I am assuming you would include Bill Clinton there as well?
But there are other ways of serving other than wearing a uniform. And there are other ways to learn things other experiencing them directly. But you sound like a person who has limited himself too much to actually understand that.
No, but when we were attacked and our own planes were used as weapons, we had a process that was not trained to keep up and could no longer keep up with the needs of the moment.
No, it is not a living document. It is a legal document. The rights it represents are God given, not changable as to the whims of men. They need to be preserved at all costs.
I doubt you served at all then. With relatives who did serve during that time, they reported that F-16 readiness dropped from over 90% to less than 77%. Training for pilots and crews was severely cut back to the point that commanders were complaining the crews would not be able to respond appropriately to an emergency, were it to present itself. Commanders were also censored for complaining about that fact. Army divisions dropped from 18 to 10. The total military budget was cut by how much? I could go on, but what would be the point. There was a darn good reason that a lot of military personal refused to salute Clinton. He was not worthy of that respect.
Yep, they don't live forever. The problem we have with the Supreme Court right now is that they are making new law at times, not measuring law as compared to the Constitution. Rowe versus Wade is a perfect example. There is no way you can suggest abortion is a right. There is nothing in the Constitution (Bill of Rights, etc) to suggest it is. We need more conservative members on the Supreme Court, thought that is what the democrats want to block. They want to consider the Constitution a "living document" and changeable by their wims.
One of the things I was reviewing was how much damage was done during the Clinton administration. The civil rights violations, while more subtle, added up to being more telling in my mind. A perfect example is the so called Assault Weapons Ban that sunsets Monday. The gutting of the United States Intelligence community and military is another.
We are screwed either way we look at it. There are no great choices right now, only the lesser of two evils. And that certainly is not Kerry.
Funny, the district court held that NFA '34 was unconstitutional.
When it got to the Supreme Court, they never read or heard the defendants' views, heard only one side of the matter, the government's side, and declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, at the time the Second Amendment was written (late 1700s).
Short barreled shotguns have been used by the military since the Civil War. They are certainly appropriate weapons for the militia, as defined by the Second Amendment (any able bodied male; note the definition is from the Federalist Papers, not the Bill of Rights).
Of course no one will touch renewing this law. It was a law for soccer moms and for gun control advocates who wanted a foot in the door to confiscating and banning all guns. None of the gun laws we have on the books are Constitutional. And if any of them ever got tried in the Supreme Court, they would be blotted off the books.
This was one of the worst laws because it robbed people of the full functionality of a class of weapon specifically protected by the Second Amendment, did nothing to affect crime, unreasonably increased costs to manufacturers, and it left the option open for greater encroachment upon our rights.
As Patrick Henry said, "The great object is that every man be armed." You can't be a good American unless you choose to arm yourself. The Second Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all our other rights rest.
Next time you might want to actually read the post you respond to.
Hmm, the pipes on a motorcycle are directed to the rear and emit a fairly low frequency sound.
The sirens on emergency vehicles emit a much higher alternating frequency sound and are directed towards the front. Yeah, good comparison.
Notice that I was talking about the guy next to you, not the person in front of you or the person behind you. And yes, pipes do project towards the sides as much as they do to the rear. So the comparison to an emergency vehicle, despite the frequency difference, remains valid. Especially since you pointed out how certain pipes could be heard at extended distances.
Bikers who repeat this mantra are either ignorant or simply grasping hold of some justification for their rude, idiotic and inexcusable behavior. I especially like it when the guys with no helmets adhere to it, yeah you're big on safety issues moron. I'd like to find someone whose mantra this is and rev a Harley right outside their bedroom window every 5-10 minutes all night long and then see if it's still ok.
You will notice that I left the HD group outside of my statements. I don't personally approve of pipe you can hear from a mile away. These pipes are way over 100 dB.
Your right to make obnoxious levels of noise ends at my ears.
Then we need to make talking on cell phones while driving illegal. We need to make it murder (or at least manslaughter) when motorcycle rider looses his or her life in a traffic accident where the driver of the car was at fault. They get away with a traffic infraction way too often. Until things are bit more equal in the loss of life department, I reserve the right to protect myself from people (like you) who can't read and think my life is of less value because I ride a motorcycle.
A loud car gets a ticket and a legal obligation to get it fixed or the registration suspended, loud Harleys should get the exact same treatment.
Aftermarket emissions parts for cars have a process to certify them as compliant with the EPA. Motorcycles have no such mechanism. Since there are no rules in place to cover it, then there can hardly be a mechanism in place to penalize them for rules they aren't breaking.
I think the whole "hear them coming" excuse is a crock.
If they didn't work, then sirens on emergency vehicles wouldn't work either. As far as I am concerned, it is not the people who are ahead or behind you that need to hear you, it is the guy right next to you that can't turn his head to check his blind spot due to his cell phone that needs an aural cue. You will have a hard time arguing that the loud pipes don't provide that.
"The wind carries the sound away before it gets to my ears" was the answer.
Hell, he is probably deaf to that tone by this point any way. He probably doesn't wear plugs for wind noise either.
I've found that quiet bikes are much easier to stay alert on, especially in routine rides such as to work and back....
You and me both. The pipes on my bikes are aftermarket, but chosen because they fit Europe's rules for noise level on aftermarket pipes. (Unlike cars, we have no mechanism for certifying aftermarket emissions equipment in this country.) I lost a few pounds on the pipes, got better performance, and increased my gas mileage all at the same time.
It isn't that..... Most non-HD mufflers come under 100dBs (which is a poor way to measure sound intensity, but that is another discussion). The Harley folks make them loud on purpose so you can hear them coming. Since those of you driving SUVs and talking while you are driving aren't paying much attention, can you really blame them? They can't dodge you like those who ride sport bikes can.
I'm only being half sarcastic here. If there was demand for it, you could make them almost absolutely silent. The technology already exists, but when it was introduced a few years ago, the rider portion of the show boycotted the booth. They felt that being silent would make them invisible and thus even more ignored on the freeways.
Now you know why a lot of people enjoy motorcycles. We get to work on our own rides while keeping things as simple as we want to. I am sure that there are segments of the car driving population that still adhere to this. The Manx or buggy folks, perhaps? Older 4X4s as well?
It is not a matter of artificial or not. It is a matter of comparative spending power. Say you pay that programmer from India $20K. His comparative spending power makes that worth roughly $100K in his India. That is why they are not trying to come to America, for example. The cost of living is so different, that they actually live better back home because they get more bang for their buck.
In the shrimp example, the importer who can make it cheaper and the domestic supplier are supplying a comparable product. The difference is what those two suppliers pay to create the product. Tariffs are used to level the playing field. That is what I am suggesting needs to happen here.
When products are imported at artificially low prices, we impose tariffs to keep things in balance for domestic suppliers (The recent shrimp fiasco is a perfect example).
Why the hell aren't we doing the same thing with companies that outsource? The coding and work that they get is saleable commodity with a set value. And it financially affects companies and people in this country in a negative way financially. Why not balance the scales?
Isn't allowed? Wouldn't this fall under fair use and education purposes, legally speaking? Haven't they been photocopying books and magazines for years under that clause?
Can I say Google? This stuff has all been in news, even generic news like Yahoo. Known terrorists? How about Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, for example? France likes to pretend that they are not even terrorist groups, but groups "devoted to peace." Transactions would be payment for weapons and transferal of funds to buy them. Banned materials would be things like tritium and others that only have a real use in building nuclear weapons.
Because I consider that Israel is protecting their country. They are not being the aggressors, as I perceive it. And they are fighting a culture that glorifies suicide in the name of Allah and considers the Jews the personification of Satan.
So how can I perceive it as terrorism when we are helping an ally defend itself and it's borders from terrorism?
When a known terrorist can openly fly into a country with no challenge at arrival, when funds, accounts, and property that belong to know terrorist groups are protected, when transactions that are illegal in other countries can be pursued openly, and when you sell countries materials forbidden by international treaty, I call that openly supporting terrorism.
Terrorism is NOT relative. Terrorism involves targeting non-combatives outside of a war effort. There is nothing relative about it. It is murder in the name of politics.
It is childish behavior to make sure that technology that could easily be adapted to war be kept out of a country that harbors more support for terrorism than any other western nation on the planet?
You are going to have to explain that one to me......
Slashdot Mirror
I am assuming you would include Bill Clinton there as well?
But there are other ways of serving other than wearing a uniform. And there are other ways to learn things other experiencing them directly. But you sound like a person who has limited himself too much to actually understand that.
Nope.... may I suggest reading the Federalist Papers? You have to read the process and rational to understand it.
No, but when we were attacked and our own planes were used as weapons, we had a process that was not trained to keep up and could no longer keep up with the needs of the moment.
No, it is not a living document. It is a legal document. The rights it represents are God given, not changable as to the whims of men. They need to be preserved at all costs.
0 31301a.asp
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/mar01/scalia14
I doubt you served at all then. With relatives who did serve during that time, they reported that F-16 readiness dropped from over 90% to less than 77%. Training for pilots and crews was severely cut back to the point that commanders were complaining the crews would not be able to respond appropriately to an emergency, were it to present itself. Commanders were also censored for complaining about that fact. Army divisions dropped from 18 to 10. The total military budget was cut by how much? I could go on, but what would be the point. There was a darn good reason that a lot of military personal refused to salute Clinton. He was not worthy of that respect.
Sorry, sunshine, wake up and smell the reality.
Yep, they don't live forever. The problem we have with the Supreme Court right now is that they are making new law at times, not measuring law as compared to the Constitution. Rowe versus Wade is a perfect example. There is no way you can suggest abortion is a right. There is nothing in the Constitution (Bill of Rights, etc) to suggest it is. We need more conservative members on the Supreme Court, thought that is what the democrats want to block. They want to consider the Constitution a "living document" and changeable by their wims.
One of the things I was reviewing was how much damage was done during the Clinton administration. The civil rights violations, while more subtle, added up to being more telling in my mind. A perfect example is the so called Assault Weapons Ban that sunsets Monday. The gutting of the United States Intelligence community and military is another.
We are screwed either way we look at it. There are no great choices right now, only the lesser of two evils. And that certainly is not Kerry.
Funny, the district court held that NFA '34 was unconstitutional.
When it got to the Supreme Court, they never read or heard the defendants' views, heard only one side of the matter, the government's side, and declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, at the time the Second Amendment was written (late 1700s).
Short barreled shotguns have been used by the military since the Civil War. They are certainly appropriate weapons for the militia, as defined by the Second Amendment (any able bodied male; note the definition is from the Federalist Papers, not the Bill of Rights).
Of course no one will touch renewing this law. It was a law for soccer moms and for gun control advocates who wanted a foot in the door to confiscating and banning all guns. None of the gun laws we have on the books are Constitutional. And if any of them ever got tried in the Supreme Court, they would be blotted off the books.
This was one of the worst laws because it robbed people of the full functionality of a class of weapon specifically protected by the Second Amendment, did nothing to affect crime, unreasonably increased costs to manufacturers, and it left the option open for greater encroachment upon our rights.
As Patrick Henry said, "The great object is that every man be armed." You can't be a good American unless you choose to arm yourself. The Second Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all our other rights rest.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/23/ 1325228&tid=163&tid=106&tid=218
Next time you might want to actually read the post you respond to.
Hmm, the pipes on a motorcycle are directed to the rear and emit a fairly low frequency sound.
The sirens on emergency vehicles emit a much higher alternating frequency sound and are directed towards the front. Yeah, good comparison.
Notice that I was talking about the guy next to you, not the person in front of you or the person behind you. And yes, pipes do project towards the sides as much as they do to the rear. So the comparison to an emergency vehicle, despite the frequency difference, remains valid. Especially since you pointed out how certain pipes could be heard at extended distances.
Bikers who repeat this mantra are either ignorant or simply grasping hold of some justification for their rude, idiotic and inexcusable behavior. I especially like it when the guys with no helmets adhere to it, yeah you're big on safety issues moron. I'd like to find someone whose mantra this is and rev a Harley right outside their bedroom window every 5-10 minutes all night long and then see if it's still ok.
You will notice that I left the HD group outside of my statements. I don't personally approve of pipe you can hear from a mile away. These pipes are way over 100 dB.
Your right to make obnoxious levels of noise ends at my ears.
Then we need to make talking on cell phones while driving illegal. We need to make it murder (or at least manslaughter) when motorcycle rider looses his or her life in a traffic accident where the driver of the car was at fault. They get away with a traffic infraction way too often. Until things are bit more equal in the loss of life department, I reserve the right to protect myself from people (like you) who can't read and think my life is of less value because I ride a motorcycle.
A loud car gets a ticket and a legal obligation to get it fixed or the registration suspended, loud Harleys should get the exact same treatment.
Aftermarket emissions parts for cars have a process to certify them as compliant with the EPA. Motorcycles have no such mechanism. Since there are no rules in place to cover it, then there can hardly be a mechanism in place to penalize them for rules they aren't breaking.
I think the whole "hear them coming" excuse is a crock.
If they didn't work, then sirens on emergency vehicles wouldn't work either. As far as I am concerned, it is not the people who are ahead or behind you that need to hear you, it is the guy right next to you that can't turn his head to check his blind spot due to his cell phone that needs an aural cue. You will have a hard time arguing that the loud pipes don't provide that.
"The wind carries the sound away before it gets to my ears" was the answer.
Hell, he is probably deaf to that tone by this point any way. He probably doesn't wear plugs for wind noise either.
I've found that quiet bikes are much easier to stay alert on, especially in routine rides such as to work and back....
You and me both. The pipes on my bikes are aftermarket, but chosen because they fit Europe's rules for noise level on aftermarket pipes. (Unlike cars, we have no mechanism for certifying aftermarket emissions equipment in this country.) I lost a few pounds on the pipes, got better performance, and increased my gas mileage all at the same time.
It isn't that..... Most non-HD mufflers come under 100dBs (which is a poor way to measure sound intensity, but that is another discussion). The Harley folks make them loud on purpose so you can hear them coming. Since those of you driving SUVs and talking while you are driving aren't paying much attention, can you really blame them? They can't dodge you like those who ride sport bikes can.
I'm only being half sarcastic here. If there was demand for it, you could make them almost absolutely silent. The technology already exists, but when it was introduced a few years ago, the rider portion of the show boycotted the booth. They felt that being silent would make them invisible and thus even more ignored on the freeways.
Now you know why a lot of people enjoy motorcycles. We get to work on our own rides while keeping things as simple as we want to. I am sure that there are segments of the car driving population that still adhere to this. The Manx or buggy folks, perhaps? Older 4X4s as well?
It is not a matter of artificial or not. It is a matter of comparative spending power. Say you pay that programmer from India $20K. His comparative spending power makes that worth roughly $100K in his India. That is why they are not trying to come to America, for example. The cost of living is so different, that they actually live better back home because they get more bang for their buck.
In the shrimp example, the importer who can make it cheaper and the domestic supplier are supplying a comparable product. The difference is what those two suppliers pay to create the product. Tariffs are used to level the playing field. That is what I am suggesting needs to happen here.
That is also economic reality.
When products are imported at artificially low prices, we impose tariffs to keep things in balance for domestic suppliers (The recent shrimp fiasco is a perfect example).
Why the hell aren't we doing the same thing with companies that outsource? The coding and work that they get is saleable commodity with a set value. And it financially affects companies and people in this country in a negative way financially. Why not balance the scales?
Isn't allowed? Wouldn't this fall under fair use and education purposes, legally speaking? Haven't they been photocopying books and magazines for years under that clause?
Can I say Google? This stuff has all been in news, even generic news like Yahoo. Known terrorists? How about Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, for example? France likes to pretend that they are not even terrorist groups, but groups "devoted to peace." Transactions would be payment for weapons and transferal of funds to buy them. Banned materials would be things like tritium and others that only have a real use in building nuclear weapons.
You see calling someone liberal as insulting? I tend to agree, but I guess it depends on your point of view.
Because I consider that Israel is protecting their country. They are not being the aggressors, as I perceive it. And they are fighting a culture that glorifies suicide in the name of Allah and considers the Jews the personification of Satan.
So how can I perceive it as terrorism when we are helping an ally defend itself and it's borders from terrorism?
No, I was talking about France. But if you had any question, let me repeat for the liberals that can only see it one way: I was talking about France.
Would you care to back THAT up? According to the UN, it is the other way around. A quick search on Google will give it to you.
When a known terrorist can openly fly into a country with no challenge at arrival, when funds, accounts, and property that belong to know terrorist groups are protected, when transactions that are illegal in other countries can be pursued openly, and when you sell countries materials forbidden by international treaty, I call that openly supporting terrorism.
Terrorism is NOT relative. Terrorism involves targeting non-combatives outside of a war effort. There is nothing relative about it. It is murder in the name of politics.
It is childish behavior to make sure that technology that could easily be adapted to war be kept out of a country that harbors more support for terrorism than any other western nation on the planet?
You are going to have to explain that one to me......