[Bob-san]

At this point I'd be interested in seeing sources that are NOT affiliated with Crazy.

Lolz.

And im all for extended clips and automatic pistols btw.

According to some of the laws being proposed, extended clips are a yes, automatic weapons of any sort are a no.

[BengalTiger]

Maybe he was thinking of semi-automatic, and not fully automatic?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

[Charismatic]

Ever sence i saw a Glock fully automatic in Rainbow Six: Las Vegas (1, 2) i want to get one now.

Wow, proposing extended clips? Finally.

[Bob-san]

Well, now here's some more justification

11) Transportation Secretary LaHood wants to abuse our privacy for extra tax dollars. As if we're not taxed enough already!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29298315

[Charismatic]

Isnt that a bit off topic?

[Bob-san]

Isnt that a bit off topic?

No. If that would ever be passed, it'd be breaking the 10th Amendment.

[maje]

With all due respect to supposedly crazy talk show hosts (I don't know, I never listened to or have heard of Hal Turner),
has anyone actually read the proposal of New Hampshire's proposal?  It seems that the the primary reasons of wanting to seceed involve the following:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition

More details can be found here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

Quite frankly, I don't see anything morally reprehensible or treasonous.  If the legislature were advocating violence against fellow states, or initiating a war, I could see otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

What I am saddened to see is that many people seem to think, erroneously in my opinion, that this has something to do with the current POTUS being black (well, let's be honest, he is multi-racial as WHITE European blood flows through him as well as African; at best I can take a jest and suggest that he is indeed the first 'Gray' president of the United States).  Asides from the aforementioned Hal Turner character, why would anyone on these boards jump to racism as the most probable explanation?  Let's not forget that Obama DID win NH in the election just over three months' time ago.

The other thing I don't understand is why people on this board (and other boards for that matter) seem so enraged and bitter towards their New Hampshire brethren.  Unless you happen to live in that state, it really isn't for you to decide whether they stay or not.  If they so feel that they cannot in good conscience remain part of the Union, due to deep, perhaps even unreconciliable differences, why should we force them to stay?  It would only further agitate the situation to at which point, the idea of a peaceful secession becomes replaced with a violent one.  Do any of us really want that to happen?  Are people outside of New Hampshire really that bitter? And if so, we need to have an honest discussion to at least here out WHY the anger if nothing else other than to be addressed so there is no misinterpretation.

One last thing, I reside in Connecticut and have never been a citizen, nor have I resided in New Hampshire.  So it's not like my state is going anywhere soon.

What say you? 

[Bob-san]

With all due respect to supposedly crazy talk show hosts (I don't know, I never listened to or have heard of Hal Turner),
has anyone actually read the proposal of New Hampshire's proposal?  It seems that the the primary reasons of wanting to seceed involve the following:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition

More details can be found here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

Quite frankly, I don't see anything morally reprehensible or treasonous.  If the legislature were advocating violence against fellow states, or initiating a war, I could see otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

What I am saddened to see is that many people seem to think, erroneously in my opinion, that this has something to do with the current POTUS being black (well, let's be honest, he is multi-racial as WHITE European blood flows through him as well as African; at best I can take a jest and suggest that he is indeed the first 'Gray' president of the United States).  Asides from the aforementioned Hal Turner character, why would anyone on these boards jump to racism as the most probable explanation?  Let's not forget that Obama DID win NH in the election just over three months' time ago.

The other thing I don't understand is why people on this board (and other boards for that matter) seem so enraged and bitter towards their New Hampshire brethren.  Unless you happen to live in that state, it really isn't for you to decide whether they stay or not.  If they so feel that they cannot in good conscience remain part of the Union, due to deep, perhaps even unreconciliable differences, why should we force them to stay?  It would only further agitate the situation to at which point, the idea of a peaceful secession becomes replaced with a violent one.  Do any of us really want that to happen?  Are people outside of New Hampshire really that bitter? And if so, we need to have an honest discussion to at least here out WHY the anger if nothing else other than to be addressed so there is no misinterpretation.

One last thing, I reside in Connecticut and have never been a citizen, nor have I resided in New Hampshire.  So it's not like my state is going anywhere soon.

What say you? 

I say the balance of power is out of whack. The problem with Obama with many people isn't his name, his racial makeup, or anything of the sort, it's the fact that he's for big government and is allowing pork to become the substance of "his" stimulus package, basically with him saying "believe what I say, not what I do".

[Hellstryker]

Obama let the GOP walk all over him. Stupid bipartisan crap. 

[maje]

Huh?  I was pretty sure that the House and Senate were OVERWHELMINGLY Democratic at the moment.  Unless it's much narrower than I think, the GOP can at best, protest and perhaps filibuster, but that's it.

[Bob-san]

Huh?  I was pretty sure that the House and Senate were OVERWHELMINGLY Democratic at the moment.  Unless it's much narrower than I think, the GOP can at best, protest and perhaps filibuster, but that's it.

The moment one Republican leaves the room, though, the fillibuster is out.

[Hellstryker]

To my (limited) knowledge, compromises were made when they shouldn't have been.

[Bob-san]

The issue I had with it was that the bill was 1100 pages long totaling nearly $900B, which is much too long for an "emergency" bill to stimulate the economy.

[Mefustae]

The issue I had with it was that the bill was 1100 pages long totaling nearly $900B, which is much too long for an "emergency" bill to stimulate the economy.

1100 pages? Heavans! Who wrote it, Tom Clancy?

[karajorma]

The issue I had with it was that the bill was 1100 pages long

And if it hadn't been that long the issue you would have had with it was that it was too vague, no doubt.

[BengalTiger]

Then there's the other issue- Obama promised bills to be on the Internet for everyone to read and comment for 48 hours.
The stimulus was up for 1 night before it was pushed through.

Also- how many politicians knew what they were pushing through? How many read the whole thing, from page 1 to page 1100 before the vote?

And finally- how do you know Bob-san would think it was too vague?

[maje]

I downloaded a PDF of the bill and it was closer to 500 pages, not 1100.

[karajorma]

And finally- how do you know Bob-san would think it was too vague?

Cause that's the way the politics flowchart works

STEP 1 : Find some totally insignificant nitpick and blow it completely out of proportion until you can make that the focus of the argument.
STEP 2 : If you can't find a nitpick, Complain about the length of the law. If it is short, claim that it doesn't have enough safeguards. If it is long claim that there wasn't enough time to study it. If it is in between have two people complain about both things and then go with whichever one the public complain about most bitterly.

[Bob-san]

The issue I had with it was that the bill was 1100 pages long

And if it hadn't been that long the issue you would have had with it was that it was too vague, no doubt.

I would have rather seen a 10-page law. Even with legal jargon, everything to stimulate the economy should fit just fine in a shorter bill.

[Mefustae]

I would have rather seen a 10-page law. Even with legal jargon, everything to stimulate the economy should fit just fine in a shorter bill.

But then you'd be complaining that a bill involving almost a trillion dollars should be stated in far deeper detail.

Hell, even if it were 10 pages long, it's a good bet that nobody would bother reading it before passing it anyway. It's not like it's a closely held secret that most bills are passed without having been read by those passing it. As long as they have the general gist of it, they're happy to hammer it through and leave early, regardless of whether it's a $900 billion stimulus bill or a constitutional amendment requiring ducks to wear long pants.