There is no link to this - it's a personal experience, and I am curious as to what YOU would have done.

I just had a tense moment at an isolated Chase Bank drive-up ATM. I drove up, used my card, and was waiting for the money when I saw this big rough-looking dude walking toward the front of my truck. He was about twenty yards away, and already giving the "my car broke down, trying to get wife and kids back on the road. Can you help me out? blah, blah..." when I said, "Stop right where you frickin' are. Don't come any closer, I don't CARE what your story is - you DON'T panhandle at an ATM!" I checked my rear view mirror to see if someone else was coming up behind me. He was alone, but was still inching toward me. I told him to stop again. I grabbed the bucks, and drove out in a hurry.

I am not a heartless SOB, and I have given handouts at intersections, but this was in an area with no one else near - a bad location for an ATM. I've had plenty of experience with firearms, but I haven't touched a gun since 1970. Honestly, if I had had a gun today, I would have been reaching for it. What would you have done?

I've been noticing recently that there are certain political issues I never really paid much attention to or formed a strong opinion on, but which seem to be of overwhelming importance to most of the country. So I thought I would ask the internet for input. The one which comes to mind right now is immigration. I found an article for and against open immigration, and both seem to have legitimate points. I chose articles by libertarian-leaning individuals because I find them to be less likely to appeal to blind emotion and more likely to argue their points in detail rather than repeat partisan platitudes (possibly because they lack a party worth mentioning). The basic conflict here seems to be between an estimation of the financial costs of unrestricted immigration on the secure-borders side of the argument, and on the other side a belief in the basic right of people to move as they please, along with opposing economic interpretations of the situation; essentially the claim is that illegal immigrants are good for the economy.

Also I've seen anti-immigration views based on the claim that the average Mexican (Mexicans constituting the majority of illegal immigrants) is not very educated, or just not very bright, or based on references to cultural differences, such as a possible inclination toward authoritarian rule in Latin America in general.

What do people here think of all this? I'm assuming this is of enough relevance to conservatism since I have always gotten the impression it was a very important issue to most conservatives.

I've been noticing recently that there are certain political issues I never really paid much attention to or formed a strong opinion on, but which seem to be of overwhelming importance to most of the country. So I thought I would ask the internet for input. The one which comes to mind right now is immigration. I found an article for and against open immigration, and both seem to have legitimate points. I chose articles by libertarian-leaning individuals because I find them to be less likely to appeal to blind emotion and more likely to argue their points in detail rather than repeat partisan platitudes (possibly because they lack a party worth mentioning). The basic conflict here seems to be between an estimation of the financial costs of unrestricted immigration on the secure-borders side of the argument, and on the other side a belief in the basic right of people to move as they please, along with opposing economic interpretations of the situation; essentially the claim of the latter is that illegal immigrants are good for the economy.

I've also heard objections based the claim that the average Mexican (Mexicans constituting the majority of illegals) is not very educated or simply not very bright, or on cultural differences based on, for example, the trend of authoritarian rule in Mexico and really much of Latin America.

What do people here think?

I'm ready! Thanks again clearance Dillards.

$19.99 and a size 7! (a little tight in the gut because i just had Chimes brunch)

Posted via LiveJournal.app.

EDIT: ( more )

temporarily closed :(


so the lights are on inside (transit authority goes through)


( more Magic Kingdom )

I love it when people say "the media has no liberal bias!" For the most part, they are correct, but they ignore what prompts these accusations. (To be fair, most people who make these accusations don't elucidate them very well.) But I think this article about a New York State law that would increase punishments for drunk drivers failing in the Legislature illustrates what most people talk about.

The base of nearly all nanny statist rhetoric is pulling on one's heartstrings--"think of the children!"-which in rhetorical terms we call pathos, as opposed to logos, which is logic. The article I linked to is all pathos and no logos, focusing entirely on the father's depression over a bill in honor of his daughter not being passed. There is no one iota aimed at explaining how such a bill will save lives or prevent drunk driving. There is nothing talking about drinking laws already on the books. And there is nothing how such a bill is really useless, irrelevant, and stupid.

With all due respect to the father, who did not deserve to have his daughter killed, passing a law to stiffen penalties towards drunk drivers with kids in the car will do diddly squat. People will continue drinking, no matter if they're alone, with an adult, or with a station wagon full of minors. Most will probably never hear of the law being passed. And if the laws on the books don't deter driving, what is to say this will? It's just a useless "overlay" on top of preexisting laws.

This is why people say the media has a liberal bias. Until the media starts waking up and stop thinking that a single grieving person makes a story, we will have this debate--this problem--until the end of time.

In one of the most ridiculous decisions ever made by an American administration, terrorists who succeed in attacking civilians in the United States will be granted the constitutional protections of U.S. civilian courts, while those who attack strictly military targets will be subject to military tribunals. What on earth is this President thinking? Al Qaeda leaders are not common criminals, serial killers, or even American citizens. These are people who declared, and waged war on the United States. We do not try out war time enemies in civilian courts, and to pretend we are not at war while we have military personnel engaged in combat every day, and while we launch predator missiles at terrorist leaders inside Pakistan is the height of absurdity. Are we going to read Osama Bin Laden his Miranda rights before we launch a hellfire missile up his ass? The only reason for this juvenile decision is to kiss the ass of European intellectuals. You know what I say to them? Go fuck yourself. If military tribunals were good enough for Nazi war criminals, if they are good enough for the planner of the USS Cole, they are good enough for Al Qaeda leaders. Take your bullshit "moral high ground" and shove it up your ass. These pricks do not rate our civilian justice system.

The Democrats actually want to pretend that treating Al Qaeda leaders as if they were simply "criminals", as opposed to militant jihadists who are at war with America, will somehow hurt their cause. Is this really an intellectually honest opinion? I swear we did exactly that prior to 9/11. Democrats really want to argue that that method of prosecution actually hurt jihadist recruiting and succeeded in combating terrorists and their ideology? You can't bury your head in the sand and see the world as you would like it to be. Treating militant jihadists who belong to Al Qaeda, an organization we are currently at war with, as anything other than what they are is the height of idiocy, and these members of Congress need to be called out for their glaring stupidity.

Darrel Wayne Mohler has been charged with raping two children in Missouri more than 20 years ago. His arrest Friday came a day after he told The Associated Press that the alleged child abuse by his relatives was "unspeakable"…

"I can't think of words that would put this in perspective. I find it repulsive if it's true," Mohler said Thursday of his family members' charges. AP 11/14/09

Lurid accusations of sex with children?

Check.

The term “ritual abuse?”

Check.

The term “suppressed memories?”

Check.

Carefully worded comments from law enforcement strongly implying the presumption of guilt while at the same time hinting at an utter dearth of evidence beyond the bare accusation?

Check.

The names, pictures, and perp-walks of the accused being published so everyone can spit on them, revile them, emote, beat their chests, and invoke castration and other creative methods of punishment?

Check.

A witness or relative who publicly expressed some level of doubt about the accusations added to the list of suspects?

Check.

This case seems too familiar. I feel like I've stepped into a Wayback machine and stepped out into the era of MICHELLE REMEMBERS and the McMartin Preschool fiasco. And what's most disturbing are the number of people jumping on the bandwagon and immediately assuming these guys are guilty. Thus far I've seen absolutely zilch other than the accusations in the way of evidence.

Anybody else have thoughts about this?

not that it's the least bit important, but i've been shearing my friends list a bit (not done, it's taking awhile, there were over 300 people to start done! removed about 100). it's not an "oh my god i don't like you" or "you are so noooot entertaining" thing. it's just that there are a bunch of people who don't appear to be active (they haven't posted in months/years) so it seems unnecessary to keep up the connection (a lot of them have just moved to Facebook, so there's a connection over there anyway). if by some chance i have cut someone who actually is active, i can add you back.

EDIT: I guess I can also mention, there are some random people who have added me lately. I'm not opposed to new friends, but I guess I'd like to know where you came from.

Interesting, to say the least.

Kristi invited me to The Funny Bone, since her friend had extra tickets. I had no plans, and I've been before and enjoyed it, so I was game. There were two openers, and then I guess two headliners. The first headliner was Dan Mengini, who actually has a recurring role on One Tree Hill this season (I don't watch, so I have no clue what character). He was pretty funny, and Kristi decided he was also kinda cute. So after his set, and after she drank her 32ozs of "Hard Fuck" she passed him when she was going to the bathroom and said for $20 she'd take him home. The other headliner was Scotty K. Both guys were amusing, and when the show was over they were in the back saying hey to people as they left. So Kristi pulls me over to Dan and we have a seat at his table and start conversation.

At some point Dan asks about my ring (huge ridiculous black plastic thing with rhinestones) and I comment that some of the rhinestones fell out, so I colored the spots in with a Sharpie. And he is like "oh my god you have to meet Scotty". So when Scotty comes over and I retell the story, and then he wants to marry me. Apparently a huge fan of Sharpies, shows me his shoes that used to have a huge grey stripe on them, but are now all black, thanks to a Sharpie. Anyway, so the four of us are all at a table, joking and having a good time.

--I'll interject now with an issue...I hate that when I have good conversation with people, it's interpreted as flirting. I sorta suck at flirting, I don't completely recognize when people are doing it with me, and I'm not sure I'm that great at it (although I'm apparently great at not being aware that that's what I'm supposedly doing)--

Anyway, we get another drink, Dan jokes about making out with Kristi later, Scotty jokes about marrying me. The guys are (as expected) enamored with my cleavage. Scotty takes pictures of me with his phone, I take pictures of Kristi and Dan with my camera. Kristi and I laugh in the bathroom, but I am not very good with casual sexual encounters (nor am I at all interested) so I'm wondering where all this is headed. I do update my Facebook status with a quote from Scotty, "your breasts are almost as beautiful as your face...and I love the way your knee feels"...because he kept doing that thing where you spread your fingers out across someone's kneecap, and it creates a tickling sensation (which he calls a knee-gasm).

We don't have any other plans so then we decide to go to IHOP. In the good lighting we're all sobering up a little and I realize Scotty is seriously hoping to hang out with me again. And I'm an idiot and already gave him my number--not because I wanted him to call me ever, just at some point earlier he'd handed me his phone and was like "call your phone from mine", and I am A) bad at telling people no, and B) don't consider phone numbers that harmful anyway, if anything it's easy to screen. Anyway, since next stop is not going to be a make-out session, we drop the boys back off at their hotel. (We've been smart and put both of them in the backseat). Scotty has already requested contacting me in the morning (they may or may not be tailgating), and I said not before 10am, so he says he'll call at 11am. Dan is smooth and leans forward and gives Kristi a combination hug and kiss, and the guys go off to bed--but not without first accepting our Facebook friends requests, and Scotty also sending me a message that I'm beautiful, and commenting similarly on one of my pictures. (I wish the mobile app had the option to add people to restricted lists...I don't mean for either of them to have all access, but I can't change that until I'm home).

So I get home, go to bed, and at 10:58am on the dot I get a text from Scotty. He asks if I have a headache, which I don't, but I say a little, and that I'm still in bed. He's the same apparently, and asks me to call him when I get up. Ugh. So I wait a bit, and just text that I don't really feel like leaving the house, and say it has to do with this week, not last night, I was just looking forward to a weekend off (which is true), and I hope he has fun tailgating. He's cool with that, but asks if I'll be at their show again tonight, I say maybe, if Kristi wants to go, and he mentions twice that he'd love to see my pretty face again. Gah. I hate having to reject people when I feel like there was never anything there in the first place. And I am not good at being bitchy unless someone deserves it, so I feel like I have to make up excuses, when I really just want to scream I WAS JUST THE WINGMAN! And while I don't doubt that his feelings are somewhat genuine, the reality of the situation is that he's just looking to get laid, and I don't do that.

Anyway, I text Kristi about it, she's been getting some texts from Dan apparently. We met up for lunch, and definitely decided against going to Funny Bone again tonight. I really wouldn't mind being friends with the guys, but it's not like they live here or anything, and I certainly don't want to give anymore encouragement in the direction of something "more than friends". So fingers crossed the texts wane and he gets the picture.

THIS is why I hate meeting people sometimes. I hate the expectations that are somehow set without my knowledge.

I took my adderall today, and I mean to be deep cleaning my house, but have instead focused on writing a much longer entry about this than I had planned. Damn brain.

The genocide of Native Americans by European colonizers is one of the darkest chapters of the world history. Scientists estimate that from 2 to 15 million Indians had been the victim of genocide during the entire period of colonization. But the colonialists destroyed not only people; they tried to destroy identity, culture of Native Americans. Native Americans are locked in reservations now. They are deprived of any prospect of full-fledged development. They are suffering from extreme poverty, unemployment and diseases.

Implementing their natural, inalienable and undeniable right, the Lakotah Indians, led by the Russell Means, the hero of the struggle for the independence, announced the termination of treaties between the Lakotah people and the U.S. Federal Government. On December 17, 2007 the Republic of Lakotah was proclaimed.

Russell Means, the outstanding leader of a proud and gifted Lakotah people, and the Provisional Government of the Republic of Lakotah, conduct a wise policy in order to awaken the Lakotah people and put an end to colonial rule. Lakotah Government implements a number of practical projects aimed at economic independence from the United States and upbringing of the younger generation. In this context, the project of building a kind of commune - the first compact settlement of the supporters of the Republic -is particularly interesting for Sunland project activists.

All Sunland project activists strongly support the Republic of Lakotah. They express hope and confidence that the heroic and long-suffering Lakotah people will be able finally surmounts the imperial rule of the US federal government.

The Sunland project team.
http://new-libertalia.co.cc/

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=615e45f8-4a6e-4e58-a2d7-84971d404419

Gee... no mention of this in the MSM... fishing expeditions or no. My sadly fav part, "The second directive says "traveling with large amounts of cash is not illegal." However, TSA said it would not release copies of the directives without a Freedom of Information request."

FOI is necessary to determine if my personal property beyond x oz. toothpaste can travel?*^%$@ What an absolute crock.


edit - and in other gov highlights today, the LA yokel who had $90K found in his freezer only got 13 years in prison. that's a record for Congressional reps. sad that nobody has been sentenced for longer.

I had never encountered the word 'classism' until I was attacked by liberals on the internet for expressing certain opinions. Here are a few examples of strange arguments I've heard:

1.) Somali pirates are poor farmers and fishermen who have been exploited by western civilization. Pirating is the only way they can gain income to feed their families. Shame on you for complaining.

2.) Parents who feed their children carbonated beverages and processed junk are often unable to afford fresh fruit and milk. It's classist to suggest we could halt the obesity and diabetes epidemic by feeding our children nutricious foods.

Apparently a 'classist' is a person who is prejudiced against 'those people'. Who are those people? Are they the poor, lower-class, misused, underpriviledged, uneducated, downtrodden members of society who, because of their wretched condition, are not to be held accoutable for their actions, therefore are beyond reproach? I often hear liberals throw around that classism word, accusing us of being intolerant because we complain about piracy and irresponsible behaviour, yet they are allowed to act elitest and classist toward the following:

-Backwards hicks from rural areas.
-Pundits who do not have the pedigree of William F. Buckley.
-Politicians who didn't graduate from an Ivy League University.
-Regular working-class people who do not consider themselves intellectuals.

Also, isn't it classist to criticise regular people for owning gas-guzzling SUVs, yet not complain about Al Gore for living in a resource draining mansion? What do you think? I apologize if this entry isn't as organized as I would have liked. It was kind of spur of the moment.

I've got some spare time, so lets just cover all the bases.

Conceal Carry: Some states have it, others don't. Some require training, others don't. Two states do just fine with no permit system at all. Most have different laws on what is "concealed" vs. what's "Open" and where and how and how many guns people can carry.

Bottom line: There isn't a difference. You're no more or less likely to be harmed, wronged, or killed by a person who is carrying lawfully no matter if they had sanctioned training, or not, or if there were discrepancy laws on how and who could be issued or not. Concealed carry is not a problem. If you have a problem with it, YOU have a problem, not us.

Also Vermont and Alaska do just fine with no permits. If you can legally own a gun, you can carry it however you want to. I have multiple permits to carry. I carry everywhere where I lawfully can. I see DOZENS of police officers in my-day-to-day. I've never been asked to verify my permit. Mostly because they don't know...or simply don't care, that I'm carrying a gun and going about my day. If you own a gun (lawfully or not) you can carry it. The permit does nothing but add additional charges for when something happens. Let's face it, if you do something illegal while carrying a gun, the anchorites, and society at large have enugh juice with the system to deal with you, permit or no. So essentially they're pointless and expensive.

Gun-Free Zones: Can you guarantee my safety? I can't. The Police can't, and they won't (just ask them). I carry a gun because I know pure safety doesn't really exist, and if I'm in danger I'll use whatever means available to me to stay safe. Part of that is my personal firearm(s).

If you restrict where I can carry you are taking the burden that I am willing to carry onto your own shoulders until I can re-arm myself and resume my personal responsibility. I hope you're fine with that, because if something happens to me, or anybody else, I'm going to do my best to hold you responsible

Guns in Bars: Just about every place restricts people from getting drunk while operating or carrying guns. Furthermore if you do anything stupid or dangerous with a gun, you're breaking the law, drunk or no. Restricting guns just because somebody MIGHT (or might not) have an adult beverage while in there is pure stupidity. Also you're creating a Gun-Free zone and making a guarantee to keep me safe while I'm in there. That's a promise you can't keep, so it's stupid and dangerous.

Gun Rationing: Care to explain to me how somebody with 2, 3, 15, 20 ect guns is MORE dangerous to you than a person with one? Crimes like Virginia Tech or the Fort Hood shooting were done with small numbers of guns (Cho from VT bought both of his guns under a one-gun-a-month law) as far as I can tell the shooters only used one of the guns they had. If you think One-gun-a-month or similar will somehow stop or hinder gun trafficking, remember that gun trafficking already breaks multiple federal laws, plus whatever additional state or local laws that may exist for any and all of the areas involved in the crime. If all these laws don't stop it, isn't it a little naive to think one more will do anything?

Gun Registration: Been tried all over the place. Has failed to accomplish anything in all of them. Also it has the additional fault that it can and has been used to confiscate property that is doing no harm.

"Assault Weapons" bans: First up this is a completely made-up term and is essentially meaningless to anybody who knows anything on how guns function. The only reason why this term is even used was because its proponents intentionally misled an uneducated public to believe these guns were able to do things they simply can't. It was founded on a lie, anybody who supports such lies either has no idea what they're talking about or is lying to you. It centers around cosmetic features like protruding pistol grips and bayonet lugs, among other things. There is no "Assault Weapons" ban in any place at any time that a lawful person cannot buy a firearm that is nearly identical to a banned one that is 100% legal.

In addition to all of this, these guns are regularly used by private security, as well as Police and other peace officer forces. Why? Because they're ideal items for personal defense. Personal defense is 100% legal. These guns are good for personal defense, therefor they should be 100% legal.

The NFA: Overall a dumb law that does nothing. It heavily restricts noise suppressors. All cars are required to have these, as well as most industrial machines and buildings. Gun clubs are under constant threat because of complaints of noise. It's safety equipment and should be used as such. Criminals can already take advantage of these devices as they can easily be built from common household equipment and with common household tools. They largely don't because just like muffled car, muffled guns still make noise. Also a suppressed gun is larger and harder to carry around than one without, lastly threatening and/or shooting people tends to get noticed no matter how quiet your gun is.

It heavily restricts guns over .50 Caliber. Care to explain to me what changes when I increase a bullet/bore diameter from 0.50 caliber to 0.51? I didn't think so. That's all this law does. Also it exempts shotguns as they have historically been larger than 0.50. Hunters put rifled barrels on shotguns all the time, and they by all intents and purposes have a larger than .50 Caliber rifle. This is not against the law, nor does it do anything more dangerous than any other gun. Pretty stupid, huh?

It restricts the length of a gun barrel on a rifle or shotgun. Of course if you build a pistol up from the same mechanical components you have have something very similar. also there are many handguns chambered in rifle or shotgun rounds, or rounds that are very similar, or more powerful. The law does nothing to these guns, and society at large has no problem with them anyway.

It restricts guns that don't look like guns. Ummm can you explain to me what about an AR-15, and FNH S2000, an M1911A1, a Glock 22, a Kel-Tec P3AT, and a Mauser C96 have in common that makes them "Look like a gun"? Guns are built to work, what they look like is irrelevant

It restricts weapons capable of full-auto fire. Honestly I can't see what the big game-changer is with this feature? Generally it means the gun needs to be less powerful or bigger and heavier, or mounted to a fixed position to be controllable, and will require the shooter to carry more ammo and reload more. I fail to see what tactical advantage they supply outside of some very specialized military applications. Because I don't see much of an advantage to them (and they're expensive to shoot) I personally don't want one. Because I don't see an advantage to them I also could care less if somebody else wanted to buy one.

As far as a criminal or terrorist attempting violence with them I'll just note the more you reload the more chances I have to return fire with my own weapon or escape to safety.

Universal background checks. I live in a state that has universal background checks. Criminals still buy and sell guns on the black market. If you live in a state that doesn't have universal background checks, criminals buy and sell guns on the black market. If they pass such a law nothing will change, except they will be violating one more law on top of the countless laws they're already violating.

The GCA: This law I have only small issues with. If somebody is so insane they need to be confined to a mental hospital. If somebody has shown a history of violence, I don't want them to have more tools to commit violence. Still why are ALL felons restricted? It's a felony to catch lobsters in my state without a license. Its a felony to own sex toys in others. It's a felony to fail to pay your taxes. If sentencing guidelines are changed it can be a felony for ANY crime, as well as now legal activities can be declared illegal and a felony. I don't see how this has any relevance to a person's right to keep and bear arms.

The saying goes "If somebody can't be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't be trusted to be in public" I agree with that statement, but sadly we don't have the man power to implement such an ideal, nor do I trust the court system to be able to determine that.

I think all people of restricted status should be able to petition the court to have their restricted status removed.

Gun/ammo serialization: Essentially already in place. These numbers are very useful for factories to have quality control on their product. Its also useful for people to keep track of their property. Its also quickly and easily defeated by hand tools. This includes "Micro-stamping" technology, which at the time of this writing has not been proven to work effectively, and can be easily removed in a short period of time.

"Safe Gun" rosters: Like any product, guns can be faulty. Just like any product if a fault is found in a gun the company that provided a faulty product is liable. Fines and lawsuits can easily ruin a company, so most companies provide high-quality and safe products. This includes guns. if a product is later found to have a defect, like most products a recall is made and done at the company's expense. Because of this all guns on the market are very safe if used properly (Most products are unsafe if used improperly, guns are no different), any place that proposes or implements a "Safe Gun" roster or testing is simply removing guns that ARE safe from the market in order to restrict how and who can buy guns.

Suicides: Yep in America about 50% of people who kill themselves use guns. I have yet to see any data that shows that by somehow removing guns from the equation will do anything to suicide rates. If people claim they want to ban guns because of suicide, ask they why are only 50% of the people who take their lives important?

Universal Gun Permitting, and blanket gun bans. Sorry, the 2nd Amendment protects our rights to keep and bear arms. If you want to push laws like this you're going to first have to repeal that Amendment. Good luck. Also gun bans and universal permitting have been passed in several states and countries. The results do not point to success.

That seems to cover most of them. I took the time to type this so you can spend your time doing more constructive things than argue an issue that is so conclusive.

Feel free to distribute the link to this post or copy and paste it at will. If you do copy and paste, or use any large part of this please be considerate of my time and attach my name to it.

Let's put this dog to Bed.

-Weer'd Beard

Nixon's plan for health reform, in his own words

Sound familiar? How exactly is the health reform bill intrinsically socialist if a Republican president was endorsing the exact same reforms 35 years ago?

In fairness to the conservatives reading this though, I am wondering why Nixon's version was slated to cost $6.9 billion versus $900 billion+ today, even with medical costs having risen way beyond normal inflation. If Nixon had managed to pull this off in '74, would it really have contained costs or would they have risen accordingly even without the cost variables related to relatively unregulated insurance companies? I think on one hand this might have helped by emphasizing preventative care over hospital care; on the other hand, new technologies since the 70's may well have driven up costs on their own. How much influence do the current practices of the health insurance industry really have on health care costs?