[QUOTE=bert;28295]but. . . .BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(I agree with everything you typed, absolutely everything).[/QUOTE]
Ben...ghazi? Benghazi!
Printable View
[QUOTE=bert;28295]but. . . .BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(I agree with everything you typed, absolutely everything).[/QUOTE]
Ben...ghazi? Benghazi!
[QUOTE=Mikekerr3;27779]Diplomatically the effects on Russia don't look to be positive. But it seems that the internal politics, the ones leaders really care mst about, are very positive for Putin.So far, internally. it looks like it working well for him[/QUOTE]Oh the Short Victorious War is doing wonders for Putin's numbers, but the diplomatic fallout comes off as a solid kick in the proverbial testicles of the Russian Economy.
[QUOTE=Charles RB;28267][URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27272797"]Martin McGuinness has hinted Sinn Fein might drop supporting for the Northern Irish police over the Adams arrest [/URL]- again, the [i]deputy first minister[/i] of a country says his [I]party of coalition government[/I] might drop support for [I]his own nation's police, directed from his parliament[/I]. This is dangerous shit.[/QUOTE]
Obviously, an honest investigation into a homicide is a sign that the Police are a danger to the political stability of the nation (he says in a voice dripping with sarcasm).
If there were a general amnesty I could see the fuss. IIRC there was not so....
[QUOTE=heretic;28358]Oh the Short Victorious War is doing wonders for Putin's numbers, but the diplomatic fallout comes off as a solid kick in the proverbial testicles of the Russian Economy.[/QUOTE]
Since it looks like the Eurpeans, and especially the Germans are not going to agree too strong sanctions, That the penalty will be relatively small, so far the sanctions have been mostly a joke.
whatis europe going to do cut thier own throat and stop buying gas at the price Russia sets, you don't get to rude with a guy who is holding you by the neck over a cliff.
Oh look, it's America's NRA being mental. Again.
[QUOTE]A plan by President Barack Obama to close a loophole which allows Americans to buy weapons such as machine guns, grenades and sawn-off shotguns without undergoing background checks is set to be delayed, due to intense opposition from the NRA and other anti-gun-control activists.
An executive action announced by the White House last year said that all members of legally certified trusts buying or receiving federally regulated weapons would need to identify themselves by submitting photographs, fingerprints and a signed approval from a local law-enforcement chief to US authorities.
Unlike individuals, such so-called “gun trusts” can currently take ownership of weapons regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) without providing identifying information when registering the items with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
"It's simple, it's straightforward, it's common sense," Vice President Joe Biden said as he announced the executive action last August. “We're going to get this done.”
But senior ATF officials have told industry groups that a June 2014 deadline for publishing the new rule is expected to be pushed back into 2015, due to the scale of opposition expressed during a public consultation phase.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/03/obama-executive-action-gun-loophole-stalled-nra-opposition[/url]
[QUOTE=CenturianSpy;26598]NOT once have I used the word "impeach" or "impeachment" in this discussion. AND if there were emails during Pres. Bush's administration trying to cover-up that email/memo there SHOULD'VE been hearings. Or are you just trying to justify your "Bush lied, people died" bumpersticker?
All those memoes/emails are still redacted (which is probably needed). What we have is several Generals/Admirals who say they should have been allowed to go in sooner, but, that could be just hindsight. We'll all have to wait for Leon Panetta to write about it.[/QUOTE]
No you didn't use it, I did. If four people dead is worth a congressional investigation then surely 3,000 dead should have led to an impeachment? Or is it just the fact that they might have run with a story they knew was false or at the least unlikely to give the appearance to the groups responsible that we were fooled to give them time to investigate the attack? In hindsight could we have done a better job tracking guys learning how to fly airliners but not learning how to land them (spoiler alert, they looked into it and we could've!)? I'm sure in hindsight there's a lot of stuff we could have done better (I blame former/current? poster hindsight lad, clearly not doing his job), but that's not how things work.
Trying to use those deaths to score cheap political points in the absence of something substantial bothers me. And I would bet my comic collection that the people getting blamed for this care more about those deaths than any right wing pundit spewing faux outrage over the situation does.
Hillary and Obama don't care either. Obama is basically praising the Iraq war nowadays and Hillary supported that mess.
The White House Press Corrospondent's Dinner went down...
[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/03/obama-boehner-joke_n_5261280.html"]Obama's line about feeling bad for John Boehner was gold.[/URL]
[URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27216798"]Brunei introduces tough Islamic penal code[/URL]
[QUOTE]Sharia punishments that will include the severing of limbs for theft and death by stoning for adulterers will be brought in over three years.
In April, the UN voiced "deep concern" about the planned change.
Brunei already adheres to a stronger form of Islamic law than neighbouring Malaysia and Indonesia, banning the sale and consumption of alcohol.[/QUOTE]
A) I am willing to bet good money that this is being sold as 'Tough On Crime and Immorality' among Brunei's populace.
B) Why do similar laws drawn up by Christian rulers not declared Levitican Law or some such?
Because it's impolite to point out that one side of the debate happens to look a heck of a lot more like Al Qaeda and the Taliban than the other. And if you could get them drunk first and not let them know the results were being recorded, I'm sure they'd be for severing of limbs for theft (not white collar, of course), mandated modest dress for women, and stoning to death (they're already for the state killing others, can't imagine adding a little pain & suffering to the mix would offend them). Banning alcohol would be where they'd draw the line though.
[QUOTE=king mob;29992]...to close a loophole which allows Americans to buy weapons such as [B]machine guns[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm gonna call shenanigans on that one. Machine guns are [I]very[/I] heavily regulated, and cost hundreds in taxes, stamps, and permits on top of the already mandatory background check. If people are selling them at gun shows in such a fashion, it's already blatantly illegal.
[QUOTE=heretic;33009][URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27216798"]
B) Why do similar laws drawn up by Christian rulers not declared Levitican Law or some such?[/QUOTE] Becasue with a few exception for 3 or 4 mass murdering villains, western leaders have not been that savage to their own populations for centuries.
[QUOTE=king mob;29992]Oh look, it's America's NRA being mental. Again.
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/03/obama-executive-action-gun-loophole-stalled-nra-opposition[/url][/QUOTE]
tht procedure has been in efect for about 80 years, can you name a single crime that was a result of it?
[QUOTE=Primetime Harder;33977]I'm gonna call shenanigans on that one. Machine guns are [I]very[/I] heavily regulated, and cost hundreds in taxes, stamps, and permits on top of the already mandatory background check. If people are selling them at gun shows in such a fashion, it's already blatantly illegal.[/QUOTE]
It is just poltical BS, the anti-gun folks are trying to fix a system that works VERY well, By adding papaerwork that is of no use u outside of harrasing people by making an already rigorous process harder
[QUOTE=Primetime Harder;33977]I'm gonna call shenanigans on that one. Machine guns are [I]very[/I] heavily regulated, and cost hundreds in taxes, stamps, and permits on top of the already mandatory background check. If people are selling them at gun shows in such a fashion, it's already blatantly illegal.[/QUOTE]
Read it again.
[QUOTE]An executive action announced by the White House last year said that all members of legally certified trusts buying or receiving federally regulated weapons would need to identify themselves by submitting photographs, fingerprints and a signed approval from a local law-enforcement chief to US authorities.
Unlike individuals, such so-called “gun trusts” can currently take ownership of weapons regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) without providing identifying information when registering the items with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).[/QUOTE]