tvc184

Yes, that is commodity speculation. It is almost like day trading and trying to guess future prices. Worker's salary and benefits have very little to do with the cost of gasoline at th pump. That was my only point.

The militarization of police is mostly nonsense. I started on SWAT almost 30 years ago and we had those same weapons. The difference is that the city/county/state had to purchase them outright. I carried a full auto machine gun (Galil) but it was purchased by the city I work for. Now the federal government is giving away or loaning surplus gear which is exactly the same but it saves local taxpayers the expense.    The local police are not getting M1A2 Abrams tanks, not getting Stinger missiles and not getting F-15 Strike Eagle jets. What most people are calling "military" does belong to the military but can be purchased by almost anyone. It is millions of pieces of surplus goods that have to be stored, destroyed or given away. My city has a huge piece of military surplus..... a standard tanker truck that we see dozens of every day on our local streets. We have it on standby in case of another event like a hurricane so we can fill it and have enough fuel to run the city for a few days. Wow, we are almost like the First Armored Division. Better move out of the way!!! 

I don't see how plant workers and their salaries are bothered at all by current crude oil prices no matter what they are. I had a friend in the business that just retired after about 35 years at a local plant and he said that when his unit was running at full capacity, in 2-3 days they ran enough product to pay all of the operators on that unit for a year.    Prices are currently around $50 a barrel. That is $50 for 42 gallons of crude or about $1.19 a gallon.   That is when it leaves the ground. It has to be shipped, processed, had additives added to it, shipped again to a gas station and they get their final product. TX adds a 20 cent a gallon tax and the federal government adds another 18.4 cents. So we are paying a bit over 38 cents a gallon just for tax.    That means you have a gallon of unrefined crude at $1.19 and 38¢ added by government or a total of $1.57 a gallon..... before you add in shipping at least twice, refining, additives, profit for the oil company and profit for the end seller. At $1.90 a gallon that least about 33¢ a gallon to ship, refine, ship, sell.    How is a union worker (which I am not) adding much to the cost of a gallon of gasoline? I am guessing that maybe 5-10¢ a gallon goes to paying workers. If they worked for nothing, that would mean that a $1.90 a gallon of gasoline would go down to $1.85.    I am just not seeing a strike or salaries as an issue. I might put a "scare" or a claim that a strike is out there to try and justify it in a public relations move but in reality worker's salaries have little to do with oil prices. When you consider that oil in crude form and taxes makes it $1.57 or so to start, that doesn't leave much to the shipping companies, workers, wholesalers, private stations, etc. Oil makes their money on volume.    As a nation from all uses of oil, we consume almost a billion gallons a day. If I only make 10¢ per gallon profit, that is $100,000,000 a day profit or $30 billion a month. If I could sell that many cans of Campbell's Soup at Walmart a day (1 billion), I could make only 1¢ a can profit and still have almost $40 billion at the end of a year..... again, at 1¢ per can.    Explain to me how hourly workers have anything to do with price other than a convenient blame game which is a fallacy? 

    Make it white chocolate w/ macadamia. 

  Let's see, you say that it would creating taxing marijuana and then put...   Tax revenue - Check   What does check mean if not to endorse taxes?    Then try to explain it away when personal freedom is checked and the other two on less taxes on court. It looks like you are denying what everyone sees. 

  The first mistake that you made was your claims of conservatives. Since when are they in favor of higher taxes? Since when are they against law and order and keeping non-violent offenders out of jail?    Try coming up with a statement that makes sense, then maybe you can get an answer. 

  Into hyperbole much? We have 10 "every day" for the last "5 years"?   A quick look at this political forum and we can see that in the last week 5 anti-Obama threads have been started by one person, Smitty. In that same time frame 6 anti-Republican or conservative threads have been started by you are New Tobie. Let's see, 7 days times 10 per day should be.... about 70 new threads, not 5. Then take into account the opposing viewpoint and the liberal/Democratic side has started more.    A straw man argument is hereby defined in this statement. 

  More like two people. Is that what you base your opinions on?   Do you want me to show you videos of sitting Democratic members of Congress that think an island can sink or that there are two Viet Nams and that we "won" the war? I suppose that proves that all Democratic congressmen are stupid..... or is it just a few?

  You are putting the cart before the horse.   We don't know yet. In early 2006 how many people had even heard of Barack Obama and who thought that he would be the nominee, much less the president?    You are demanding an answer that the Democrats did not have when Bush was the president and two years out from the next election. In fact as much as people want to hang their hats on Hillary, who else do the Dems have? If she decided not to run, then what? 

What is a "non-operational" handgun?

We have had them here before. 

  A standard general statement when someone doesn't have an answer. 

I am sure the officer got a description like a guy that is 5'11", 185 pounds with a blue shirt with beige jogging pants and saw a guy that was about 5'11", about 185 pounds with a blue shirt and beige jogging pants and SHOULD HAVE said, "Hey, that guy looks like a 3rd year chemistry major at Yale and can't be the guy I am looking for".... but NOOOO, he has to stop and harass the guy to find out if it is in fact the suspect.    The officer must not have had much experience. I can usually look at people and instantly tell their criminal record if any, what school they are attending if any, their date of birth, their address and any other pertinent information. There is rarely any reason for me ever to detain someone because an experienced officer at a mere glance can tell everything there is to know about someone. 

  That is some of the best food ever conjured up by mankind.    Where else can you get unidentified meat, a nondescript barbecue sauce and black pepper and onions into such a delicacy? 

Maybe the awful food had a lot to do with the awful finances.    Except for the McRib...............

  It probably did not really happen and was photoshopped to throw up a smoke screen. 

  Also note, if Texas carried the nation away from the recession (which is very likely) but with Texas now facing layoffs due to the low oil prices, if they then lose all those jobs, will it put the nation right back into a deeper recession and higher unemployment?  Since Obama is claiming victory (which would not exist without Texas) for the US economy spurred by the Texas boom, will he then claim the coming attraction if the Texas economy fails? 

  I guess that was why bg was laughing so hard.... "Oh yeah, the oil boom".   Imagine that for Texas. Who'd have thunk it............. 

  Bullets is exactly right. I guess you missed this so I will post it again. This civil rights activist had your opinion until a couple of weeks ago.    [Hidden Content]

If you fit a description then you fit a description. I can't tell you how many people that I have stopped that fit the description of a crime that just occurred and some of them at gunpoint.

1. Zimmerman has nothing to do with a police who has a lawful duty and authority to detain with force if necessary. 2. Martin was killed when he attacked Zimmerman, negating any need for assumtions being an issue. 3. Officer Wison was attacked by a person bigger than him who had already tried to take the officer's gun away.

It is complete nonsense. I spent 10 years on SWAT and have train with Army Rangers, Navy SEALS and Coast Guard law enforcement and have never heard disabling shots as a firearms use of force option. There are times when you do not shoot center mass or head shots and that is only when you cannot see the more vital targets. In other words if s guy is behind a brick wall and only exposes his leg, then you try to take that out and make him fall. Watch the North Hollywood shootout with LAPD SWAT at the end. The suspect was behind a vehicle so the officers bounced rounds off of the ground under the vehicle and took out his feet because that was the only target. Well he fell they then killed him. Disabling is possible with a sniper rifle under very limited circumstances but not for handgun ranges such as patrolmen face.

  Yes, they are obviously two different things and they involve two different branches of government.    That does not however take into account that his coattails brought in a Democratic super majority into power in 2008 or in other words a majority in both houses that the Republicans could not stop. The response of Obama and the Dems was to blow two years on a very unpopular health car program and leave all other promises aside. The backlash in two subsequent elections led that super majority to be turned into an all time Republican lead in the House.    Obama lost 4 million votes in 2012 from his 2008 win. He is the first president to win reelection by losing votes since the fourth term of FDR in 1944.    If Obama's claim to fame is "I won" and his legacy is taking complete control over Congress and losing both houses, so be it.    As far as Hillary, the Dems better hope that she runs because their only chance of winning is her and that is just a chance at best.    If you want to look back at history, in late December 2007 Hillary was ahead in the national polls with 42%, Obama with little more than half at 23% and John Edwards with 16%. It is easy to be ahead in the poll right now when you have no opponent. 

..... as the claimed dead party sinks the Dems hopes and effectively puts a halt to any legal Obama agenda.

Your question has a false assumption and/or a straw man argument. The rich have always gotten richer and it is because of the free market, not Obama. The flaw/straw man argument is too easy to dispell. You say that we claim Obama is a socialist that wants to take from the rich and give to the poor. Well that is exactly what has and wants to do. The Republicans compromised with the Dems in 2013 and raised the top rate by almost 5%. Now he has come back and asked for yet another tax increase on the rich. They is no claim or accusation that Obama is taking from the rich and giving to the poor, it is a fact.