ManagingPrime

Not really. As Iran has shown they can be taken down. If Iran can do it, you think operators in the US could not? I'm sure there are more than a few American teenagers who you could give $10K in equipment to and they could start pulling drones out of the sky in no time. You want to really piss off the American people. Start attacking with drones. Bottom line. It's just not going to happen.

Funny piece by Brett Arends from today: To be read in the voice of Paul Harvey. And on the eighth day God looked down on his planned paradise and said, “I need someone who can flip this for a quick buck.” So God made a banker. God said, “I need someone who doesn’t grow anything or make anything but who will borrow money from the public at 0% interest and then lend it back to the public at 2% or 5% or 10% and pay himself a bonus for doing so.” So God made a banker. God said, “I need someone who will take money from the people who work and save, and use that money to create a dotcom bubble and a housing bubble and a stock bubble and an oil bubble and a commodities bubble and a bond bubble and another stock bubble, and then sell it to people in Poughkeepsie and Spokane and Bakersfield, and pay himself another bonus.” So God made a banker. God said, “I need someone to build homes in the swamps and deserts using shoddy materials and other people’s money, and then use these homes as collateral for a Ponzi scheme he can sell to pensioners in California and Michigan and Sweden. I need someone who will then foreclose on those homes, kick out the occupants, and switch off the air conditioning and the plumbing, and watch the houses turn back into dirt. And then pay himself another bonus.” God said, “I need someone to lend money to people with bad credit at 30% interest in order to get his stock price up, and then, just before the loans turn bad, cash out his stock and walk away. And who, when asked later, will, with a tearful eye, say the government made him do it.” God said, “And I need somebody who will tell everyone else to stand on their own two feet, but who will then run to the government for a bailout as soon as he gets into trouble — and who will then use that bailout money to help elect a Congress that will look the other way. And then pay himself another bonus.” So God made a banker. http://www.marketwatch.com/Story/story/print?guid=00E189E0-6FE2-11E2-A22F-002128040CF6

Why do I get the impression someone came up with the concept while watching The Walking Dead?

I think you are confusing this thread with another.

I don't see why he hiked her bail in the first place. Am I missing something? He said, "bye. Bye." And she responded "adios"...my guess is he found that response disrespectful, but not quite disrespectful enough to charge her with contempt...thus the extra 5k. Seems a bit provacative. I'm curious to know; if she appeals does the judge have to explain his reasoning?

The extra 5k for the adios was bs. It would be very difficult for many people to not tell him to f himself.

defendants can be sued civilly and prosecuted criminally for the same infraction. happens all the time. Problem is we have a DOJ that is unwilling to prosecute. I remember quite clearly the suicides, bankruptcies and divorces that happened as a result of the "pop". When I was brand new in the indusrty I thought it was absolutely retarded to assume 3% appreciation forever. Yet, "the smartest men in the room" made a "mistake"....bullshit. It was premeditated fraud pure and simple. The goverment was in on it too, so I have absolutely no faith that justice will be served. Iceland really had the right idea.

Chill Winston! This is nothing new. Delta force was killing americans, in america, back in 94...now we've just got nifty drones. Nothing to see here. Carry on.

You should try to find better associates.

I for one would rather worry about 50k of those type of people armed instead of 270 million of them armed. Thats all. We just agree to disagree on that. You accept that there is no way to get rid of stupidity in America, but think they should still be allowed weapons. To me that is like accepting that kids will do unsafe shit, and so just leaving pots of boiling water all over instead of out of reach.....because hey you "can't fix stupid". No one is worried about what "law abiding" read as (relatively sane and balanced) people are doing.....we are worried about this lady..... 1. Felons can't legally own firearms. That rules out a lot of people like this lady. 2. Guns are not exactly cheap. That also excludes a lot of people like this lady. Frankly, I'm not much concerned about people like that woman having guns. Running around with a mouth like that and a gun I doubt she would be above ground or in the general population long at all. If only "law abiding" and relatively sane people are allowed to own guns you might as well ban them all. There are so many laws on the books it's nearly impossible for the average person to not break some law in the course of a day....same goes for sanity. Send your average person to 10 psychiatrists and I'm sure they would come out with a few diagnosed issues. People just need to relax. Violence crimes have been steadily decreasing. However, if anything, this recent gun debate has reminded all of us that the inner cities have a ways to go.

Only surprised that there are not more cases like this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4137506.stm

Of course not. Republicans have the upmost respect for the constiution. They would never take away the rights of americans in the name of public safety.

Poor analogy Per your example guns are more like reserves Hope you have one when you need one Except reserves save more people than they kill. Unlike guns. Ask Nancy Lanza - oh, wait, you can't. It's fairly easy to come up with a kill save ratio with reserves. Curious as to how you've arrived at the conclusion that guns kill more people than they save. I'm not aware of any data that would allow someone to come to a solid conslusion that guns kill more people than they save...or the inverse.

So why do gun buyers want to pay extra for the scary stuff that's non functional? Rambo complex? Penis inadequacy? The guns in question are very fuctional. . But the previous poster said the plastic scary looking stuff isn't; the rifle underneath is what's functional. You guys need to agree on one story and stick to it. I agree. When it comes to restricting types of weapons that are already generally available I think the party line should be a simple and conscise "Fuck You." But, both sides seem to bask in the rhetoric....

C movie?

Bunch of old guys with little concept of what real fun is. It's unfortunate I know. But, the right to kill people does seem to be protected. Very strange bunch, those guys.

So why do gun buyers want to pay extra for the scary stuff that's non functional? Rambo complex? Penis inadequacy? The guns in question are very fuctional. Some of us have more money than time or interest in dicking around with modifying a platform to work around regulations. For the record. You can get an AR in .308 and that gun would be banned as well. Damn near any long gun with a 30 round capacity is a GREAT killing machine from 15 feet to 300+. In lieu of using them to kill people they are a lot of fun to shoot. Otherwise, they (and any other gun for that matter) are a potential liability that must be mitigated....by the owners. An honest debate should address the type situations where a citizen owning an "assault" weapon would be adventagous.... you know, other than killing little kids. But don't let honest debate get in your way. I'm sure there are countless instances where people have won over the otherside by comparing them to B-movie characters with small penises.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/shear_bravery_beats_guns_feds_d9BanDpupuVezePd6trYoM What's really awesome is that there is some manager out there that has probally drilled this scenario with their team. Ohhhh, how I would pay to be a fly on the wall. Amusing as this piece may be, I've got a better suggestion for what to keep in your desk......

It's logical. Another idea to ponder. CDC does research showing that gun owners are 15% more likely to end up needing emergency care vs. non gun owners. Insurance rates allowed to be increased for gun owners. Logical as well. Ohhh the tangled webs we weave when people give up personal responsibility.

Who cares about the reason. The writing seems to be on the wall. It's the end result that I'm concerned with. As long as single, married-straight, married-gay are treated fairly and equally under the law. It's all good. In regards to this issue, It's not the governments place to "encorage" any type of arrangement (or lack thereof) between two parties. If people stay focued on that and work out a fair solution we can see gay marriage legalized in the not so distant future... if the issue is framed as just way to give "legitmacy" to gay couples while ignoring the economic impacts, the issue does not have a snowballs chance. For the record, I would like to see any "benefits" removed from the equation. A single person, gay couple, straight couple, etc. should all be treated fairly under the law. In short, for me, It's very much an economic issue.

Remove the tax benefit more married couples and gay marriage is on the table. I can't really see it happening any other way. There must be equal treatment under the law, but the government also really needs to pinch its pennies... not an easy fight.

Unless you can demonstrate to me with real statistics, and not just a few random anecdotes in a population of 300 million, that it's not a solution in search of an actual problem, then I think it's the former; or at the very least (setting aside the "meth head" strawman), it will effectively prevent more women in that state from being able to obtain an abortion. As I said above, if such a law were enacted in my jurisdiction, my legal advice to any clients who are doctors or work in abortion clinics would be to never participate in another abortion again in that state due to the newly-enhanced risk of harassment-by-prosecution presented by that law. Even if a person is ultimately acquitted - after arrest, administrative license "review" (and probable suspension pending trial, with reciprocity in every other state he/she is licensed in, which is standard procedure), prosecution and a full trial - the real-world cost to that person - financial, social, career - could be devastating and permanent. Anyone who thinks that risk would not have a drastic chilling effect on abortions in that state is being very naive. I can't and I agree, but that does not seem to stop the other myriads of new laws every year. The major effect that I would foresee would be some policy, if not already in place, of taking and keeping DNA samples of aborted fetuses, as a form of liability protection. That said, I think it would be an extra tool for prosecutors to purse rapists with. It would be political suicide if someone tried to use the law to try and make some moral statements regarding abortion. While there are some "Progressives" and "Conservatives" who would like to paint the abortion issue as highly divisive among the American people...it's not. It's just another issue that dumb ass democrats and republicans still like to debate over, even though the issue has been settled. The majority of Americans support a woman's right to have the same, if not increased, access to abortions. Period. A more interesting debate would be, is abortion a good thing for society? Unfortunately, the "pro-abortion" camp is still debating the issue within the context of quality of life and equality for women while the "anti-abortion" camp is using moral arguments like murder, etc. Both camps seem to be afraid to look at abortion from a purely economic standpoint because it's seems to close to eugenics, recognize abortion is a good thing for all of us and move on.

Déjà vu!! I have to remind myself that this board is full of partisans. Let's all tacitly agree that the VAST majority of humans don't condone rape. Let's assume that those evil republicans, for the most part, would like to see that rapists don't go unpunished. Currently, if a woman is raped by someone she knows and does not immediately report it (read: rape investigation, hospital rape kits, etc). How would the prosecution have a case against the alleged perpetrator with no physical evidence? Let's assume the magic juices do in fact flow when a woman is raped and god does His thing and she becomes "with child". That DNA in that fetus/child is now admissible evidence... i would think that the DNA evidence would go along way to helping a prosecutor get a rape convention when other DNA evidence is not present. I personally don't like new laws, but I also don't care for rapists and I think that women having free access to abortions has great social benefits. So for me it boils down to this: What is more likely? Will it have the net effect of making it more difficult for my favorite meth head with little future prospects from having an abortion or will it put more rapists in prison? I think it's the latter.

Yeah. During a prosecution that should have never have happened. That's a problem that comes part and parcel with nearly all laws. What's the real problem? Is abortion really such a sacrosanct subject that even a law like raises ire? For the record, I'm VERY pro-abortion.

The prosecution would still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to cover up a crime.