kimmy

There's nothing to indicate his suicide was directly related to Christians. It was what happened afterward that related to Christians. Michigan, lagging behind other states in addressing bullying, decided to enact legislation on the issue. And that's where the Family Research Council got involved. Family Research Council are a Christian group, one of the groups that Dan Cathy's fried chicken money generously supports. Family Research Council hired lobbyists to convince the majority Republicans in Michigan's senate that the First Amendment Rights of Christians were under attack, and that Christian kids needed to have the right to torment gay kids protected by law. Legal experts said that the exemptions in Michigan's law made it literally worse than having no law at all, but instead, Republican lawmakers patted themselves on the back because they were "protecting religious freedom." Then this happened: And after that speech went viral on the internet, criticism of the religious exemptions was so fierce that Michigan's House Republicans completely dropped the religious exemptions from the law. -k

This is an admission that trying to blame it on Congress for making banks give mortgages to black people simply doesn't fly. "So?" So a few messages ago you chastised me for saying the taxpayers had been ripped off, because the bail-outs had been either repaid or "wiped out shareholder equity", that's "so." First off, I assume "wiped out shareholder equity" is a euphemism for "taxpayers bought billions of dollars worth of high-risk mortgages from the banks." yes? And secondly, giving out 16 trillion dollars of interest-free loans is a rip-off even if the loans do get repaid eventually. To me it seems like you are coming across less as an objective critic of regulation, and more as an apologist for the bankers. -k

Thanks for the shopping list. I already have a gun locker and a safe installed in my apartment. Did it last month as part of my project to remodel the shelves in the storage room. Had planned on waiting, but found the 14-gun Stack-On locker at Cajun Tire at 50% off and jumped on it. I have a real actual safe installed as well, bolted to the wall and rock solid. Should be fine for pistols, as well as all the other things I don't want to get stolen. I also noticed 3-packs of trigger-locks at Cajun Tire for $25. I forget which brand they were. A couple of questions: -protective eyewear: I understand it's mandatory at a range. Do they need to be specifically designed for shooting? I've got several pairs of protective polycarbonate glasses that I wear while I operate powertools. Would these be considered adequate? -ear protection: basically same question. Do I need something specifically designed for firearms, or would the stuff I use while I'm operating machinery be adequate? Saw this Kel-Tec shotgun... http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/shotguns/ksg/ 12-gage pump-action with 2 seven-round tubular magazines that are selectable with lever, so you could have one side loaded with 00-buck shot for bears, and the other with bird-shot in case you spot a tasty-looking grouse. It's in a bull-pup configuration, with an 18.5" barrel and a 26" overall length... it's almost like these guys set out thinking "What is the absolute most bad-ass gun we could build and still be non-restricted in Canada?" Obviously, the compact size, large magazine capacity, selectable ammo source, and 12-gage firepower make this tremendously appealing. The downside is Kel-Tec's reputation for less-than-rugged products, and the "gamer-dork" look of the gun. -k

The more and more I learn about Romney, the more and more I wish Santorum had won. The Ryan pick settled it in my mind. Like many others, Santorum's extreme social conservatism put me off and made me hope that Romney would seal it. But you know what? None of that stuff matters very much in the greater scheme of things. Santorum might be a prick, but at least he was a prick who understood the importance of the poor and the middle class and young people. Romney? None of that. Paul Ryan, doubly so. But like a sucker I was cheering for Romney because I was distracted by red herrings and smoke and mirrors. -k

I doubt he has a permit to carry his pistols anywhere except at the shooting range. And I doubt he carries his rifles around when he goes to city parks. So Derek probably doesn't disprove the premise that only cops or criminals carry guns in Canada. -k

Well certainly, but I think what we really need to know is HEY SHADY YOU BEEN TO THE STAMPEDE YET??? -k

I called the RCMP firearms office yesterday and they said they were done with it and that it's been forwarded on to the BC CFO for final approval, but because the BC CFO is backlogged right now, it will probably take a while. She said it may take more than the usual 45 days. -k

Is it a liqueur? I got the impression it was a liqueur, and steered clear of it. I remembered seeing ads with white girls in bars making eyes at black guys with slogans like "A Different Breed" and "Run Outside The Herd", which without the imagery you'd assume was saying "hey, our new cherry-flavored whiskey is really unique!" but with the imagery ... well, like I said, it came across like "the drink for white girls who love black dick". -k

Right. "Don't regulate harder, regulate smarter!" Great idea, except that the only people who understand this crap well enough to design regulations for it are the same people who are able to make large amounts of money by making sure it stays unregulated. The banks are making money hand over fist again, and they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying to make sure it stays that way. Which shareholders? Many of the biggest names in the field received tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses for their roles in these scams, some of which even came directly out of the bailout packages. That's a shoddy excuse. "The government passed some bad laws, so we decided to scam people and wreck the economy." It reminds me of the time that somebody parked their car in my parking spot, so I had to steal the car and commit drive-by shootings and a hit-and-run. Because the 'average joe' gets punished if he gets caught. Because cash-under-the-table contractors don't have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on lobbyists to increase opportunities for underground contracting? Nonetheless, he took a huge dump on the idea you're selling here. As for the role of deregulation in the catastrophe: it was a major contributing factor in two ways. First off, "too big to fail" wouldn't have happened without deregulation. And secondly, the shoddy financial packages that were used to conceal bad mortgages and foist them on consumers as AAA investments wouldn't have existed if derivatives had been regulated back in the 90's. A group had been working on doing just that during the Clinton administration, and they were called into a room by Alan Greenspan and members of congress and an army of lobbyists and bank lawyers and told "no you don't." -k

Bubber tried to say this with finesse, but I will say it bluntly: buy yourself a dictionary, you clueless ignoramus. For you to try to equate the kid who was told to not wear his "You're going to Hell without Jesus" shirt to school and to stop telling other students they were going to hell, to the continuous ongoing torment that caused kids like Matt Epling and Phoebe Prince to take their own lives just proves how completely utterly detached from reality you are. Personally, I don't think you can fully understand bullying unless you've had a family member come home from school and lock himself in his room to cry each day, or develop mysterious cuts and bruises that he won't talk about, or vomit from fear each morning before school, or try to fake illness so that he wouldn't have to go. My little brother endured years of bullying, and I got in countless fights standing up for him. Proudly so. You want to compare the douchebag kid who was told to stop proselytizing at school to real victims of bullying? I don't know whether I want to laugh in your face, or puke on it. -k

Holy cow, you sure picked a poor article to support your views, considering the scorn and contempt and mockery he dishes out at opponents of regulation on the 2nd page. -k

Considering the rate news of bank scandals has been coming out, you'd have to be terribly naive to believe that these are isolated incidents, or that we have seen anything but the tip of the iceberg as far as scummy behavior. Do you really believe either of those things? Who cares if not all bankers are bad-guys? If we were conducting a criminal trial with the intention of putting people in jail, then we'd need to prove their guilt. But that's not the question (except in a few specific circumstances, mind you, although criminal charges seem to be awfully scarce.) We're not talking about putting people in jail, we're talking about regulating an industry. They have put the lie to the notion that they could be trusted to regulate themselves. They've disproven the theory that damage to their reputation or damage to the industry or the economy at large would deter them from unethical or reckless behavior. Clearly there are enough bad apples in the industry that trusting them is no longer an option. A few specific examples of what I mean by "ripping off regular people"-- -the bail-outs, obviously. -packaging up investments they knew were risky or worthless (bad mortgages, shares in Excite.com, and so on) and selling them to investors and retirement funds as "AAA"-rated investments. -look up "Son of BOSS". I was just reading about this a few days ago, and it has been in the news a bit because Mitt Romney was on the board of directors of Marriott when it used a "Son of BOSS" tax shelter scam to try to cheat the IRS out of tens of millions of dollars. Basically what "Son of BOSS" boils down to is a fake transaction invented by investment banks for the express purposes of allowing investors to report a fictitious loss. Personally, I believe that cooking up schemes for the express purpose of allowing profitable corporations to dodge taxes definitely falls under the heading of ripping people off. -k

I've been pimping Buffalo Trace in this very thread but I want to try something different with my next bottle. -k

Jack! I just finished a bottle, and I'm in the market for bourbon. What do you suggest? I've looked for Jim Beam Black at local stores, and they just don't have it. Local stores do have most of the more common ones... Woodford, Bulleit, Gentleman Jim, Maker's Mark, Red Stag, Jim Beam White, etc etc. Not terribly interested in Red Stag (which sounds gimmicky, and I'm somewhat put off by the advertising, which seems to indicate it's the drink for white girls who want big black cock.) Other than that, open to suggestions. What should I try? -k

nicely done, Bubber. I fear it will probably go over her head. -k

Well that's certainly appalling. However, what strikes me about this article is that it seems to illustrate a disconnect between what the regulators find unforgivable and what you and I find unforgivable. Big penalties for dealing with Iran. Big penalties for dealing with Cuba. Big penalties for dealing with drug-lords. It appears that the regulators take it very seriously when banks help the government's enemies, but they don't take it nearly as seriously when banks rip off regular people. -k

So, why won't Romney release his tax returns? There's really just a few possible reasons. -he's afraid for voters to know how much money he made. -he's afraid for voters to know how little tax he paid. -he's afraid of what voters will think about some of the things he's done to reduce his taxes. I think Romney and his advisors know that if people get a look at the deductions Romney has been able to use, they'll know that the claim that rich-people need these deductions and tax-cuts to create more jobs is total BS. -k

The Benelli looks interesting. Have seen those on online stores and just assumed they'd be restricted due to looking too much like an AR-15. -k

Here's a CNN article explaining Chick-Fil-A's association with FRC and FF (and other conservative lobby groups) through their WinShape Foundation: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-controversy-shines-light-on-companys-charitable-giving/ Here's the Family Research Council's lobbying report for their efforts opposing a Congress resolution to condemn Uganda's kill the gay's bill. Is that really a good way for Dan Cathy to spend his money? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/family_research_council_lobbie.html Here's an article summarizing some of Focus on the Family's efforts to fight anti-bullying laws. Is that really a good way for Dan Cathy to spend his money? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/05/anti-bullying-laws-christian-religious-freedom_n_1406757.html ... As for the part pertaining to bombings and assassinations, that wasn't in response to the Chick-Fil-A issue. That was in response to the person who claimed that FBI scrutiny of pro-lifers is "McCarthyesque". ... As for the lesson about New Mexico's Human Rights Act, that wasn't in response to the Chick-Fil-A issue either. That was in response to the New Mexico photographer who refused to serve gay customers. Go re-read that part because I fear the point was completely lost on you. -k

A Mini-14 has some appeal. A Mini-30 as well, since I already plan to have 7.62x39 ammo. They're both pretty expensive and I don't picture it happening any time soon. If I was going to buy a gun just for the sake of being able to use .223 Rem, I would give serious thought to one of these: http://www.wolverinesupplies.com/details/1590/Kel-Tec-SU-16F-Rifle-223-Rem.aspx As I've mentioned before, portability has strong appeal for me, and this looks pretty darned portable. It's non-restricted, but compatible with AR-15 magazines, which I gather is a plus. It has a built-in rail for mounting sights, and the fore-end can fold out into a bi-pod. -k

It'll be interesting to see how the Republicans try to convince lower and middle-class Americans that Romney tax plan is a great idea. Analysts say it isn't a great idea, unless you happen to be wealthy. The idea is that tax cuts will produce economic benefits that will produce higher revenue that will pay for the tax cuts. But the problem, according to the study, is that (a) "reasonable models would show that these tax changes would have little effect on growth" and ("even with implausibly large growth effects, revenue neutrality would still require large reductions in tax expenditures and would likely result in a net tax increase for lower- and middle-income households and tax cuts for high-income households." (both statements from page 2.) "Large reductions in tax expenditures" is a key phrase. "Tax expenditures" sounds cold and clinical. But what it means is cutting things like the child tax credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit (which helps people with low-paying jobs make ends meet instead of going on welfare), tax breaks for education, tax breaks for healthcare coverage. The wealthy will not escape Romney's tax-expenditure cuts, as he has also talked about eliminating tax-credits for mortgages on second homes. -k

The politicians are grandstanding, and have no legal power to do anything of the sort. Crass, but pretty typical. They probably took lessons from folks like Rick Perry and Jan Brewer. Is Chick-Fil-A being persecuted because of Dan Cathy's faith? I suspect that many of the people saying the backlash against Chick-Fil-A isn't fair are the same people who said "OMG, I am never buying another Oreo" after their rainbow Oreo ad, and "OMG, I am never shopping at JC Penny again" after they hired Ellen as their spokesperson, and so on. Those boycotts were dismal failures, and I suspect the Chick-Fil-A boycotts will be as well. As for whether Chick-Fil-A deserves criticism, that's up to you. But I'd like to point out that Chick-Fil-A runs a charity called the "Winshape Foundation" that sponsors groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, which are little more than hate-groups dressed up with crosses and bibles. Focus on the Family spends Chick-Fil-A's donations hiring professional lobbyists to fight anti-bullying legislation. Family Research Council went so far as to hire lobbyists to go to Washington to try to prevent Congress from issuing a condemnation of Uganda's "Kill the Gays" laws. That's just revolting. If the Cathy family wants to be associate with groups like that, they deserve to face criticism. Bombings and arson and assassinations committed by anti-abortion fanatics have brought scrutiny on the whole group. Kind of like Muslims. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that if you're operating a business that provides a service to the general public, you're not allowed to exclude members of the general public based on their race, gender, religion, or ethnic origin. If you set up a business to serve the general public, you're not allowed to exclude customers for those factors. "My religion says I'm not allowed to serve food to black-people" is *not* going to fly. Sexual orientation isn't included in that list. However, New Mexico happens to have a Human Rights Act that does include sexual orientation. In New Mexico, refusing photographic services to a gay couple is the same as telling a black couple they can't eat in your restaurant. If you don't want to deal with gay people, don't operate a business offering services to the public in New Mexico. I gather that Mrs Huguenin's appeal of the decision will be based on the premise that she's not a business, she's an artist, so her freedom of artistic expression has been attacked. The religion angle failed, so she's going with something else. "Are churches next?!" No, churches are not businesses. Churches are still free to discriminate. -k

Thanks for your thoughts, guyser. I'm certainly not rich, but I'm in a situation where I could afford to plunk down a few thousand dollars if I found the right piece of land. Unfortunately the right piece of land, in Canada at least, costs more than a few thousand dollars... but in some parts of the United States, maybe not. So I've been giving this some thought. -k

Well, my mistake. Mea culpa. Based on history, my immediate assumption was that the perpetrator was most likely another Sikh. However, from what I am reading, it appears that the perpetrator was a white guy with anti-immigrant views. -k

Tomorrow is day 28! Ok, so if I understand correctly, it goes like this: I go to www.GunBarn.com (or so on) and send in photocopies of my RPAL and order my TT-33. And they check my paperwork with the RCMP and everything seems legit, so they call the CFO to ask for a temporary ATT so that they can send it to me, but the CFO says "wait a minute, not so fast. Kimmy has never had an ATT before, so before you can ship her the gun, we are going to have to process a long-term ATT for her." Is that how it breaks down? Because if so, then yeah, that's kind of bogus. Ever had any trouble buying online? What you get is what you expected, and so-on? I'm a little leery of ordering a case-hardened revolver and getting a blued one, that sort of thing. Or getting a Nagant with a stock that's really beat up. That sort of thing. Is there ever a hassle with shipping? And, thanks for the cleaning tips. -k