We Come In Peace

Add me to the list of disappointed with the lack of pictures in this thread.

I used to date the driver of the one positioned at 3 o'clock. A perfectly rational and reasonable explanation. ... you must be on the payroll.

Exactly my point, 3rd. Exactly my point. We aren't allowed to know because if they admitted they've had it all along, they'd have to explain where they got it and why they kept it a secret.

Just curious.

Live-streaming has thwarted NASA's ongoing mission to coverup the existence of extraterrestrial life right here in our own solar system. Check out these dozens, if not hundreds, of intelligently controlled objects orbiting our sun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K9fpKxd-lJU

That's only if the game isn't rigged. There's only one reason and one reason only why we aren't using renewable energy in this country and on this planet: you can't put a meter on free energy.

#newworldorder

http://www.nbc.com/1600-penn/video/at-the-monitors-bruce-campbell-pt-2/n31464/

Yes... because only people on the left eat. You're right! I forgot.

Not in the least. And that's why there's only one inevitable conlclusion: NEW WORLD ORDER #Illuminati

I just found it hilarious that if you type leftist garbage into Google Image that's what comes up.

...uh, sure they are. See?

Are you surprised Bill Gates smoked pot? He was a virgin until he was 44. Probably because he was smoking so much pot.

People who use air quotes My uncle not letting me go to Toshi Station to pick up some power converters Star Wars quotes Sock puppets (or monkeys) People who use the word "magnificent" Anything aired on HBO not staring Warwick Davis

:lol: I hate you for making me laugh at that. (and love you... but only as a friend)

I think I'm offended... but I also see your point. I must consider my response before responding.

Clearly you know nothing about Monsanto or its opponents. Do some research and you'll see as many people on the right against them as there are on the left. Monsanto is evil incarnate. Monsanto is the American dream corrupted. There's a difference.

I'm not trying to be combative, Fez, so please don't take it that way. But this is an important point / counter you're making so allow me to respond. This has nothing to do with tracking how many guns law abiding citizens buy but it has everything to do with the ability to police the crooked gun brokers who make up less than 1% of all gun dealers yet provide over 60% of all illegal weapon sales in this country (this number goes up to 90 depending on which "independent" study you use, for our discussion I'll use the lowest). By restricting the amount of inspections to one per year AND making it illegal to maintain a national database that can then be verified against the seller's stock means that the 1% of sellers who are skirting the law and responsible for over 60% of the gun related violence (at least in the sense of aiding and abetting) are able to predict and prepare for their yearly inspection while flouting the law the other 364 days of the year. This was done intentionally by NRA backed congressmen on BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. Again, this is not a party issue, the reason the NRA is as powerful as they are is because they have their hands in everybody's pockets, not just the right. What's the impact of this in terms of real world policing? A lot. It makes it easier for the 1% of crooked dealers to hide and makes it nearly impossible to prosecute. That keeps the gun manufacturers out of the cross hairs of any sort of civil litigation that might arise from someone attempting to sue in the wake of a violent crime. If they could trace it back to the dealer and then trace it back to the manufacturer you'd have the gun industry (which is HUGE business) facing an unending stream of class action lawsuits. The NRA won't tolerate this as they are just the flying monkeys, out to cause a scene and strike fear in the hearts of anyone who might grow a conscious on the Hill. This has nothing to do with separation of powers. This isn't the executive or judicial branch trying to enact an edict -- this is special interests getting the better of the American public, convincing them that it's far better to let gun dealers do whatever they please, regardless of the body count in our cities, than it is to attempt to police the industry itself. And eliminates inter-departmental information sharing that is crucial to stopping and/or solving violent crimes. It also provides a safety net for the gun manufacturers by building in a legal buffer that will prevent litigation against them. This is not for the civilians -- it's for the gun makers. To keep the gravy train flowing. Perhaps I did a poor job of explaining how insane this is. The ATF was folded into the Justice Department with the Homeland Security Bill of '03. While everyone was up in arms over the rise of terrorist attacks and how to stop them, the NRA inserted language into the bill that changed the way the Director of the ATF would be appointed. From 2003 on, the ATF director would need to be approved by the Senate -- meaning that the NRA could now veto anyone who didn't share their views. And they've done exactly that. Since the language was inserted into law there has not been a single nominee that's been approved. There has not been a director of the ATF since 2003. Even W's nominee got vetoed because he once attended a police convention where they talked about gun legislation. The NRA over 26 years -- from Reagan to H.W. to Clinton to W to Obama -- has worked tirelessly to at first save the ATF (from being absorbed by the Secret Service, the most effective and efficient law enforcement branch in the nation) and then to decapitate it. It's handcuffed the ATF's ability to prosecute gun dealers, limited the ability to cooperate with other agencies, cut the number of agents to less than the entire Phoenix police department, lowered the budget to near crippling levels, and finally ousted the Director's chair so that for the past 10 years the Director's chair is empty. It was an organized and all out assault on the agency LaPierre called (more than once) "jack booted thugs". So who does the NRA really care about? Certainly it's not about the average citizen and clearly not about the innocent victims of their product's performance. Nope. They only care about creating the most business friendly environment for their benefactors. The gun industry.

:lol:

Was away, now I am back. Apologies for the delayed response... The NRA has worked tirelessly since the 80s to at first save and then kneecap the ATF. Look at the '86 Firearms Ownership Protection act. In addition to a ban on (some) machine guns, the FOP also made it nearly impossible to prosecute corrupt gun dealers by preventing agents from conducting any more than ONE inspection per dealer per year. This was done in addition to denying the ATF the ability to create a national database of retail weapon sales while also reducing the crime of falsifying sales records from a felony to a misdemeanor. But they were just getting warmed up. In the 27 years since FOP the NRA has also backed legislation that currently prevents the ATF from sharing information on weapon tracing with the public, including media. And if that weren't enough in 2003 the NRA and Congress passed legislation that split the ATF from the treasury and inserted language mandating Senate approval for the director of the ATF -- effectively giving the NRA veto power over who runs the ATF. And, for the past several years there has not been a full time director of the ATF because the Senate refuses to appoint anyone. Instead, a US attorney from Minnesota does his job AND runs the ATF on a provisional basis. Conflict of interest much? There are common sense things that can be done to help stop the gun violence in this country -- none of them involve people turning in their guns or surrendering their second amendment rights. Stop listening to the lunatics in the NRA or on this board who are trying to tell you otherwise and look at the reality of the situation. The NRA cares about protecting it's primary beneficiaries -- the gun industry not the consumer. And it's hijacked our legislative process in order to get their minions what they want most... more money. Regardless of the body count. Agree to disagree. Perception is in the eye of the reader after all and based on your track record of being a rational and coherent thinker I just assumed you were being flippant. But thanks for the vocab lesson. Me too. No one, especially not anyone that I've referenced or mentioned has ever said a single thing about taking away people's guns. Rather, this is about being able to even CONSIDER the role that easy access to these weapons play in the debate. The NRA wants to make it about everything BUT guns. When in reality that's just flippant. Who's making that argument? Not me. The point I am making is that it's disingenuous to flout Chicago as the proof that gun laws don't work when the laws on the books aren't capable of being enforced. There is a very definite difference between those two extremes. See the NRA stuff referenced in my response to Fez. It's very difficult to stop illegal arms sales on the streets of Chicago (or anywhere) when the NRA and all the senators in their pockets (on BOTH sides of the aisle) have systematically stripped away the legal abilities to track, monitor, and prosecute illegal arms sales. Now you're just being ignorant. Actually no. Let's take this apart one at a time: 1. "We are having a discussion, and there is plenty of data to support the argument that added regulations in many instances don't produce desired results." Again, I do not disagree with this. In fact, I have said that I agree with this several times now. But it's an oversimplification and misses the meat of the discussion entirely. 2. "Just because you don't agree with the data or have an excuse to why these gun laws haven't worked doesn't mean that people are being "intellectually lazy". It does when the people talking don't do their research and understand the realities of what the NRA has done to limit the ability of law enforcement agencies to prosecute illegal weapons sales in this country over the past 25+ years. That's actually the definition of intellectually lazy. 3. "It just means that it doesn't fit your views so you reject them. That's all." Again, you're making deductions that aren't true. I haven't rejected any view other than the one that ignores reality. All I've said, time and time again, is that legislation alone won't solve the issue. But taking the topic completely off the table before the debate even begins, and using Chicago's track record as justification for doing so is bat **** crazy and demonstrates the reach of the NRA and the sickness that is the gun mentality in this nation. You're smarter than that. I didn't gloss over LA's points or yours. And if you think guns are a partisan issue then you really aren't paying attention outside your own bubble. Dems and Republicans both are in the NRA's pockets. See the above.

No one who smokes pot has success in life. Ever. But they do have a whole lot of fun.

:lol:

Skynet is about 3 months away I reckon.