birdog1960

i get the concern for conspiracy. pop culture and especially movies are filled with examples of varying plausibility. but to what end here? to attack russia? saudi arabia? to increase hatred of muslims? to take away liberties? to make money? i don't see how a conspiracy to perform this act enables any western winners... please tell me who benefits from this act?

Didn't anyone notice the disclaimer at the beginning of this article staing much of it was redacted and retracted? The couple Georgetown alums I know are white males from privileged backgrounds. And they , based on accomplishments and character, were deserving for admission. I don"t believe this article for an instant. Why not take a look at the make up of this years freshman Georgetown class? That would likely be a better source for this contention.

well, I suppose I inferred it from your post about gun magazine capacity and your link arguing against limiting it. Was I wrong to assume you meant limits on magazines for the public versus those for law enforcement? Would not those bullets cause the same amount of havoc that your latest post describes? How does that make things better?

and this supports your thesis that a heavily armed public helps solve the problem how exactly?

the FBI and DOD definition seem most apt to me. I think this act meets the prerequisites for terrorism. the supposition that this act is not being aggressively prosecuted is ridiculous and a straw man. the remaining suspect faces the death sentence. the other is already dead. do any of you actually believe that links of the brothers to larger terrorist organizations aren't being investigated? if they aren't found does that make you feel better? if they're found, does that? whether they're found or not, we have further evidence that 2 or even 1 crazed loser madmen can shut down a city. i truly despise that fact but know of no answer. the only solace is the effectiveness of law enforcement in limiting the damage and eliminating the immediate threat along with the heroism of regular Americans.

Wow! these are the golden days of live music. if you are not taking advantage, you're missing out big time... i can't bring myself to volunteer as i don't want to miss a minute while i'm there but good on you. my friends that volunteer complain that people are always trying to game the entry and not pay. maddening if you look at the prices for most of these these events. can't expect the artists to play for free. looks like you both will be working hard. per my pm to you, i'd bet you'll do very well as a vendor. people are generally in great moods at these festivals and spend liberally, especially for good food and drink. and just for future reference, in case you don't already know, the 3rd "a" in appalachain is soft, not "eh".

yup. about as culturally diverse as appalachia gets but i don't think i'd use the same descriptions. plenty of good people out having fun.

will you be camping? probably most convenient for vending but if not, roanoke is probably your best bet. this place http://primland.com is very close, amazing but very pricey. enjoy!

Moons pretty full so it's hard to see them outside. but you can watch here http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57580856-76/nasa-to-webcast-lyrid-meteor-shower-monday-night/.

You're probably thinking that's ridiculous but you'd be so wrong. The Avett thread made me think about Merlefest http://www.merlefest.org i heard they were coming. kinda late notice but thought I'd pass it on anyway. two more fests to consider with some similar and great bands: Floydfest in july http://www.floydfest.com and Rhythm and Roots in Sept. http://lineup.bristo...olrhythm.com. check out the lineups Appalachia rocks...

take away drudge and obscure nut job far right blogger references and 75+% of ppp posts suddenly become moderate or progressive.

so sorry tavaris, i just sharted. i'm so embarrased. do you have a towel?

all you need do is watch PBS. viewership and revenue are secondary. quality trumps quantity almost every time. Wanna see real experts on opposite sides weigh in? wanna see international stories from international reporters? wanna see almost daily coverage from legal experts on supreme court cases? pretty faces? well, in that case stick with the networks you cited.

um...it's irrelevant whether they do or don't. that's what i've been arguing from the start. but you actually do win. i quit on this. it's impossible to debate someone that is unable to reason.

show me where i described the nra as such. clearly there was bipartisan support for the nra's position as evidence by the 4 dems i called out. none of this is debateable. i'm pretty sure manchin (D) is an nra member yet he wrote the bill that couldn't garner 60 votes. his membership or lack thereof is irrelevant. this isn't about rank and file nra members (although they certainly aren't helping). it's about the national media campaigns, political contributions and political power of the nra leadership. are you really this opaque or is it just an act?

same one as you http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2012/07/29/video-justice-scalia-suggests-hand-held-rocket-launchers-protected-under-second-amendment/

http://www.rollingst...iction-20130228 (i bet that picture just warms her parents hearts) just one of the first that popped up when i searched "gun manufacturer profits". if you want to see the really big bucks search the arms industries. they're salient because scalia recently commented on citizens ability to use shoulder mounted rocket launchers and they've just lost big chunks of revenue with the wars winding down. "there are no metrics or reports show the makeup of their membership". do you even read your own posts? or are the two of you?...bad tasker and very bad tasker? btw, i have no idea if your contention there is true. i'd bet the nra has some pretty in depth demopraphic data on their members in light of this (and many of your other posts), an all encompassing dismissal of my arguments by you is laughable.

can you idiots not even understand that this is in reference to azalin's stupid post. he made the assertion that the nra was bipartisan and that this was somehow important to the debate. of course they contribute to both parties. how else would they remain so powerful? but if it's that important to you, carry on. i find it much more important that people can be fooled into believing that they could mount a successful armed revolt against the us govt and thus are compelled to stockpile weapons. the only winners in that case are the arms manufacturers and dealers... a frequently shady lot throughout recorded history. does anybody not believe that's important to this debate?

i wasn't using the notion that the naacp is bipartisan to advance an argument.

the premise is that many dems are nra members. that's false if the group is relatively small. how does a small number of dem members of the nra advance his argument? granted, the meaning of his post is only implied. maybe he can tell us what is was truly meant to convey.

wasn't your point that its bipartisan make up made it a more legitimate entity? mine is that it doesn't if it's only representative of a small minority.

possibly true. like many important issues, symbolism was involved. this bill passing crossed the line in the sand drawn by the nra against any, no matter how little it disrupts their membership, form of new gun regulation. it was a vote to test their until recently unquestioned absolute power on this issue. it was written by a highly rated nra senator. if it truly wasn't substantive then that's on him. to me that's what this vote was truly about...and the bad guys won.

<p> here's what i want you to not do: be cryptic. cut to the chase and enlighten us all on what you believe the senate was really voting on.

it represents a small proportion of the american people, overall. certainly disp[roportionate to it's influence.

yes, what would we do without lobbyists?