mav

Oh, by no means do I want him to quit "whining" about it. How can we ever expect any change to occur unless people continue to complain about it? Hopefully BHO will be gone next January, and the Senate has flipped to the GOP. Maybe then some of these stupid regulations can be stopped, but it will still take the action of public to keep the issue alive.

I find it interesting you brought up this topic. I was either reading or watching something yesterday when I ran across the word "preppers." I had never heard of it before.

Let me see if I can explain the political theatre I was referring to. First off, everybody know that media has a liberal bias. It has been that way a long time (longer than I have been alive), and it is not going to change. Having a candidate attack the media accomplishes what exactly, outside of allowing people to give a collective "Hell yeah."? Since there is no way they are going to change, and it doesn't prove anything that we didn't already know, I don't think it accomplishes anything. In regards to the original complaint Gingrich made against CNN's John King, I think it was nothing more than feigned outrage. Newt never answered the question. He deflected the question by attacking the media, which I believe was well rehearsed. Newt is not an idiot, and he is a very experienced politician. He knew that this question would be brought up, and since it was the topic of the week, he more than likely knew it would possibly be the first question asked. Whether you like him or not, Santorum made a good point that this topic is fair game. He stated that it is an issue of character. As I stated earlier, Newt dodged this issue by appealing to our (conservatives) loathing of the media. I said it was feigned outrage because after the debate, Newt was all chummy with John King. Hence, this was nothing more than political theatre. It took me a while, but I have finally learned that politicians and the MSM have a symbiotic relationship. They both need each other for their survival. The media's benefit is obvious, scandals and conflicts sell. A politician benefits when they can't stand behind their record or have said or done something in their past; they can cry foul against the media. They have an immediate scapegoat for their actions and/or words. Personally, I couldn't care less about the ex-wife issue with Gingrich, and I absolutely abhor the MSM. However, when a candidate gets asked a question, they should answer it and not demagogue the one asking the question in hopes of deflecting the issue. The MSM sucks and they are certainly biased, but they aren't always wrong.

Actually, the House does have the votes to impeach the president. However, he would most assuredly be acquitted in the Senate. They wouldn't dare proceed with it because the president is still popular, and the congressional approval rating is almost in single digits. They would have to endure an attack along with charges of racism like nothing we would have seen before. In regards to Newt attacking the media, am I the only one that sees this as nothing more than political theatre?

Welcome to TGO. Looks like you have been a member a while, just not participating.

I can only speak for myself, but I will be voting on election day. I will more than likely be wearing nose plugs voting for the GOP nominee.

Nothing wrong with those. I have had numerous Victorinox knives over the years. Very handy.

Ah, didn't see the video. The text left out the "You've been warned." See, a fine piece of s****y journalism. The you've been warned comment does take the previous comments to another level. However, I still don't believe I would have persued a civil rights intimidation indictment against him, since as the video stated, "it is vague." I am also taking into consideration what the pastor said, that the motivations were related to the individual being a fan of the racetrack. Therefore, I am assuming that the language to the councilperson would have been harsh if it had been a different person. As far as representing gun owners, I don't think he represents anyone but himself unless he was elected to some position of representation that I am unaware of. If people want to characterize gun owners based on this one individual, then that is the fault of those generalizing. There is nothing I can do about about people's bias towards certain things.

I don't like it either Lester, and I do not think community pile-on is a good thing. I can't defend what was written, outside of the right to write it. The only good that I can see coming from this is it is a teachable moment. We all need to think carefully about what we write before hitting the send key. I also agree that all of us need to examine our own lives before sitting in judgement of others.

The following questions are in no means a defense of the OP. Personally, I find the comments that were quoted in the article repugnant and show a serious lack of intellect. Nonetheless, how does writing an email to a council member containing racist remarks consititute civil rights intimidation? If the email contained threats of violence then I could see how it could be, but if it does not, I think the penalty is a huge overreach. A felony with a possibility of 12 years in prison and a $5,000 fine? Come on. I have read the article several times and it does not mention any threatening remarks. If the original email did contain threats, then this article is a fine example of s****y journalism. The following quote is all we have to go on. Since the article mentions no specific threats, it stinks of more politically correct b.s. I am sure everyone is going to disagree with me, but I believe that our freedom of speech right includes unpopular and even racist speech. Individuals have the right to be a$$holes, bigots, and even have the right to discriminate, assuming the discrimination does infringe upon anybody's rights. The last thing we should want is the government (local, state, or federal) policing language regardless how offensive it is. Just to reiterate, I find such language that was used in the email entirely disagreeable, and would never use it myself. However, I do defend the right of an individual to use such language without fearing penalty from the government. The only thing I get from this entire situation is the revelation of a person's views with whom I do not wish to associate.

The only problem I have about that AR is I have been saying this long before the media or other candidates have taken it up. The only thing I am hoping for now is that Newt and Santorum will stay in the race as long as possible splitting up the delegates. I wouldn't mind seeing a brokered convention. We have some very strong conservatives within the GOP. Unfortunately, none of them decided to run for president. We need someone like a Jim DeMint to go up against Obama.

You are absolutely correct. If Newt gets the nomination, he will lose. I don't care how bad Newt could beat Obama in a debate, he is not going to beat him in the general. I hear so many people talk about the electability of the candidate, and yet they choose to vote for Newt. I just don't understand this reasoning. Newt is one of the most polarizing and despised politicians. The left and moderates absolutely loathe Newt. I only point this out because when the focus is on electability, one has to take into account that moderates will be needed to win the general. Newt ain't gonna get them in the general. If I based my voting decision on electability of a candidate (which I don't), Newt would be the last person I would consider. I would be voting for Romney, who I can't stand. Even though he would do much better than Newt with moderates, Romney is no guarantee either. Romney's mormonism may kill him. I just have to quit talking about all this. It is much too depressing.

I have been to PC only one time. I doubt I will ever go back.

Amen on that one. Couldn't have said it better myself. My ideal next congress wouldn't pass any new laws. All they would do is repeal old ones.

They don't seem to be doing a very good job at it. While an outright ban on firearms isn't going to happen, I could see further gun controls, including banning certain types of firearms via execuctive orders. This president is so out of control, I wouldn't put anything past him. In a lame duck term, what has he really got to lose? Boehner and company certainly don't have to stones to impeach him.

That's all fine and good, but if it is like anything else the government works on, the compromise will more than likely be worse than the original. The only people who will end up happy about it will be the government. They will be patting themselves on the back and having a stroke-fest all the while telling everyone what a wonderful thing they have done, and it was a true example of bipartisanship in action. Excuse me while I go vomit.

I am closer to the second answer as well Lester. I don't see how the government can regulate certain segments of the internet without, as you say, "effing it up." As I pointed out earlier, these laws are only going to be a temporary deterrent to those who engage in stealing of IP. If the will is there, people will find a way around laws. Once those laws and regulations are proved to be ineffective (and they will be), they will expand to cover the ways certain people got around the first set of laws. It will be a never-ending increase of government regulation of the internet, which will end up leading to something that really won't be worth a s***. I really hate it that people are getting burned over their IP. If it was me, I would be pissed as well. However, we can't ruin one of the last bastions of freedom we have. I am for no government regulation of the internet. If it is possible, I would be for market based solutions to protecting IP.

I was under the impression this issue was still in court. I thought the ACLU file a lawsuit against a state that tried to enact such legislation.

If the government makes SOPA and PIPA law, it still won't solve the problem of piracy. Yes, it will make it more difficult for a time, but people will end up finding a way around it. When that happens, does the government increase regulations further? I would think so, (edit) - which is not a good thing.

He won't be able to run on the Libertarian ticket. Gary Johnson already has that spot.

Doesn't surprise me. Its too bad that people don't realize that the only people this going to hurt is themselves.

Sources? The only people I hear talking about Paul running third party are the right-wing news media and Ron Paul die-hards. I don't hear anything from the Paul campaign. Paul isn't going to run third party. He knows he is a longshot to win the Republican nomination, and he would have even a smaller chance of winning the presidency on a third party ticket. I think is staying in the race to continue to push his ideas of free markets and liberty.

I still don't know what kind of scope is being talked about. As far as the Bedlam goes, I have seen 1st production runs sell for a little under $150 to slightly over $150.

I do not think Obama is a Muslim or Christian. The only god Obama worships is Obama, imho.

There are couple of watch threads. http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/general-off-topic/21313-anyone-here-into-watches.html