Probably find they contributed to Otter's campaign also.
Money owns and runs politics in the USA. Does anyone refuse this fact, still?
Great. Just what we need, more government over reach, and this time at state and local level. Gear up folks, lock, load, and don't be afraid.
The writing is on the wall. This form of discrimination is almost history.
Just makes me want to buy local all the more.
These employees will be better off because they can get better insurance for less money through the health care exchange. By company directive, employees working less than 30 hours make up 70% of Walmart's total employees. Only 2% chose to take part in the program because frequently, their share of the insurance cost exceeded their total paycheck.
If only the Houston PD had a MRAP donated by the ARMY....this never would have happened.
It is a bit pathetic if these cave sites haven't been long ago placed on the National Register. True recent radiocarbon dating and aDNA advances have added much to our knowledge of the inhabitants, but the importance of the caves has been widely recognized by American archaeologists since well before the National Historic Preservation Act itself was passed near half a century ago. If the National Park Service & state agencies are trying to spin this as a new discovery, they are just trying to cover their own slothful behinds.
The judge has said he intends to retire when his term expires at the end of the year. So the judge will retire with a full pension paid for by taxpayers and will not be held negligent in any way? Sounds like something that would only happen in America.
Tactics exist to successfully NOT repay private student loans and credit card debt. Author “The Art of Debt Guerrilla Warfare, how to beat debt collectors when your back is against the wall.”
nm saw that they said 2008! Huuzaah!
Wasn't there a year when mrs. clinton already made an attempt to run for president, but she was ousted because of her crybaby bs?
The question that the deep state controllers are undoubtedly asking here is "will this particular puppet give us the most bang (no pun intended) for the buck?"
In other words, "Will she further our agenda enough to have her be next?"
Somewhere in Switzerland:
"Slick Willie did a great job of furthering our plans, but Junior Shrub, with the guiding hand of Minister Cheney, really got things moving."
"Our plan to completely disgust the sheep by, cynically, sticking Mr. Hope and Change in there, has seemed to work like a charm, so it should be a cake walk for us this time around to toss any other cynical option we want for the top spot."
we've slotted a southern cracker: Carter
we've slotted an actor: Reagan
we've slotted a spook: Bush senior
we've slotted a horndog: Clinton
we've slotted a moron: Bush junior
we've slotted a black homosexual: Obama"
"After this last one, how is it even possible to take cynicism to the next level?"
"It's hard for most of us to even believe that we had to plug in (no pun intended) this last one in order to get the sheep ready for a woman, but this country is still getting used to getting the women out of the kitchen, so it was necessary."
"This particular puppet may actually give us a bit more military projection than old Hope and Change (no pun intended), although he took us exactly where he was directed to."
"After all, previous women that have been head of state, have demonstrated a very desirable hawkish approach to advancing our agenda....I'm thinking Thatcher and Indira Ghandi now."
"Maybe we should see if Billary can raise some hell like we're ready to see now."
"I can't wait to see those 'Billary For President' stickers."
"By the way, any VP lackey will work, as long as they're bought and paid for."
"Let's have a toast to our next American puppet!"
I find the answer to the title of this article to be rather obvious. Politicians are trying to ban the scary looking guns because there is a chance they may get that to pass. There have been enough mass shootings and media fear mongering at this point that politicians can push a ban on assault weapons without losing to much face, some people even want them to. At least, as Sparafucile so beautifully stated, they could if anyone could agree on what an assault weapon is.
Trying to ban handguns or create an all encompassing firearm ban would be absolute political suicide. This is America, we have the right to bear arms, and we love our guns. If pigs sprouted wings and started to fly and such a bill we to pass, it would be mass chaos in the country. You would have millions of irate gun owners. Would you honestly want to be the one to be in charge mitigating that damage or retrieving their weapons?
It's not rocket science Hell would have to freeze over before you were able to ban handguns or all guns in America.
The story starts off with, and bases its entire premise of public support on a preposterous notion: "Over the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned."
If you can find three people in ten who can agree on what an "assault weapon" is, then perhaps you can start to claim that people want something done with them.
I bet if you asked most Americans if DiHydrogen Monoxide should be regulated by the FDA, most would agree.
Why do people keep blaming democrats, liberals, republicans , pagans, etc. It seems like people after time get sick of getting rammed by the donkey so they choose the lesser evil and suck off the elephant. Then when the elephant rams them they go back and suck off the donkey. It seems like to replace them would only encourage the rat and the snake to step in and do the same. How about figuring that out instead of all of this nonsence.
How is he misinformed? Thats just like telling some one oh yeah..... no you!
Anywho the citizens already have a disadvantage when it compares to fire rate. Citizens are already legally bound to only posess semi-automatic weapons, Wheras I am sure that any serious forces will be using fully automatic weapons against citizens.
Watcher...you are misinformed.
Well, pocket aces. maybe society just needs to grow up and accept that as long as a very few get to control power AND take all the wealth we are going to have crime. Maybe providing enough jobs to cover the population of the country, and assuring those jobs pay enough for people to actually LIVE on without working multiple jobs would eliminate the need for anyone to live off the taxpayers, PERIOD. But I suspect you are not willing to back such bold ideas, you'd rather blame the poor for their predicament, instead of addressing the real causes. I bet you vote Republican because you think that working actually means you can make it on your own. Guns should be legal, but you should need a license, you should need insurance, and you should need training...JUST LIKE CARS, big rigs, airplanes...and other machines that can cause death and injury.
The push to ban scary looking guns is a conjuring trick devised by devout anti-gunners in and out of government who will settle for banning some guns on their way to banning them all.
Since it's a given that the ultimate goal here is to ban all firearms, regardless of what the slick talking 'gun control' proponents say, let's take a look under the hood here to uncover the real motivation for this, using the tried and true question 'Cui bono ?'
Once firearms are banned for non-military and non-police use, the local, state and federal governments, along with organized and free-lance criminals, will have an overwhelming monopoly on violence and control in this country.
So all of these groups will definitely benefit from the ban, while everyone else will potentially lose in the equation, since they'll always be on the wrong end of the barrel.
It's been repeatedly demonstrated all over the world for hundreds of years that the pie hole is no match for the gun barrel, despite what the optimistic dreamers claim.
Even though most aware people realize that the military and police do actually have a virtual monopoly on violence and do have some weapons waiting in the closet that are potentially worse than brandishing firearms, the ability of citizens to keep firearms acts as a modest check on the over-application of violence and control by some overzealous enforcers and certainly also keeps a check on potential perpetrators.
Since the vast majority of the citizens have already shown that they are willing to give up their freedoms in order to feel they are safe from the current 'Goldstein' (the 1984 bogeyman) creation, it's doubtful that, there will ever be any kind of uprising that would require weapons parity with those who currently have a monopoly on violence.
And thus it's clear that this whole debate on so-called 'assault' rifles is really just smoke that distracts from the real issues that need to be addressed.
And who is it that benefits from this misdirection?
© 2017 Boise Weekly
Website powered by Foundation