Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
SparrowHawk said:My pay stub gas a deduction for UE Compensation.
Also you failed to anwser the question.as to what you would spend your extra money on of there were no Federal Income Tax.
The wiffful ignorance of the American public never ceases to amaze me
So company with a patent is trying to sell them?delldude said:Yep. All he needs to do is sign an EO requiring the feared and huddled masses to turn in their guns. I haven't seen his latest proposal to to make that happen.
I never mentioned any EO.
Is this one like the serialized bullets?
Fact Check
Q:Are states going to require serial numbers on bullets and require disposal of existing ammunition?
A:Such a proposal is being pushed by a company that holds a patent on bullet-coding technology. But none of the 31 bills introduced last year ever made it out of committee.
The guns and ammo companies are laughing out loud at this.
Not really, you should do some research before engaging your mouth...... I believe Fed regs are hampering gunpowder output.No powder = no bullets.
All you are doing is driving up the cost for us who do own guns. Congratulations.
How am I driving up costs due to your misinformed posts?
Glenn Quagmire said:So company with a patent is trying to sell them?
How is that Obama's gun confiscation plan?
Back in the days of streaking, TV wouldn't a bare rear end. They never started showing streakers.UPNAWAY said:When TV stopped showing streakers at sporting events that almost completely went away.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/gallery/sports-streakers-gallery-052412#photo-title=Kick+up+your+heels&photo=31046031Dog Wonder said:Back in the days of streaking, TV wouldn't a bare rear end. They never started showing streakers.
The glory days of streaking were the 70s. Streaking survived without foxsports, which didn't even exist then.delldude said:
Dog Wonder said:The glory days of streaking were the 70s. Streaking survived without foxsports, which didn't even exist then.
Not naked things running across football fields.delldude said:
..but I did see these things on the telly back then....
Criminologist Grant Duwe has researched mass killings in the U.S. and found some surprising statistics.
“Mass murder rates and mass public shootings have been on the decline,” Duwe told Here & Now. “But what we did see was an especially bad year for mass public shootings [in 2012]…. The number of victims who were killed and wounded was greater than in any previous year in U.S. history.”
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000.
Mass Shootings Are on the Rise—and Falling
When it comes to sheer numbers, our rate for mass shootings is not what's really troubling
In the wake of Monday’s Navy Yard shooting, there has been much lamentation that mass shootings are on the rise in America. “If you have been thinking that we live in an era that is more marked by this type of mass bloodshed than any era before,” remarked Rachel Maddow, “I am sad to tell you you are right. It did not used to be this way, but more and more, this is part of how we live.”
The problem with this claim is that it isn’t true – or to be more charitable, it’s “true” in such a limited way as to be meaningless.
Maddow is defining “this type of mass bloodshed” as mass shootings in which 12 or more victims were killed. There have been 12 such shootings in the United States since 1949, and half of them have taken place in the last six years, which on its face sounds, as Maddow suggests, like a very ominous trend.
But anyone familiar with statistics should be made immediately suspicious by what statisticians refer to as the “cut point” for Maddow’s analysis. Why did she choose 12 victims? The answer is because it created the appearance of a statistically significant trend, where no such trend exists.http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/18/navy-yard-whiplash-are-killings-going-up-or-down/
To be fair, it wasn't their own research. They were interviewing the professor who just released the study from which the graph came from.Glenn Quagmire said:There goes one of those letter networks again. Next thing you know they will have accurate polling.