greenego

Jeff, as Obama calls him is on the president's counsel to promote jobs. Next time they need to tell him watch country he is suppose to be finding jobs for.

ADMIN NOTE: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tn-gun-owners-announcements/58333-notice-do-not-re-post-photos-written-content-you-do-not-own.html Please re-do this post with a link instead of a direct copy and paste, per the above notice. Thanks. .... Link to original article here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-25/ge-healthcare-moves-x-ray-base-to-china-no-job-cuts-planned.html

He had the permit to open the mine so he had already jumped though the hoops from the regulators. With all the regulations, don't think ground water contamination would be an issue. As far as cancer goes I know a lot more people that worked at Oak Ridge or Alcoa with cancer than people I know that worked in the mines.

Ronnie Bryant was vastly outnumbered. Leaning against a wall during a recent Birmingham, Alabama, public hearing, Bryant listened to an overflow crowd pepper federal officials with concerns about businesses polluting the drinking water and causing cases of cancer. After two hours, Bryant—a coal mine owner from Jasper—had heard enough and, in a moment being described as “right out of Atlas Shrugged,†took his turn at the microphone: “Nearly every day without fail…men stream to these [mining] operations looking for work in Walker County. They can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay their car note. They can’t feed their families. They don’t have health insurance. And as I stand here today, I just…you know…what’s the use? I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use? I see these guys—I see them with tears in their eyes—looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So…basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting . Thank you.â€

The only thing shovel ready was the bull sh#*

Don't know why Kahr hired the guy to start with. Guessing if they didn't labor department would sue them. Also guessing Kahr figured they would end up paying more if the fought this.

JayC I agree with you. Laws should not be passed favoring one group over another. Just like laws should be passed that make me strap myself in a car. However, until over turned, they are the laws.

You are correct it is illegal to discriminate against someone for race. These laws were passed to right passed wrongs. No such laws for telling someone they cannot bring something on to your property or how you are dressed. People can't bring a dog into most restaurants unless they are service dogs. "Shirt and shoes required". "No food or alcoholic beverages allowed". Just a few of the signs I have seen. There is even a restaurant in PA that will not serve children. You and I have a right to carry. A property/business owner has the right to say not here.

Could not have said it any better than JayC did.

Log cabin perhaps

I first saw this story on Fox Business. The guy looked like just another Washington lobbyist, at least on the program. What really got my attention was someone in DC was advocating gun rights.

This is the first handgun posting I have seen that makes sense.

Op-Ed: How an Imaginary Gun Saved My Life<br />* | Commentary | Advocate.com ADMIN NOTE: Please pay attention to the announcements forum, particularly the announcement about copying verbatim published works from other sites. Thanks.

I was also new to guns also when I started carrying a SP 101 revolver. After about a year and a couple of training classes, I decided to get a PM9. I was a little hesitant about carrying with one in the chamber, but realized I had been carrying that way for over a year. For some reason semi-automatic means the gun will go off. With one in the chamber, I equated this to the hammer on the revolver being cocked. Of course this is not true but being new to guns I had to learn this.

For all looking to pay the sales tax on out of state purchases, here is a link to the form http://www.state.tn.us/revenue/forms/sales/r0000501.pdf You can think me later.

Nice I have the same setup with the CT laser. I pocket carry mine in a Desantis pocket holster. When I started pocket caring I began purchasing paints with larger pockets like cargos, Truspec mostly.

Welcome

Makes Chris Wallace's question even more valid, is she a flake?

Please remember Obama is not just president of the United States but of the WORLD. He was just trying to look out for all his childrens.

With the question " Another act of Tyranny" I was refering to this statement "Even though the guidelines are voluntary, many companies are aggressively lobbying against them, saying they fear the government will retaliate against them if they don't go along." Now we having business in fear of government. Do we have a weight problem in this country? According to the news story I heard this afternoon, and what I see on the streets yes. Is restricting advertizing on so called junk food going to solve it? Probably not. The only thing I see is the government limiting companies from promoting their products.

Not so much defending as passing on information. What works for some doesn't work for others.

Video demonstrates this.

I get the idea. I am not sure I would let someone ripping it off as in the video. I would worry more about someone grabbing the gun out of the holster from behind. But your point is made.

I have a Fobus for my SP 101. Never thought of a paper bag. " target="_blank"><a href="http://s1105.photobucket.com/albums/h357/greenego1/?action=view&current=P5065659.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1105.photobucket.com/albums/h357/greenego1/P5065659.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[h=1]GOP pushes back on effort to limit kids' food ads[/h] http://www.jdnews.com/news/-92913--.htmlMARY CLARE JALONICK 2011-07-06 09:49:18 WASHINGTON — House Republicans are siding with food companies resisting the Obama administration's efforts to pressure them to stop advertising junk food for children. Some food companies say the government is going too far with guidelines proposed earlier this year by several government agencies. The voluntary guidelines would attempt to shield children from ads for sugary and fatty foods — think colorful characters on cereal boxes — on television, in stores and on the Internet. Companies would be urged to market foods to children ages 2 through 17 only if they contain specific healthy ingredients and are low in fats, sugars and sodium. Even though the guidelines are voluntary, many companies are aggressively lobbying against them, saying they fear the government will retaliate against them if they don't go along. Republicans are attempting to delay the guidelines by including a provision in next year's Federal Trade Commission budget that would require the government to study the potential costs and impacts of the guidelines before implementing them. As food companies have protested, criticism has ramped up on Capitol Hill. Missouri Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, the Republican who sponsored the provision, says she is concerned that the voluntary rules “would lead to extraordinary pressure from the federal government.†Other Republicans have called the rules overreach, saying they encompass too many foods. The standards are meant to crack down on ads for the unhealthiest foods, but others are caught in the crossfire. Advertising for some whole wheat breads would be restricted because they have too much sodium, for example, and bottled water could be targeted because it doesn't include enough nutrients. Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., a supporter of Emerson's effort, said the guidelines are “basing decisions on emotions and not facts.†Some Democrats have shown concern with the voluntary rules, as well. Rep. G. K. Butterfield of North Carolina, in a letter to the government agencies in charge of the effort, said the government “has produced no evidence that I am aware of that the proposed restrictions will serve the government's goals of changing long-term eating habits.†The spending bill that includes the delay cleared the House Appropriations Committee last month. It could come before the full House as early as next week. Food companies argue that the rules are back-door regulations that could trample their First Amendment rights of free speech. Scott Faber, a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents the nation's largest food companies, says his group estimates the standards would affect marketing of almost all of the nation's favorite foods. “What is very troubling about the administration's proposal is that they would have us drastically change food marketing without presenting any evidence that it changes diets or assessing the costs,†Faber said. Health advocates disagree. “The industry is exaggerating the influence of these voluntary regulations to gin up opposition,†said Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “These standards are supposed to provide a model of how self-regulation can work.†While opponents of the guidelines are using examples of healthy foods that would be covered to make their point, Wootan points out that advertising for many foods would be allowed — including children's chicken nuggets meals from McDonald's and Burger King and cereals such as Frosted Mini Wheats and Honey Bunches of Oats. As criticism has become louder, the Federal Trade Commission — which developed the voluntary regulations with the Agriculture Department, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control — has tried to debunk what it says are myths about the standards. In a posting on the FTC Web site, David Vladeck, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, says there are no legal consequences for companies that don't follow the rules. “Nobody's saying Toucan Sam has to fly the coop,†Vladeck said. “Ideally, during the next five years it would be great to see the cereal companies voluntarily tweak their formulations to raise the whole grain content and lower the added sugars for cereals marketed to children.†Vladeck also addressed the issue of government overreach. “The proposal is designed to support — not supplant — moms and dads,†he wrote.