Member since: Tue Aug 17, 2004, 07:11 AM
Number of posts: 5,737
Number of posts: 5,737
HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. (The Borowitz Report)—CNN launched an urgent manhunt Monday after Lester Holt, the moderator of the first Presidential debate of the 2016 general election, mysteriously vanished two minutes into the contest.
CNN immediately notified law enforcement, who started searching the environs of Hofstra University, all while Clinton and Trump continued barking at each other unabated.
Jeff Zucker, the president of CNN, issued an impassioned plea to Holt to return to the debate venue at Hofstra as soon as possible. “You don’t even have to moderate the debate,” Zucker said. “We just want to know you’re O.K.”
Posted by Sancho | Mon Sep 26, 2016, 11:03 PM (1 replies)
Honestly, I can't keep up!
- Malania's illegal immigration and imaginary speech writer
- Killing leopards, elephants, etc. (oh my)
- Bribes to attorney generals
- Foundations that are covers for more bribes
- Trump University
- 13 year old rape victims
- Nobody gets paid if you work for Trump, contract with Trump, or loan money to Trump
...and who knows what I've missed. These are all on top of insanely stupid comments relevant to a political campaign about walls, Iraq, bad generals, Putin, military assaults, birth certificates, tax returns, nutty doctor letters, etc.
If anyone in the US actually votes for this fruitcake they should be locked up with him. It seems like the media is overwhelmed even trying to look into so many "events" at once. I really, really hope Trump regrets the day he ever thought about running for President.
Posted by Sancho | Fri Sep 9, 2016, 09:27 AM (14 replies)
If the rest of the world are just now discovering it, that's good. Some of us have watched these payoffs for years. The donation from Trump to Bondi was the tip of the iceberg. Who knows how much she really got from the fundraiser that Trump threw for her.
Bondi is exactly the kind of person Trump would put in his administration. No ethics.
Trump Held Fundraiser For Pam Bondi At Mar-a-Lago After She Dropped Investigation
The Republican Party of Florida paid much less for the venue than Trump’s own campaign has paid.
WASHINGTON ― In March 2014, Donald Trump opened his 126-room Palm Beach resort, Mar-a-Lago, for a $3,000-per-person fundraiser for Pam Bondi. The Florida attorney general, who was facing a tough re-election campaign, had recently decided not to investigate Trump University.
Trump did not write a check to the attorney general that night. The previous fall, his personal foundation had given $25,000 to a pro-Bondi PAC. But by hosting her fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago and bringing in some of his own star power, Trump provided Bondi’s campaign with a nice financial boost.
Since he began his run for the White House, Trump has repeatedly claimed that Bondi is merely someone he has supported politically. But his fundraising efforts for her were extensive and varied: In addition to the $25,000 donation from his foundation and the star-studded Mar-a-Lago event, Trump and his daughter Ivanka each gave $500 to Bondi’s campaign in the fall of 2013. The following spring, Ivanka and her father donated another $125,000 to the Republican Party of Florida ― Bondi’s single biggest source of campaign funds.
Posted by Sancho | Wed Sep 7, 2016, 08:22 AM (0 replies)
Posted by Sancho | Fri Sep 2, 2016, 01:05 PM (1 replies)
For people who are skeptics, some of us have been living on the coast all our lives and are seeing the effects of storm surge. Here's a site to track sea level changes. In this case, St. Petersburg, FL. and Charleston, SC (two places that I happen to have lived):
Posted by Sancho | Wed Aug 31, 2016, 05:46 AM (0 replies)
There is a lot of history on this topic, but here's a short summary:
Immigrants coming to the New World from Europe had to run a gauntlet of tests at Ellis Island, the main federal immigration station in the U.S. from 1892 to 1954. In charge of the tests were the officers and men of the U.S. Public Health Service.
If incoming ships showed no sign of endemic disease, they were allowed to land. Medical tests for individuals began as soon as they hefted their luggage up the stairs to the registry room: those who arrived huffing and puffing were pulled aside for further health checks. Diseases such as trachoma (an eye disease that is now rare) or other ailments considered back then to be serious and incurable would be sent back to their port of origin right away; those who were ill might have to wait until they were healthy to be admitted to the country.
The immigrants were interviewed to weed out political and social undesirables: communists, anarchists, bigamists and those who seemed too poor to support themselves (a larger problem for women and children) were turned away.
According to a 1917 U.S. Public Health Service manual, 9 out of 100 immigrants were marked with an "X" during the line inspection and were sent to mental examination rooms for further questioning. During this primary examination, doctors first asked the immigrants to answer a few questions about themselves, and then to solve simple arithmetic problems, or count backward from 20 to 1, or complete a puzzle. Out of the 9 immigrants held for this "weeding out" session, perhaps 1 or 2 would be detained for a secondary session of more extensive testing.
After the medical inspection, each immigrant filed up to the inspector's desk at the far end of the Registry Room for his or her legal examination, an experience that was often compared to the Day of Judgment. To determine an immigrant's social, economic, and moral fitness, inspectors asked rapid-fire series of questions, such as: Are you married or single? What is your occupation? How much money do you have? Have you ever been convicted of a crime? The interrogation was over in a matter of minutes after which an immigrant was either permitted to enter the United States or detained for a legal hearing.
Literacy Test: Anti-immigration forces had been trying to impose a literacy test since the 1880s as a means of restricting immigration. They finally succeeded with the Immigration Act of 1917, passed over President Woodrow Wilson's veto. This law required all immigrants, 16 years or older to read a 40-word passage in their native language. These dual-language cards were used by inspectors to test immigrants' literacy.
Posted by Sancho | Tue Aug 16, 2016, 07:23 AM (0 replies)
He would be excellent...and a good representative on the SC as a muslim-American.
...and for Captain Khan
Posted by Sancho | Tue Aug 2, 2016, 08:50 PM (0 replies)
The current "background check" at the point of sale is a joke. We need a license with a REAL application that makes it difficult for dangerous people from easy access to guns.
Friend: Shooter had fixation on 'The Voice' singer
Dennington became concerned enough with Loibl's obsession with Grimmie that he told their boss at Best Buy about it, according to the police report.
Dennington spoke to Loibl last about five days before the shooting, and Loibl told him that he was "tired and ready to ascend." Dennington told detectives he don't know what that meant.
His father, Paul Loibl, told detectives that his son lived like a hermit, hardly leaving his room except to go to his job. His father was unaware Loibl owned firearms, and detectives said it appeared Loibl had destroyed the hard drive on his home computer and also encrypted his phone, making it difficult to extra any data.
People Control, Not Gun Control
This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
Posted by Sancho | Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:15 PM (2 replies)
Mark and Jackie Barden, whose 7-year-old son Daniel was murdered in the Sandy Hook massacre in December 2012, have voiced their opposition to comments Sen. Bernie Sanders made during a Democratic presidential debate on March 6 that gun manufacturers should not be liable if a crime is committed with their product.
In a Washington Post op-ed published online on Friday, the Bardens argued that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, which was used to kill their son, 19 other children and six adults in the elementary school shooting, is a highly lethal military weapon that should not be sold to the public. The parents, along with nine other families, filed a lawsuit in December 2014 against Remington Arms, which manufactured the weapon Adam Lanza used to carry out the attack in Newtown, Connecticut.
“If you go to a store and you legally purchase a gun, and three days later you go out and start killing people, is the point to hold the gun shop owner or the manufacturer of that gun liable? If that’s the point, I disagree,” Sanders said. “If they are selling a product to a person who buys it legally, what you’re talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America.”
In the op-ed, the Bardens said the Vermont senator “has spent decades tirelessly advocating for greater corporate responsibility, which is why we cannot fathom his support of companies that recklessly market and profit from the sale of combat weapons to civilians and then shrug their shoulders when the next tragedy occurs, leaving ordinary families and communities to pick up the pieces.”
NRA calls Bernie Sanders’ comments on gunmaker liability ‘spot on’
The National Rifle Association posted a tweet in support of a comment the Vermont senator made on gun industry immunity during a heated exchange in Sunday night’s Democratic debate with his rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“Sen. Sanders was spot-on in his comments about gun manufacturer liability/PLCAA,” the gun lobby tweeted. The post was accompanied by a graphic of the senator’s remarks: “What you’re talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America. I don’t agree with that.”
During the debate, which was televised live from Flint, Michigan, host Anderson Cooper asked Sanders and Clinton if they support a lawsuit filed by families of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting victims. The suit is against Remington Arms Company, which manufactured the weapon the gunman used. Cooper said it might not go anywhere because of a law Sanders backed in 2005 that shields gun manufacturers from certain lawsuits when someone legally buys a gun and then intentionally misuses it.
Ian Sams, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, tweeted, “While the NRA defends @BernieSanders, it attacks @HillaryClinton. What more do we need to know?”
Posted by Sancho | Sun Jun 19, 2016, 09:43 AM (13 replies)
Posted by Sancho | Thu Jun 16, 2016, 01:23 PM (3 replies)