America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 40,265 comments
  • 1,830,988 views
Slash
So apparently traffic was shut down on an interstate after someone hung an Obama dummy by the neck off a bridge.

http://fox4kc.com/2014/06/02/traffic-rerouted-after-obama-dummy-found-hanging-from-bridge/


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Just shows how much people hate this President. The lengths people go to to get a point across.

I mean, killing anyone isn't funny, but really? Come on people...
Click to expand...
Yeah...something tells me the people who hung the effigy are probably the kind of people you don't want to meet in a dark alley if you're not white.
 
Try the PRISM thread, @TenEightyOne.

In unrelated news, the House Appropriations Committee has just voted for the IRS's budget for the coming fiscal year. They approved a $10.9 billion budget, $1.5 billion short of what the President wanted. The Committee's reasoning? The goal is to keep the tax agency focused on its “core duties,” and eliminate efforts to judge the political activities of tax-exempt groups and brake its implementation of Obamacare. The budget cut would bring the IRS budget to 2008 spending levels.

The budget is part of a larger $21 billion bill that will fund the Treasury department, the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as the IRS for 2015.

The following budget proposals are most noteworthy…

1. A prohibition on a proposed regulation related to political activities and the tax-exempt status of 501(c)(4) organizations. The proposed regulation could jeopardize the tax-exempt status of many non-profit organizations and inhibit citizens from exercising their right to freedom of speech, simply because they may be involved in political activity.

2. A prohibition on funds for bonuses or awards unless employee conduct and tax compliance is given consideration.

3. A prohibition on funds for the IRS to target groups for regulatory scrutiny based on their ideological beliefs.

4. A prohibition on funds for the IRS to target individuals for exercising their First Amendment rights.

5. A prohibition on funding for the production of inappropriate videos and conferences.

6. A prohibition on funding for the White House to order the IRS to determine the tax-exempt status of an organization.

7. A requirement for extensive reporting on IRS spending.

8. A prohibition on any transfers of funding from the Department of Health and Human Services to the IRS for ObamaCare uses

9. A prohibition on funding for the IRS to implement an individual insurance mandate on the American people.

Harry Reid won't bring this to the floor I bet...
 
They're wanting to regulate GPS.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/16/stuck-in-traffic-thanks-obama-feds-to-re

waze.png


The Obama administration wants to cripple the navigation and traffic reporting apps on your smartphone. In the name of safety, of course.

Provisions in the proposed transportation bill—which Congress will look at in the next few months—would give the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration the power to regulate apps like Google Maps and Waze, the crowdsourced traffic reporting tool.

They're going to start with automobiles' built-in navigation devices, since regulatory authority is clearer there. Possible "features" include limiting inputs when the car is in motion, or making people click a button saying that they are a passenger.

But of course, if they make the onboard navigation systems in cars suck, people will just turn to their smartphones, right? So they had better regulate those too.

The impulse to regulate against distracted driving has a long, not terribly glorious pedigree, dating all the way back to efforts to go after people who were changing the radio station while driving. In more recent years, talking and texting bans have failed to show clear positive results and may even cause harm.

Meanwhile, the courts are already working this one out:

The underlying issue has already worked its way into the courts. In California, Steven R. Spriggs received a $165 ticket two years ago for using his iPhone while driving in stop-and-go traffic near Fresno. A highway patrol motorcycle officer rolled up alongside his car after seeing the glow from the screen on Mr. Spriggs's face.

"I held it up and said, 'It's a map,' " Mr. Spriggs said. He was not talking on the phone, which is prohibited by California law.

But the police officer would not budge. "He said, 'Pull over, it doesn't matter,' " said Mr. Spriggs, the director of planned giving at California State University, Fresno.

An appeals court ruled this year that it did matter, and Mr. Spriggs's conviction was reversed.

In other breaking news, a group beholden to Congress and run by a former top transpo bureaucrat totally thinks the government should act:

Safety advocates say regulators need to do more.

"We absolutely need to be looking at these nomadic devices," said Deborah A. P. Hersman, president of the National Safety Council, a nonprofit group chartered by Congress, and a former chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board.

Reason has covered the government's insatiable desire to regulate apps in the health care arena as well.​
Click to expand...

1) Because making it less of a pain to legally grab a paper map and spread it over my steering wheel while driving is safer?

2) Waze already does what they are suggesting, so I'm missing the point of their claimed purpose.

3) I think the real purpose is that Waze tells me where police and cameras are and these kinds of apps might be hurting police budgets. Set a regulatory precedence under the guise of an issue that you can get support for then regulate functionality later.

4) OH HELL NO!!! Don't you dare touch my favorite app.
 
In other news, the supreme court has ruled unanimously against "obama" (I put that in quotes because sometimes it's difficult to tell) 13 times... unanimously.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ainst-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund

This is not just ruled against, this is every single supreme court justice including Obama's appointees ruling against. It does indicate a complete lack of regard for the constitution and a fundamental lack of understanding of the principles of the country... and this is the President and Attorney General we're talking about.

In my opinion, it would be embarrassing for the White House to be overruled by the Supreme Court unanimously even once.
 
Danoff
In other news, the supreme court has ruled unanimously against "obama" (I put that in quotes because sometimes it's difficult to tell) 13 times... unanimously.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ainst-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund

This is not just ruled against, this is every single supreme court justice including Obama's appointees ruling against. It does indicate a complete lack of regard for the constitution and a fundamental lack of understanding of the principles of the country... and this is the President and Attorney General we're talking about.

In my opinion, it would be embarrassing for the White House to be overruled by the Supreme Court unanimously even once.
Click to expand...
Indeed. That's pretty startling, actually. For the Supreme Court to rule unanimously about anything is uncommon, at least from what we hear in the news. This just goes to show that the administration is basically making up ideas until one of them slips through the cracks. There's no way the Supreme Court can get to everything after all, right?
 
@Danoff ,et all..: Unanimous decisions are indeed rare. Sometimes things are just too blatant. However, a President (and sometimes Congress) wrangling with the Supreme Court is nothing new. Although I am not an Obama fan, in my opinion, a President that does not get in a fight with the Supreme Court isn't trying hard enough. Note that the NLRB decision was a narrow decision (merits of the case rather than broad principle), which means that Congress has to watch what it is doing or we will see this again.

edit: I do agree entirely with the National Review.
 
Last edited:
It shouldn't be forgotten that this is the same president who called out the Supreme Court on a decision he didn't agree with, during a State of the Union address.
 
I don't know whether this is a shocking indictment of how poorly some cars are made or whether this guy is actually Superman..

BBC
Man 'bends car door' of burning vehicle to save driver
_75983795_75982306.jpg


Bob Renning said he has no idea how he managed to bend the door open.

A man saved a driver from a burning car by bending the door with his bare hands, say police, describing his feat of "superhuman strength".

Bob Renning, 52, pulled up on a freeway in Minnesota to help another vehicle that was filling with smoke.

He told the Minneapolis Star Tribune he was not sure how he bent the door open far enough to shatter the window glass.

Police officer Zachary Hill was first to the scene and full of praise for Mr Renning's "extraordinary" heroics.

"He did an extraordinary deed, bending a locked car door in half, of a burning car, to extricate a trapped person," said Hill.

Mr Renning, a member of the US National Guard, said he sprinted towards the vehicle as he saw flames and smoke "rolling around" the SUV. His girlfriend called 911.

After he realised the vehicle was locked and the windows would not work, Mr Renning gripped the top of the door frame with his fingers, braced his foot against the door and pulled, according to the Minnesota State Patrol.

_75984137_car_door.jpg


The door Renning prised open bears the marks of his feat.

The man in the vehicle, Michael Johannes, said he did not realise someone was trying to save him as he held his breath in the smoke-filled car. He suffered minor smoke inhalation and light cuts from being pulled through the shattered window.

"Thirty seconds later and I would have been done," Mr Johannes said. "It was a good thing I didn't have my family in there."
Click to expand...
 
Robin.
I don't know whether this is a shocking indictment of how poorly some cars are made or whether this guy is actually Superman..
Click to expand...

Good thing Trailblazers are built like a piece of ****. :lol:
 
The USA missing from that list isn't too strange, since it's the FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Court. Not that it means anything, it just means the NSA can't spy there, nothing about other agencies...

It also probably means that the four countries that are exempt have some agreement in place (on top of the no-spying agreement) to exchange information regarding citizens...
 
NLxAROSA
The USA missing from that list isn't too strange, since it's the FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Court. Not that it means anything, it just means the NSA can't spy there, nothing about other agencies...

It also probably means that the four countries that are exempt have some agreement in place (on top of the no-spying agreement) to exchange information regarding citizens...
Click to expand...

From that I can tell from that article, it looks like the US is not spying on Canada but is spying on its own citizens. Maybe Canada is spying on Canadians, maybe the US is getting the information anyway, maybe the US is even breaking the no-spying agreement and risking a maple syrup embargo, but it looks like Canadians are getting better protection from our government than we are.
 
Danoff
From that I can tell from that article, it looks like the US is not spying on Canada but is spying on its own citizens. Maybe Canada is spying on Canadians, maybe the US is getting the information anyway, maybe the US is even breaking the no-spying agreement and risking a maple syrup embargo, but it looks like Canadians are getting better protection from our government than we are.
Click to expand...
The US is getting, supposedly confidential, information somehow.

http://read.thestar.com/?origref=#!...gent-cites-supposedly-private-medical-details
 
What does everyone here think of the ruling allowing the "religious freedom" of Hobby Lobby's owners to supersede that of their employees? Somehow I think that if Hobby Lobby's owners wanted to impose Sharia on their employees while they're at work, the conservative wing of the SCOTUS wouldn't be so willing to capitulate.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
444 445 446
Replies
13K
Views
623K
sirjim73
sirjim73
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
451 452 453
Replies
14K
Views
759K
Voodoovaj
Voodoovaj
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
19K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
816
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
77
Views
7K
TB
TB

Latest Posts

Back