kchsload
-
Posts
64 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by kchsload
-
-
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!!
-
1
-
-
Israeli sniper posts a pic of a child in a scope online.
-
So I watch Fox News...am I 'stupid' or misinformed? Or is it that there are plenty of stupid and misinformed people in our country, regardless of where they receive their news source? Just because students fail a college class doesn't mean that the course material isn't being delivered in a factual and effective way.
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?
Just because students fail a college class doesn't mean that the course material isn't being delivered in a factual and effective way.
You're right. But when a professor's students as a whole perform worse than those of other professors, there is a problem.
I get your distaste for ideological news sources (I hope you put the ones I've listed above into that bucket as well), but don't put your faith in polls either.
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.
The same could be said for pollsters. In this case, they sampled 612 people in NJ and claim this is representative of Fox viewers nationwide. I get your distaste for ideological news sources (I hope you put the ones I've listed above into that bucket as well), but don't put your faith in polls either.
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.
http://www.worldpubl...n_Dec10_rpt.pdf
...Furthermore, those who had greater exposure to news sources were generally better informed. In the great majority of cases, those with higher levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation. There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue. Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:
most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (8 points more likely)
most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
the economy is getting worse (26 points)
most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.
There were cases with some other news sources as well.
Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates.
Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP. All of these effects were statistically significant.
-
You mean like the ones on CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and CNN?
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]
-
The House is an impediment to his agenda and prevents the American people from getting what they want.
The Senate is an impediment to his agenda and prevents the American people from getting what they want.
The Media is an impediment to his agenda and prevents the American people from getting what they want.
He requires more executive power to give the American people what they want.
Scary shit.
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.
-
1
-
-
I'll PM you tomorrow... sorry I am caught up with something right now.
No worries, thank you for taking the time out to do so.
There is a form; it looks like this (the first page):
http://www.specialta...om/pjcctprk.pdf
Although I think that is an older version.
You just have your doctor fill it out for each follow-up checkup to keep track over the course of your 1-year post-op period.
I had my doctor fill out that form, and I provided that form plus all the other documentation that was generated by the clinic, at my FC1. I was told that was all they needed. However I'm still waiting for final approval on my waiver so take it with a grain of salt I guess...
Got it. Thank you.
-
Are you active duty? On active flying status? If so, then you need to contact your flight medicine clinic and apply for permission to proceed, at which time they will 'vet' your eye center and tell if you if you can proceed or not. If you are anything but an FC I pilot, they will probably say yes. If you proceed on your own dime for whatever reason without USAFSAM permission to proceed, they will not be happy. I don't see why anybody would do that though, since it is essentially free (small ADSC) to get it done.
If you are a civilian and thinking about pilot training, I highly suggest using a US based center. During your physical, they will go over all of your documentation thoroughly. Although they are competent physicians over there in Taiwan, often times the language barrier and sheer distance from the homeland causes documentation problems, which will turn into a problem with your physical. Also see below:
The PRK vs LASIX debate for AF flying duty is too in depth to go into here. The AF still prefers PRK for pilots in most cases for a variety of reasons. I recommend that all flyers and flying applicants obtain a personal consultation with a service specific flight surgeon to obtain the latest recommendation on which one to obtain, how to proceed, etc.
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.
-
-
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.
The Il-476 is a modified version of the Russian-built Ilyushin I-76. (Internet photo)
The Russian built Il-476 will be purchased by the People's Liberation Army Air Force to create a strategic transport fleet before the China-designed Y-20 four-engine transport starts its test flight, reports Hong Kong-based Phoenix Television.
Even though China's aviation industries have spent years to develop mid-air refueling, early warning systems, electronic warfare, command and control aircraft and fifth-generation stealth fighters such as the J-20, the PLA Air Force understands that the strategic transport aircraft with a similar capability to the US C-17 will also be crucial for China to project its force overseas.
China purchased 34 Il-76MD from Russia in 2005. Four additional Il-78MKs with air refueling capability were also ordered that year.
Since China needs more transport aircraft than Russia can provide, Y-20 four-engine turbojet transports with a design similar to both the C-17 and Il-76, were made by Xi'an Aircraft Industrial Corporation in 2009. Without enough experience in developing long range transport aircraft, military analysts stated that the Y-20 will unable to begin its service with the Chinese air force for five years. To fill in the gap, Rosoboronexport, Russia's state-run arms exporter, suggested that the Chinese government purchase its Il-476 transports, according to Moscow-based Interfax.
Based on the designation of Il-76, the Il-476 will enter the service of Russian air force between 2014 and 2015. Before the Y-20 is available, China will need dozens of large transports like the Il-476 to participate in UN peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. For this reason, China may become the first foreign customer for the Russian built Il-476. With enough capability to fly 850 kilometers in one hour and a total range of 7,000 kilometers, the test flights of Il-476 will also begin this September.
-
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
Hannah Sabata, the "chick bank robber."
A Nebraska teen allegedly celebrated her bank robbery on YouTube, flashing money and what appears to be drugs in a video powered by Green Day music.
Hannah Sabata, 19, was arrested last week after she allegedly stole a car and held up a Waco bank, the York New-Times reports.
In the YouTube video, titled "http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lAZoo5KRMZ4," Sabata uses captions and a large notepad to gloat about stealing a "shiny new" Pontiac Grand Am. She states she robbed a bank "with a gun, a pillow case, and a note."
Authorities say that Sabata entered the Cornerstone Bank in Waco on Nov. 29 andhanded tellers a slip of paper that read, "You are being robbed! NO ALARMS OR LOCKS OR PHONES or INK BAGS! I have a loaded gun. You have 2 minutes," NTV reports.
She claims she stole $6,256.
The video description, posted via user Jellee Beanie, reads:
"I just stole a car and robbed a bank. Now I'm rich, I can pay off my college financial aid and tomorrow i'm going for a shopping spree. Bite me. I love GREENDAY!"Sabata appears to be wearing the same clothes she wore during her alleged stick up, the New York Daily News reports.
"I told my mom today was the best day of my life," she writes in the video. "She just thinks I met a new boy."
In the clip, Sabata claims that she executed the heist because she is a "victim of the government."
"The whole system is just a game," she writes. "The government stole my baby ... and they took him away before I could even take him home ... and they charged me with child neglect ... I may not be a mother anymore but I can still find purpose."
The York County Sheriff's Department announced that it recovered all but $30, USA Today reports.
-
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.
-
New article today in the NYT on the F-35 behemoth.
-
So what happens in 2045?
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.)
JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS, Va. — Capt. Jeff Haney was at 51,000 feet on a night flight above Alaska in November 2010 when the oxygen system in his F-22 Raptor fighter jet shut down, restricting his ability to breathe as he plummeted faster than the speed of sound into the tundra below. His plane burned a crater into the ice, froze 40 feet beneath the surface and was not fully recovered until the spring thaw.
Captain Haney’s death unnerved the elite community of F-22 pilots, as did a series of episodes over the next 18 months in which an alarming number of them experienced symptoms of hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation. The Air Force grounded the Raptor, the jewel of its fleet, but could not find anything wrong, so it put the jet back in the air — only to have the episodes increase. In May, two seasoned pilots took the extraordinary step of telling CBS News’s “60 Minutes” that they refused to fly the plane.
Last month, a breakthrough seemed to come at last. Investigators believed that a malfunctioning pressure vest was restricting pilots’ breathing and that narrow oxygen hoses were leaking and not delivering enough air. Pilots began flying without the vest, and, buoyed by three months without an episode, Air Force officials told the news media that they might be close to a solution.
But last week, as Air Force officials escorted a reporter and a photographer to the Langley flight line to watch F-22s roaring on and off the runway for an ostensible good-news story, it happened again. A pilot pulled his emergency oxygen handle sometime after landing because of what the Air Force characterized as “discomfort” from intermittent air flow into the pilot’s mask during flight. The Air Force is investigating but so far has said little.
Senator Mark Warner, for one, is outraged by the episode. “I’ve been pressing them about the explanation for this, and we still don’t have an answer,” he said in an interview on Friday. “We don’t even have the full details yet.”
Mr. Warner, a Virginia Democrat who has taken up the cause of the two pilots who spoke to “60 Minutes” because they are constituents who fly out of Langley, said he was equally frustrated that the Air Force was only now coming to the conclusion that there might be a problem with the jet’s oxygen flow.
“Wouldn’t this have been the first question to be asked?” he said.
The F-22, which at $400 million is the world’s most expensive jet, was conceived during the cold war when the Air Force wanted a plane to counter improvements in Russian MIGs. But the Soviet Union disappeared long before Lockheed Martin built the first F-22 prototype in 1997. By then critics had branded it a relic.
It was not until 2009 that Congress, pushed by President Obama and the defense secretary at the time, Robert M. Gates, agreed to limit the number of planes it would pay for to 187, the number now in service.
Although the stealthy jet is a technological wonder that can fly higher, faster and with more maneuvers than any other, it has never been used in combat. (A squadron of F-22s is deployed to a base in the Persian Gulf as a deterrent to Iran.) The plane sat out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the conflict in Libya because it was not needed.
“Last I checked, the Taliban air force was pretty small,” said Richard L. Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va. But Mr. Aboulafia, who compares the F-22 to a Maserati and the newer and relatively less expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighterto a BMW sedan, said he supported the F-22 as a hedge against future developments in Chinese aircraft.
The Air Force says that since the plane was put into operation in 2005, pilots have experienced 21 unexplained episodes of hypoxialike symptoms. At least three episodes occurred before Captain Haney’s death. (His crash is not included in the 21 episodes because the Air Force counts it as one of 15 additional “explained” hypoxialike events — anything from a loose air hose to a total failure of the life-support system.)
It was not until 10 unexplained episodes had occurred that the Air Force took the drastic step in May 2011 of grounding the entire F-22 fleet. Investigators combed through the planes, focusing on whether there were contaminants in the oxygen system that might be making pilots disoriented. They found nothing conclusive. But as a precaution — and for further testing — the Air Force gave pilots devices to monitor their oxygen levels during flight and installed charcoal filters in the air system to block potential poisons.
The plane resumed flying in September, but within six months there were 11 more unexplained episodes, and some pilots were coughing up black sputum. Ground crews that worked in the cockpit were also affected. Air Force doctors determined that at the very least the charcoal filter was restricting airflow. It was removed in late April, shortly before the “60 Minutes” episode was shown.
Within days of the broadcast, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta ordered the Air Force to keep all F-22 flights within safe proximity of landing strips — or about 30 minutes of flight time from an air base — and to speed up the installation of an automatic backup oxygen system.
By that time the focus of the Air Force had shifted to the quantity, rather than the quality, of the oxygen in the jet. Working with NASA and an elite Navy diving unit, investigators determined in recent weeks that pilot vests meant to inflate as a safeguard against sudden decompression at high altitudes were staying inflated throughout the flights. The result was more pressure on pilots who were already breathing heavily from powerful G-forces in training for aerial combat.
“This is a lot like a corset, except that it’s around my chest,” said Maj. Gen. Charles Lyon, an Air Force pilot who is leading a new investigation into the jet’s problems. In addition, General Lyon said his inquiry had discovered that F-22 pilots were gulping air in physically demanding situations, like practice dogfights, at higher rates than the plane’s oxygen system could produce.
By mid-June, the Air Force ordered pilots to fly without the vest but to stay below 44,000 feet to avoid dangers from any high-altitude decompression. The Air Force at the same time began moves to redesign the garment, widen the jet’s air hoses and fix any leaks. “Everything is on a positive trend line,” General Lyon said.
The general spoke four days before the most recent episode at Langley, which occurred last Tuesday, when the pilot was, as ordered, not wearing a vest. Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis, an Air Force spokesman, said it was too soon to say what other factors might have caused the episode, although so far it appeared to be a “mechanical problem” with the life-support system.
-
Three of the four emerging advanced economies (BRIC) are all sharing the same real estate, competing for resources, and all have nukes. Russia and China aren't saying "Eh, doesn't change anything".
Three of the four emerging advanced economies (BRIC) are all sharing the same real estate, competing for resources, and all have nukes. Russia and China aren't saying "Eh, doesn't change anything".
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.
-
Uh... there are already troops there (hence the creation of this thread). What the campaign is about is raising awareness, to keep it on the radar of politicians in order to keep the advisors there until the job is done.
That and to raise money to line his pockets.
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.
It's not. Ever had Romanian palinka? It's like that. Best I can remember anyway...
Got a Hungarian buddy whose father makes his own palinka, pure daemon nectar...
-
I'm not really plugged into the social network like some people, but even I saw this mentioned all over facebook.
Pretty interesting stuff.
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.
Forget the 2nd Amendment, now the President wants to take away College Football
in Squadron Bar
Posted
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.