kchsload

Sorry, had a Sean Hannity moment. Figured if I repeated it enough you'd believe too. That's politicking, they knew there was a 0% chance of that bill passing ( It wouldn't pass in California). Same as when the MI Repubs proposed a bill that would make proposing any new gun control related bill a crime. The only sounds echoing in the woods I make are from the three dozen rifles in my home in the US. Which of these blatant and tyrannical Executive Orders Obama singed are tying to takeaway our guns? Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions: 1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system. 2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system. 3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system. 4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. 5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. 6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers. 7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign. 8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission). 9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. 10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make itwidely available to law enforcement. 11. Nominate an ATF director. 12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations. 13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. 14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. 15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effectiveuse of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to developinnovative technologies. 16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. 17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities. 18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers. 19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education. 20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover. 21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges. 22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations. 23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Repeat after me: Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment!

Rainbow Conspiracy!!

Israeli sniper posts a pic of a child in a scope online. http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-sniper-posts-photo-child-crosshairs-163924256--abc-news-topstories.html

I don't know, do you watch Fox despite the fact that you're aware you're being misinformed? There are plenty on misinformed people on both sides, but why is it in both studies (the second one is below) Fox viewers scored the lowest? You're right. But when a professor's students as a whole perform worse than those of other professors, there is a problem. I dislike all cable news. Especially the ones that claim to be "fair and balanced" when it is overtly obvious it is not. I don't watch it, but at least MSNBC doesn't broadcast its programs under the guise of balanced news. Their viewers know they're getting a liberal bias but Fox viewers think they are getting a neutral view. Sans the misinformation aspect, I suppose this is my biggest problem with them, they're not what they claim so hard to be: balanced. I would have much less of an issue with Fox if they would just admit their programming is the mouth piece of the Republican party (much like MSNBC is that of the Democrats). Not saying people shouldn't watch it, but they should be aware of the product they are given. I agree, I would have liked to have seen a wider sample of the population. However, the results of this survey back up another survey conducted by the University of Maryland in late 2010.

I'm not attempting to defend any news network. In my opinion, the sooner people wake up and realize that 24 hour, ideologically based "news" is not news at all, but highly opinionated pundits that are paid to pass along their views as "facts," the better off this country will be. Having said this, Fox seems to have the unique ability to misinform their viewers and actually make them stupider. [quote http://www.forbes.co...-poll-suggests/ Fox News Viewers Uninformed, NPR Listeners Not, Poll Suggests A poll by Farleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey showed that of all the news channels out there, Fox News viewers are the least informed. People were asked questions about news habits and current events in a statewide poll of 600 New Jersey residents recently. Results showed that viewers of Sunday morning news shows were the most informed about current events, while Fox News viewers were the least informed. In fact, FDU poll results showed they were even less informed than those who say they don’t watch any news at all. Readers of The New York Times, USA Today and listeners to National Public Radio were better informed about international events than other media outlets. In one major example, New Jersey poll participants were questioned about the outcome of the so-called Arab Spring uprisings in North Africa earlier in the year. A total of 53% of respondents know that Egyptians were successful in overthrowing dictator Hosni Mubarak. Also, 48% know that the Syrian uprising has thus far been unsuccessful in ousting Assad. But on balance, Fox News viewers were 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who were not TV news viewers. Fox News viewers were also 6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government than those who watch no news, suggesting a daily dose of sound bytes from CNN at the gym, and headlines from GoogleNews were enough to surpass what average Fox viewers polled knew about current events. Fox News is the leading cable news channel. “Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News,” said Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson and an analyst for the PublicMind Poll. “Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all.” The kicker is that MSNBC didn’t do all that much better. In one question, some 11% of MSNBC viewers actually believed that Occupy Wall Streetprotesters were Republicans compared to just 3% of Fox viewers. “Ideological media does a very poor job overall,” Cassino told Forbes. “They don’t challenge people’s assumptions. In traditional news, you will find that more often than not, there actually is a correct answer and there is no gray area. People who tune into ideological media are motivated to hear their side of the debate and so you can have someone who watches MSNBC be so used to hearing about protests coming from the right that they automatically believe that Occupy is mostly a Republican protest.” Occupy Wall Street leaders are not in support of any political party. On international news, Fox viewers were by far the least likely to know that the Egyptian protests led to the resignation of Hosni Mubarek, followed by MSNBC in a distant second for least informed. See: Some News Leaves People Knowing Less–Farleigh Dickinson University, poll results and methodology]

I have no idea how you managed to turn those quotes of Obama's into, "###### the media and congress! Give me all the power!" Sounds like something Sean Hannity or other "Fair and Balanced" 'journalists' would say.

Super sonic, paddle busting balls

I have no words...

May have been already posted on the site but I couldn't find it. Dick Hoyt, Retired ANG Ltc. running marathons, triathlons and Iron Man competitions with his disabled son. Oh, and he's in his 70's. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roZrT_tciKA

No worries, thank you for taking the time out to do so. Got it. Thank you.

Thank you for the insight. I'm currently in the inactive reserve, I was a loadmaster in the reserves but will very possibly be looking for a pilot gig when I return to the States this summer, so either way it's going to be on my own dime. My Mandarin is passable so I don't foresee an issue while actually getting the procedure done. My biggest concern is if all the paperwork is in Mandarin, it's not so much an issue to get it translated by a translation agency but if the AF will accept the official translations as suitable documentation (I would hope so as the State Department will accept translated academic credentials, but you know...). In addition to the cost advantage I want get the procedure done as soon as possible in order to start the one year clock. As far as I know, most units won't even look at you until you have completed a one year post op check. The sooner that starts the sooner I can interview. Is one more likely to get a waiver if they had PRK over LASIK? On another note, is there an AF form that I should bring to the doctor here in Taiwan to fill out if I do get the procedure, or do I just hang on to everything and then hand it over for review when it comes time to file for a waiver? Thanks again.

She didn't think this through, oops: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utExmrU8oAo

How does the AF feel about Lasik overseas, particularly Taiwan? As long as I have all my paperwork in order does anyone foresee any issues for a wavier? The machinery they use is the same as back home, as is the pre and post op exams but at about 1/2 the price, so I might as well get is done while I'm here.

Just came across this. If the Il-76 and C-17 were to have a one night stand it would make the Chinese Y-20. Rumored to have roughly the same capabilities as the -17 but will need years of testing since the Chinese have little to no experience designing heavies. When it does turn operational it will fill one of the PLA's largest gaps: projection and mobility. Currently, China is lacking any long range mobility, to the point that when it came time to evacuate Chinese embassy personal out of Libya last year, Beijing had to charter several private ships to pick them up. Pakistan's military boards really seem to be following the development of the Y-20.

This isn't just a problem in the military. When I lived in Beijing there where tons of cases of foreigners abusing the locals, for example: To make things worse the locals were already pissed at prior incident a week before but granted, he got what he probably deserved.The girl's saying "I don't want it" and "I don't know him" in the beginning." After the beat down they're saying "fu*k you're mother," and calling him "his mothers c*nt" among other things. Difference here is he's not there representing his country per se. He was arrested and deported a week or two later.

How ######ing stupid can people be? To be fair she does look like she's on something. http://www.huffingto..._n_2236812.html

A classic case of when one (or a few in this case) of us shlts our pants, we're all wearing diapers. Have to admit though, recent incidents involving US mil personal seems to be getting out of hand. Sucks to be there. http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2012/12/03/after-hours-prohibition-u-s-military-tightens-drinking-rules-in-japan/?mod=WSJ_hp_Asia_EditorsPicks

New article today in the NYT on the F-35 behemoth. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/in-federal-budget-cutting-f-35-fighter-jet-is-at-risk.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp

The communist party will be lucky to be around by 2045. The way the Chinese economy is cooling off there's talk about Xi Jinping being the last Communist President of China. But that's all heresy. 7% is the magic number for the Chinese economy, any growth less than that and were going to start seeing higher unemployment leading to lots of free time to scheme up crazy revolutionary ideas. Not what the CCP wants.

Interesting article from the New York Times, not sure how much of it is new info but it mentions issues and findings I haven't heard of thus far. (Granted, I haven't been following it too closely.)

Sharing the same real estate? China shares a common border with the two countries but that's about it. Russia is a European/North Asian country, India is a South West/Central Asian country while China is a North/South East Asian country. Not geographically the same real estate. Russia isn't competing for resources, they have tons and export tons as its a major part of the Russian GDP. As this is a platform designed to "counter China," Russia is not worried. India and Russia have a decent relationship that goes back decades, Moscow is comfortable enough with an emerging New Delhi be selling large weapons to and conducting joint research and development with them. It wouldn't surprise me if they had a hand in the rocket launch in some way or another. New Delhi is doing this to pacify its people and show them they could put up a fight with Beijing if need be (they can't). Both nations have a public role to fill: New Delhi is looking proud and flipping the bird while Beijing is doing it's "we condemn the launch, we're still a bigger bad ass then them" speech, everyone will have a role to play to the masses and then get on with business as normal. If a conflict is to break out between China and India it will be in the Indian Ocean over oil deposits or trade routes; the land disputes are more of an issue for India than China and a have cooled off significantly, neither nation wants to fight over it and haven't done so since 1962; it would distract them from their primary focus of economic development. Just because they all have nukes doesn't mean they can or will use them, people tend freak out over this as if nukes are the first thing to be used in a crisis. Further, China has a "no fist use policy," and India's are geared toward Pakistan. While this is a pretty new toy to have in the arsenal, it's not going to change much in the grand scheme of things.

Ehh, doesn't change anything.

I believe the second part is the primary reason. Read somewhere only 30% of donations are actually going to the cause. Nevertheless the tone of the video disturbs me, "I made a promise 10 years ago to a boy I just met, help me push the government to act on and fulfill this promise." If Kony is captured credit better go to the troops of whichever nation found him. Invisible Children need not bother claiming it. Got a Hungarian buddy whose father makes his own palinka, pure daemon nectar...

Something just isn't right about the video, one guy is sensitive about the subject due to his travels in the region so he makes a video full of emotion and sad stories with "facts" in an attempt to coerce and manipulate the people to pressure the US government to send troops. Use some critical thinking if you watch th is video, realize its a beggar asking to use US troops and tax payer dollars for his personal agenda. The people that made this movie are the some people that condemned the Iraq invasion, NATO intervention in Libya etc for essentially that some crime Kony has committed but now its OK to go to Uganda because you know someone being that is directly suffering from the LRA? Hypocrisy... He ought to use his video donations to hire mercenaries if it means that much to him, but ###### him for asking to send troops to do something he's not willing to do himself.