, my ass.”
Ah yes. Another armchair lawyer. Those types are always loudmouthed know-it-all blowhards. Real lawyers make a pretty good living from cleaning up their legal messes. Wish we had more of ’em!
Now let’s return to the story as actually reported by the Seattle Times. Keeping in mind the distinction between reported facts (Seattle Times) and made-up facts (our friend Cereal Bob), the reported facts are that the homeowner shot both trespassers. That’s all we know at this point.
We can’t really determine a legal outcome for this specific case based on the reported facts alone, because those facts are incomplete. HA readers who are somewhat more perceptive than Cereal Bob will notice that I didn’t predict a legal outcome of this specific case in my comment @17; I merely used the incident as a vehicle for discussion of general legal principles.
Our friend Cereal Bob attempted @18 to exploit the incompleteness of the facts by filling in the blanks with made-up facts of his own. Well, if he can play that game, it’s only fair I should be able to play it, too.
Let’s start with the reported fact that the homeowner shot both trespassers. This may have been a justified shooting, but the fact he shot both persons considerably narrows the factual circumstances that would justify the shooting. Legally speaking, the only way the homeowner gets off scot-free is if both trespassers attacked him. What are the chances of that? Given the reported fact that one of the shooting victims is a woman? I would say it’s possible but not very likely.
Another reported fact is that prosecutors are weighing whether to charge the homeowner. From this, we can deduce inference that things don’t look very good for the homeowner, because the mere fact prosecutors are considering charging him raises a pretty strong inference that the factual situation as known to the prosecutors didn’t justify the shooting. It’s very unlikely they would be wrestling with a charging decision if there was evidence that both trespassers attacked the homeowner. They would do that only if the evidence was pretty clear that the shooting wasn’t self-defense.
It’s likely we’ll get more details about this case from future news reports as the story unfolds; and it’s extremely likely that when we have those details, our friend Cereal Bob will have egg on his face, regardless of what the prosecutors decide to do.
Anyway, the ultimate point I wanted to make, and my reason for posting about this case, is that the superheated rhetoric about “gun rights” and the aggressive attitude it’s fostering among gun cultists is making our society more dangerous for innocent people.
The danger is that gun cultists may become so aggressive about asserting their “gun rights” that the line between debate and action will blur in their minds, and then instead of just talking about their “right” to shoot people, they will start pulling guns and shooting people.
What this could lead to is a “Wild West” society in which we have hyped-up citizens pulling guns on each other in response to minor provocations, resulting in a rash of unnecessary and unjustified killings. Deterring such conduct is why it’s so important to prosecute and punish vigilantes who go beyond the permissible boundaries of the law. If we let people get away with such conduct, we’ll have a lot more of it, and then instead of having innocent citizens defending themselves against dangerous criminals, we’ll have usually law-abiding citizens killing each other over ordinary social frictions.
That’s not a good thing, and that’s why we need to have this discussion, Bob. The goal here is to make sure cooler heads prevail so people who may have lousy judgment but are fundamentally good and decent people who don’t deserve to die aren’t unnecessarily and avoidably killed by other fundamentally good and decent people who also have lousy judgment and aren’t very good at keeping their emotions under control. Human nature and guns don’t mix very well, and that’s why we need to have this discussion.
Let me further elucidate what I’m trying to do here.
One of the most basic and essential principles of a society governed by the rule of law is that vigilantism is criminal behavior and vigilantes will be punished by the law.
We often see conservatives defending vigilantism and vigilantes. That’s not surprising, because conservatives are nearly always on the wrong side of every argument. There’s very little, if anything, they’re right about and this is no exception.
In the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case, the problem for prosecutors (and, ultimately, the jury) is whether Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin was self-defense or vigilantism.
In the case reported today by the Seattle Times, the problem for prosecutors (and, ultimately for the jury if they decide to file charges) is whether the homeowner’s shooting of the burglars was self-defense or vigilantism.
People have a right to defend themselves, and this has been recognized as a basic principle of human society probably since humans first began living together in communities.
In modern societies, vigilantism has come to be recognized as a threat to social order and rule of law. Historically, vigilantism has sometimes been practiced as a temporary expedient in the absence of law and order, as in the frontier days of the Old West. But it has never, in modern times, in our society, been considered socially desirable or as anything but a desperate last resort of citizens under siege by criminal elements where the rule of law has not been established.
In Auburn, Washington, in 2013, vigilantism is unnecessary and inexcusable. It’s also inexcusable in Florida and everywhere else in this great country of ours.
It’s absolute essential that we make the distinction, and draw the line, between self-defense and vigilantism. And when people cross that line, it’s essential that the law be imposed on them, in order to discourage others from resorting to vigilantism.
At the end of the day, those acting in legitimate self-defense should go free, and vigilantes should be sent to prison. That’s the current state of our laws, and that’s all I’m arguing here.
From 23,
It’s also inexcusable for police to pretend they are in the military. No more of these SWAT teams terrorizing little old ladies because the dumb SWAT guys can’t even invade the correct house!
For these guys down n Perce County who actually did terrorize a little old lady and her disabled, bedridden daughter, I hope they are fired from the police force and every asset they have (including retirement accouts) is liquidated to pay the damages to the lady in question. I’d like them to do some time over in Walla Walla, too. I’d take everything from these cops, just on account of their arrogant, bullying attitudes!!
The cops are NOT the military, and their job is not to conduct offensive military actions against Americans trying to live their lives without a Gestapo SWAT team invading their homes!!!
Thanks Puddy:
Am I the only one that sees Puddy’s helpfulness? What is wrong with you guys?
4. What is also worrisome besides the obvious outrage of stealing then selling passwords, credit card numbers and private information, ComScore is accused of modifying firewall settings, redirecting internet traffic, all of which can be done remotely :(
Sheriff’s Detective Jason Stanley: “If a homeowner is simply protecting property, he or she is generally not justified in shooting a suspect.”
Unemployed ylb, lying again.
Sad so sad
See ya. Thanks for playing. ROTFLRHMBBAO!
@25,
Puddy didn’t have ComScore software on the PuddyPC used to smack useless and unemployed ylb! Clean as a whistle.
@24 “I hope they are fired from the police force and every asset they have (including retirement accouts) is liquidated to pay the damages to the lady in question.”
Don’t hold your breath. They’ll get 1 hour of Address Identification Training and the county’s insurers (or county taxpayers) will pay the judgment.
You can’t make this up. If you are not part of the Administration’s Press Obummer’s ChiTown thugs want to shut your site down. Matt Drudge’s DrudgeReport is a news aggregator, plain and simple. Matt provides links to web sites BURIED by the libtard lamestream media. Obummer’s sadministration wants Drudge Report shutdown and is trying their best to make it happen through ridicule!
Isn’t that what the Nazis and Fascists did before WWII? Obummer like the Nazis and Fascists before him value control vs. allowing the public to know the truths and have accurate informatio. Think about ObummerCare. We had to pass the bill to determine what was in it. Yeah baby, that’s the ticket.
@25 Why are you sucking up to that deranged rightwing loon? I’m going to send you to Liberal Education Camp!
@30 Oh my! Evul libruls are gonna RIDICULE Drudge into oblivion! That’s a good place for him. He’s fucked up too many stories, which leads a lot of people to believe he’s a propagandist, not a news aggregator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.....t_sourcing
Toooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Damnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Fuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnnny
And the NY Times, LA Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and other libtard sites have not Roger?
How much you wanna bet Roger didn’t read the link like last night?
Cry Puddy a river!
@31 and @32 were posted by Roger Rabbit. Mrs. Rabbit has been fucking with my ‘puter again. She has her own ‘puter now. She should use hers.
28: Puddy: We don’t have ComScare spyware either :)
Dear Dim Bunny: I think for myself and I am not listening to any more political rants right wing or left wing :)) I am plugging my bunny ears
Lying about you forgetting the idiot administration you voted for twice was “dismayed” about Russia sending troops to the Republic of Georgia?
Hardly.. But then we all know you can’t the tell the truth from the produce of your miserable ass..
That pathetic fool you worshipped “meant business”? What a laugh!
Dismayed? Well it was the last few months of the Bush Administration. Russia been dissing Obummer for most of his 5 years.
Such a moron this unemployed ylb is! At least you don’t need to look for a job today unemployed ylb.
See ya. Thanks for playing.
Somehow Da Perfessa chose not to use this “tidbit” of information.
Butt butt butt…
Oh no… The Conference Board sez something else… And… Obummer is exaggerating the job losses!
So aren’t y’all glad Obummer called for the sequester July 27, 2011 at 2:30PM? Great plan!
When Romney mentioned this rate the libtards in the MSM went nutzo
Heh.. It’s after the dinner hour on Sat night and everyone’s favorite idiot is psyching up..
Back to the Salt Mines!
Puddles- you cannot make the argument that Obama’s policies have not worked when the republicans in the House and Senate have worked hard,with some cosiderable success, to block the implementation of those policies
@ 42
Oh, yes he can. He’s a diehard TeaBagger. Spoiled, unintelligent, uneducated, psychopathic, and mean hearted.
When I look at TeaBaggers, all I see is a bunch of book burning jackbooted thugs.
@34 Only a jackass would argue that Drudge is qualitatively on the same (or a higher) plane as the NY Times, LA Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and other professional and responsible media outlets.
Sure, there are a few mistakes in the millions of news stories they publish and broadcast, but Drudge seems to propagate slanderous bullshit every other day.
And when real news people get a story wrong, they publish a correction. When has Drudge ever done that? Once in a blue moon.
They’re journalists. He’s a propagandist peddling a partisan line. Everyone but you understands that.
@40 The 7.7% M3 unemployment figure is an artificial number. Every informed stock investor knows that. New hires dropped dramatically in March, and new unemployment claims went up, yet the official unemployment rate went down. How is that possible? Because the “workforce participation rate” went down. In other words, BLS doesn’t count as “unemployed” people who drop out of the workforce and go back to school (or whatever) because they can’t find work. And that’s before you get into the statistical fantasy known as the “birth-death index.” The economy is lousy, period. Better than anyone else’s except China’s, and we’re way better off than Europe, which is plunging into a depression with 25% unemployment in some countries because numbskulls there are insisting on the austerity policies that Republicans want to impose on the United States; but all that says is the whole global economy is in awful shape.
The stock market rally (up 15% since the election) has been partly based on investors’ belief that the U.S. economy, while slack, is improving. The data coming out now argues otherwise. It’s even possible we’re already in a recession (i.e., a GDP contraction). When Wall Street figures this out we’re going to have a stock market correction. I’ve got my cash ready.
What’s happening is that a 60-year credit “supercycle” is ending. That’s right, this economic malaise was 60 years in the making. But go ahead and blame the whole thing on 51-year-old Barack Obama! That’s no more outrageous than a lot of the other shit you post on this blog, Pudspud, so don’t let modesty stop you.
@43 Teabaggers are too stupid to goose-step. It requires simple coordination they don’t have.
@ 46
The Germans learned it, and they had more reason to be pissed off, however self-inflicted it was at the time.
In other news, the Washington state senate passed a budget Friday night, with a LOT of Dem support.
Budget writers from both parties said the spending proposal was developed with input from both sides, and the final vote included support from 21 Republicans and nine Democrats. Republican Sen. Andy Hill said the measure includes some tough decisions but helps reprioritize state spending without relying on taxes.
Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/.....z2PnCSZyWg
Note that the majority coalition included the minority in the process:
Democratic Sen. Jim Hargrove, the top budget writer in the minority, praised Hill for including him in the process.
“It was very open and very inclusive,” Hargrove said.
Portland liberals come face to face with their inner racist:
Radical Accountability vs. Security Culture: An Unconditional Apology for My Racism
http://www.mismanagingpercepti.....my-racism/
But because he’s a liberal cyclist rather than a Liberal Scientist, he’s at least got the stones to apologize.
And, it’s almost like he had Liberal Scientist in mind when he wrote
Splitting hairs between “remarking on an allegation” versus “making an allegation” is a pedantic way of avoiding responsibility for what we very, very clearly did.
Word.
Today I hit the end of my free Seattle Times access until, whenever.
My response?
@ 48 and @ 49 I got from the P-I.
Somehow methinks the paywall will not go well for the Seattle Times.
My definition of a decent weekend is finding two bottles of good bourbon in a bottom cabinet you forgot you placed there.
Coming back from a road trip to Montana in October, we stopped in Idaho to gas up and to ethanolically stock up. Not enough space in the top cabinets. I never look in the bottom cabinets. Wife found them.
So all you really are is a drunk with a chronic hangover?
Surprise, surprise, surprise…
@48 “Republican Sen. Andy Hill said the measure includes some tough decisions”
Cutting programs for the poor isn’t so tough for Republicans. In fact, they enjoy it.
@48 (continued) Republicans passed their Senate budget with — they claim — 9 Democratic votes. But they’re counting Rodney Tom and Tim Sheldon, who caucus with Republicans and without whom the GOP wouldn’t have a Senate majority, as “Democrats.” So the “9 Democratic votes” are really only 7 Democratic votes, and the Democrats supplied those votes in exchange for being able to save a few things Democrats support that Republicans wanted to cut — in other words, they made a bargain with the devil to prevent an even worse budget from emanating from the Senate. And those 7 Democrats were not reticent about publicly denouncing the GOP’s budget.
So, with these clarifications, you are right in that a few Democrats voted for this “bipartisan” budget. We’ll see how far it gets in the House, and what the governor does with it.
@50 Typical conservative, doesn’t want to pay for anything, expects others to work for free.
@ 52
That’s chronic drunk with job income to you, bub.
@56 “with job income”
My condolences. I’m so glad I don’t need a job! Too bad you’re not a capitalist like me. So sad.
Gun shop that sold to mother of Newtown shooter loses license
The weapons Adam Lanza, 20, used in the attack were all legally purchased and registered.
http://www.reuters.com/article.....WZ20130405
So, by this rationale, the auto dealer that sold the GMC truck to the habitual drunk driver who mowed down those four people in a North Seattle crosswalk should be put out of business as well.
This is what passes for common sense in Obamaworld.
And when Puddy views Occupy Wall Street A-Holes all Puddy views are idiots without a clue on life. BTW, it was the Nazis who were the jack booted thugs Fraggy. Nazis were the ones who took the guns from the German populace. Obummer and you DUMMOCRAPTS want to perform the same action, take guns away from the populace. Puddy has supplied link after link after link of DUMMOCRAPT “thought” leaders who want to act like Nazis. Therefore by simple deduction, your side are the jack booted thugs.
Thanks for playing Fraggy. You provide comic relief whenever you appear.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
@49,
Very nice find Serial Conservative. He described Lib da schmucko exceptionally well.
Wait for it… Ad hominem attack from Lib da schmuck in:
5 hours…
4 hours…
3 hours…
3 hours…
1 hour…
What are you babbling about Roger.
Decoder ring anyone? Can anyone cipher what the Rabbit has said?
Almost four weeks ago you said the stock market was being propped by Bernanke and his continual QE activities. Do you ever think about or reread your own comments?
K farts –
What did K do with that Ivy League education? He certainly isn’t using it now on HA. Obummer got what he wanted from Reid and Pelosi through 2010. It takes time for those policies to kick in. We are now reaping the whirlwind of the failed policies. And economists are correctly claiming ObummerCare is a real bummer to the job market. Obummer’s sequestration is a real bummer to the future job market.
So cry Puddy a river K. Reminds Puddy of your last failed attempt at a comeback. Do you remember that smelly turd you left on HA? No? Well you can ask unemployed ylb to replay it for you. Ask nicely and Puddy will embarrass you with it! It was hilarious.
Where progressive libtards goose-step perfectly to the beat of Obummer/Reid/Pelosi/DNC/DCCC/DSCC etc.
@58 BATF didn’t say why the revoked the gun shop’s federal license. Perhaps there were repeated violations. We simply don’t know.
But let’s play with the concept of strict liability for a minute. This is a well-established principle in American law, although the average American may be most familiar with it through JFK’s policy during the Cuban Missile Crisis that any nuclear missile launched from Cuban against any Western Hemisphere country would be treated as an attack by the Soviet Union against the United States.
Simply stated, “the law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous.” (Wikipedia) It has been applied, for example, to people who store dynamite on their property. If the dynamite goes off, they’re responsible for the damage, regardless of why the dynamite exploded or whose fault it was.
Tort lawyers have tried, unsuccessfully, to apply strict liability to gun manufacturers and gun shops on the theory that a gun is an inherently dangerous instrumentality. Under this approach, if someone is injured by the unlawful or tortious discharge of a firearm, the maker and the seller of the gun are automatically liable for damages because they knew the gun was dangerous and might injure someone.
The BATF action doesn’t take it that far. In fact, the BATF action might not represent a “strict liability” action at all; as I said above, the gun shop may have failed to comply with federal regulations that are a condition of having a federal license.
But let’s say we apply a strict liability standard to issuance of gun licenses. If you sell a gun that is later used in commission of a crime, you lose your license. The purpose of this would be to give gun sellers an incentive to be careful about who they sell guns to. You can accomplish the same thing, in a more onerous way, by applying a strict liability tort rule to gun shops. In either case, the objective is to get the person in the best position to keep guns out of the wrong hands — the seller — to exercise care about who gets guns.
Such approaches are, of course, experimental. We don’t know if they would have any effect toward reducing the rampant gun violence afflicting American society. In any event, they are measures born of desperation, because the current situation is so utterly unacceptable.
I’m not a fan of politicians doing “something” just for the sake of appearing to be doing “something” about a problem. I want effective solutions to actual problems. There’s no question that gun violence is an actual problem. I don’t know what the solution is, and neither does anyone else. We have two choices: Either live with the unacceptable situation we have, or search for a solution until we find one that works. Given the stakes, experimenting with tighter restrictions on access to guns hardly seems unreasonable to me.
@61 “What are you babbling about Roger.”
Google “debt supercycle” and you’ll find out — that is, if you can read.
@63 You’ve obviously never attended a meeting with two Democrats present.
Corrected!
Amtrak asking for less operating funding, again. It does not make the news that much, but Amtrak has been asking for less operation funding for the last couple of years, with farebox recovery at 88%, federal operating assistance is only 12%. For FY14, that request is $373 million. What goes to 9 figures is, the capital request, which is about $2 Billion. Part of that, is upgrades to the Northeast Corridor, including a project that replaces a New Jersey funded one that Governor Christie canceled, that after reading the reports from a railfan board, a decision I agree with. The New Jersey Transist project would have had the trains terminating at a stub-ended annex to Penn Station, after clearing a new tunnel to be dug. For the NEC, a stub-ended terminal in NYC won’t do, a lot of NEC traffic is through traffic, even if it is just commuter trains being moved to a holding yard, or regional trains headed North of the city, or coming from points north.
http://www.america2050.org/201.....again.html