Image of the day

From the
ATWB Customer Gallery

Elephant's Trunk Nebula IC1396

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Posts Made By: Jim Johnson

December 6, 2012 10:40 AM Forum: Politics

Shadow government purge underway

Posted By Jim Johnson

Jim McSheehy said:

Now that the elections are over, the Shadow Government is wasting no time:

Generals Petraeus & Allen, purged,
Boehner purges uncooperative House committee members,
Senator DeMint announces his resignation. Lindsey Graham and Harry Reid smile.

As the Chinese might say, "May you live in interesting times".

Are you joking or are you a conspiracy theory believer? I am curious to know more about this shadow government (seriously).

Other than maybe being ratted out by someone, I thought the Generals brought about their own downfall. IMO the replacement of the committee members was a gutsy move in the best interests of the country. There has to be a compromise and these guys were impediments. Likely a wasted effort, though. Gov Haley's likely appointment for DeMint's seat will either be a Tea bagger, oops, Tea Party member or endorsed by them so no net loss.

Actually I agree nearly 100% with the Tea Party's core principles; I just don't like much of the rest of the politics of the majority who embrace the Tea Party. wink

Jim J

December 6, 2012 10:52 PM Forum: Politics

Too Funny

Posted By Jim Johnson

Rod Kaufman said:

A Pyrrhic victory. I don't know if the Republicans could do any better but you Democrats are incapable of fiscal responsibility. The power to raise the debt ceiling should remain with Congress. It's the height of arrogance for Obama to want unilateral power. I predict Obama is going to get his tax increases but never get around to making any real cuts.

Jim J

December 8, 2012 09:47 AM Forum: Politics

New Poll?

Posted By Jim Johnson

Tony Aguire said:

Not sure where to put this, but since it is political in nature.

To go over the cliff or not? Is it worth it to get some things done?

Which would be worse - the cliff or the course we seem to be taking now?

Jim J

December 8, 2012 03:23 PM Forum: Politics

This guy has the right idea!!

Posted By Jim Johnson

Greg Shaffer said:


Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the "militia phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as 'a clear mandate to do so'. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals.

Vermont's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent.." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."
Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state .... it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!

I LIKE IT!!! How about you?

Good luck with that. The current Supreme Court would knock that law down in a hurry. The police don't offer much in the way of protection. They respond after the fact for the most part unless you count occasional car patrols as crime prevention. As the saying goes, your gun is a few seconds away, the police are minutes (lots of them in rural areas) away. Which do you need? So no justification for the tax on non-gun owners.

I would attribute Vermont's low crime to several factors besides guns. They are better educated than the national average. They are almost 96% white so they aren't plagued by minority crime. Plus the good old Yankee mindset is still pretty strong.

Low crime, liberal gun laws, a Green state and they have been a Blue state (politically) since 1992. Interesting.

Jim J

December 9, 2012 08:33 AM Forum: Global Warming - REAL or NOT

GW Hits Utah Hard

Posted By Jim Johnson

Rod Kaufman said:
I don't think they have anything to worry about because their elected representatives don't worry about it. What does their ski industry know about it anyway?

Nothing can realistically be done. The world is locked into reliance on oil, natural gas and (to some extent) coal and will be for the next century. That's the reality that environmentalists refuse to see. Many GW scientists believe we are at the point of no return and the projections show a steady increase in CO2 primarily from developing nations such as China and India. Solar, wind and even nuclear power cannot replace fossil fuels and no nation is going to jeopardize their economy. We will have to adapt to climate change as best we can.

Jim J

December 12, 2012 12:57 PM Forum: Politics

Just suppose...

Posted By Jim Johnson

david elosser said:

Just suppose that, during WWII, we sold dozens of B-17's to Fascist Italy. Just suppose we had given millions of dollars of aid to Nazi sympathizers in France. Would anybody be upset?

"[Apostle] Hillary Clinton has admitted that Al-Qaeda is supporting the Syrian rebels, who are backed by the Obama administration with $200 million dollars in aid. According to McClatchy Newspapers one of these groups, Al Nusra Front, an Al-Qaeda affiliate, is now conducting "the heaviest frontline fighting" in Syria and has been responsible for terrorist attacks."

"Despite instability due to the new Islamic government in Egypt, the US is sending more than 20 F-16 fighter jets to Egypt as part of a $1 billion foreign aid package."

But hey, who cares? As long as we raise taxes on the filty rich and get our Obama-phones!

David E

They mean well but they are totally clueless. We didn't learn our lesson when we armed the Taliban against the Soviets in Afghanistan. After Arab Spring you think we would wait a while to see how Egypt evolves before we send weapons. We are now going to help bring in a theocracy in Syria. I do find liberals to be naive about human behavior. After all of this time they still think we have Arab friends in the Middle East. We don't. Any pro West governments still left will likely fall. They hate us. They will use us as much as they can.

Jim J

Jim J

December 13, 2012 02:39 PM Forum: Politics

See Give O everything he wants - FIXED!

Posted By Jim Johnson

Here's what's going to happen.

Jim J

December 16, 2012 01:47 PM Forum: Politics

Gun Control

Posted By Jim Johnson

Patrick Keafer said:

I was just looking over the last few well-known mass shootings we've had in the US, and it got me wondering. Would any type of gun control, outside of outright bans and years of attrition, have stopped the shooters? Almost all mass shooters seem to have one thing in common: mental illness. Is it even possible to screen these people out during a background check without violating someones personal rights? What is the line between a little odd and dangerously crazy?

Out of respect for the victims of the most recent incident, lets try to keep it civil.

I believe the latest mass murderer used his mother's guns, which were purchased legally. My last gun purchase was quite some time ago and the form asked me about my mental status - with no follow up. The form was a joke. The HIPPA laws would make getting this kind of information difficult. I don't believe there is an easy way to obtain this information - no centralized medical database.

Parents bear some responsibility in making sure their guns are properly secured. Of course home protection weapons are useless if they are not readily available but other guns should be locked up.

Most of the problems have to do with the mental state of these killers. In some cases, IMO, parents don't know their children as well as they should. This is in part due to busy lives, both parents working, etc. It seems like after the fact there is often evidence of their troubles that were missed. In other cases maybe there were no outward signs.

I don't see how gun control would be a factor. If guns aren't available legally, they can always be borrowed or stolen. The people who cry out are missing the real problem.

Jim J

December 18, 2012 03:37 PM Forum: A Day in the Life of the Administrator

The biggest ASShole in the world?

Posted By Jim Johnson

Congratulations! Not many people are worthy of a world wide vendetta. Don't they say that any publicity is good publicity. What a kook.

Jim J

December 20, 2012 08:13 PM Forum: Politics

Weren't the gun "nuts" right?

Posted By Jim Johnson

Patrick Keafer said:

I remember Rod making fun of the people who went out and bought guns after Obama's election and re-election.

But after the recent events in CT, weren't those people ultimately correct? At first chance, liberals jump to ban guns or restrict access to them when politically expedient.

When asked "where he was" on the issue for the past four years by a Fox News reporter, the President basically said he was "busy".

Ditto with Feinstein. Now she's making it her crusade. She must have had her thumbs up her *** for the last 8 years. Since the ban ended there have been mass shootings involving semi-automatic rifles. I guess the fact that 20 young childen were murdered got the public worked up and politicians won't let a crisis go to waste.

Jim J