Thursday Open Thread – January 10th

Tomb of the Unknown ChristmasOur Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. THY WILL BE DONE, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but DELIVER US FROM EVIL.

For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever and ever. Amen †

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to Thursday Open Thread – January 10th

    • Josh says:

      What’s truly unbelievable is that the right corrective action was taken:
      “The class was told they’d have a permanent replacement for Compton for the remainder of the year.”
      Hopefully this moronic teacher was not tenured…

  1. ctdar says:

    Er, I rarely agree with CR but he does have a point:

    • anwtex says:

      To be expected, huh. I wonder who’s behind his nitwit self!

      I suspect oprah is in the process of putting a week long ‘special’ together on guns.
      And, if so, I say she, et al, should insist her/ their massive security detail should either be dis-armed or put rubber ‘bullets’……or sandbags….. in their guns.

      I abhor the entire MSM

      • howie says:

        Libthink. Their thinking is always off. They think it is not fair for gun owners to have guns while no-gun owners don’t. Thus the gun-owners are safer than the non-gun owners. This can not be allowed. Much better if all are equally unsafe. You may laugh but I am not kidding.

      • tessa50 says:

        Expected yeah, but ticks me off, he is not an American to me, so he has no 1st amendment rights, and isn’t it nice how they pick and choose which amendments should be abided by as they trample any and all

    • cajunkelly says:

      freedom of expression is a foundation of this nation…..UNLESS….

      you express disdain for a certain religion via Youtube, eh?

      • aliashubbatch says:

        Or speak out against any atheist who is a jackass, any liberal who calls any colored and/or female and/or gay conservative just about every single derogatory term in the book, or any video that puts Barry-boy in a bad light (not that it ever was a challenge to begin with).

  2. anwtex says:

    “According to a new report from Forbes, Al Gore is now worth more than last year’s Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney”.

    I don’t hear and squawking from the hypocritical left. And I won’t hold my breath.

  3. elvischupacabra says:

    Some perspective that is hard to ignore:

    Biden calls gun control a “moral issue”, yet abortion on demand and gay marriage apparently are not? Where is the line between moral and amoral with these people?

    Women were told that a Republican in the White House will “take away your right to choose [abortion]“, presumably using some sort of extra-legal, non-legislative means to overturn Roe v. Wade. Now, Obama threatens to fundamentally change our Constitutional Right to Bear Arms, through the same sort of extra-legal, non-legislative means. So, now… abortion “rights” that appear nowhere in the Constitution, are equal to or more important than the Right to Bear Arms?

    If someone had written this in a novel, no editor would’ve given it an moment of consideration as believable fiction.

    • howie says:

      By now many Crat Senators up for re-election must be hearing from irate low info voters.

    • cajunkelly says:

      Well consider the issues Rush spoke about this week regarding “pedophilia”. YES, there is a movement now to have that accepted as just another *normal* sexual orientation. Rush covered it, from an article/study in…IIRC…UK Guardian a few days ago and Soledad O’brian attacked the *hell* out of him for it.

      Google “Rush Limbaugh compares pedophila to gay marriage” and see what you get. All HE did was say that there was a time when no one thought gay marriage would happen…now look…in explaining that yeah….pedophilia as a normal sexual orientation *could* happen.

      I’ve said for at least 5 years that this would happen. After all, they’re born that way too. I haven’t read the UK Guardian article/study, but according to Rush they said that “in the right cirumcstances, pedophilia could be *GOOD* for the child.”

      Yeah, I think I HAVE woken up in some unknown foreign land. I think I wanna go home.

  4. ctdar says:

    Judge Napolitano on Fox says the President can not write law via EO to take away guns in attempt to circumvent a citizens constitutional right to bear arms. As per the Constitution only Congress can make law. Nor does he think he will tax bullets as Chicago once tried but was struck down because no one is going to pay a tax more than what an item is worth which also would create a hardship for the poor that have the right to be able to protect themselves or a black market for ammunition.
    I love the Judge :)

    • Sharon says:

      The fact that he can’t does not mean that he won’t. Did she acknowledge that?

      • ctdar says:

        He was very firm on that a President can not enact law via EO but just stated examples re bullet tax.

        • Sharon says:

          A law-abiding President can’t. This one has done exactly that. I wish they would say so, instead of continually asserting, “Well, the law is very clear.. POTUS cannot….” Really. Well, this POTUS does. And no one stops him.

          • aliashubbatch says:

            Doesn’t mean you or anyone else have to acknowledge these laws.

            • Sharon says:

              I know that. I’m finding it increasingly disturbing that there does not seem to be a single “public figure” who is willing to talk plain talk. Lots of them are willing to have public arguments, participate in useless interviews to assert some little point….even Hannitty, since the election, has become even more irritating, which I didn’t think was possible..

              He’s becoming just a conservative example of crosstalk: let’s get together with some people whose views we can’t stand, yell at each other for 9-10 minutes, laughing while we’re yelling, and get paid big bucks for it.

              Mark Levin is the only one I am willing to give my time to any more.

      • Josh says:

        Your question is quite accurate, Sharon. The law, the Constitution of The United States of America has not stopped this B Hussein Obama. Others [Republicans and Democrats alike] that are supposed to keep the Executive branch in line are not doing their job. They allow it to happen and then complain that it is happening. Of course, what they say and what they do are two different things but the voters seem to be buying it.

        • Sharon says:

          The voters are one thing. I wish the so-called conservative/Constitutional public figures/commentators, etc. would stop buying it,… their silence.

      • aliashubbatch says:

        Judge Napolitano is male Sharon. You’re probably thinking of Judge Jeanine.

  5. WeeWeed says:

    Mornin’ kids – happy Friday-eve. “The Connecticut Bill To ‘Out’ Gun Owners Shows Us A Nationalized Issue”

    • cajunkelly says:

      Wee…maybe they think outting us will “thin the herd”. Look at the murder of the Youtube channel guy, in the top ten channels on Youtube…gun enthusiast…murdered.

  6. cajunkelly says:

    Hmmm, OK, so if you’ve been responsible, doubled up on payments and paid off your mortgage…no gun for you?

    IDIOT. Does he not realize many many of “his people” live in government subsidy housing and have no mortgage? This would un-gun a huge part of his fan base.

    • cajunkelly says:

      Just read the article. He is an idiot. “all serial killers still live at home with parents”….uhhhh more non *serial* murders in Chicago last year than all the serial murders combined…wonder how many of those had a mortgage?

  7. WeeWeed says:

    Oh, Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!! “Gawkerite Sows, Reaps, Whines”

  8. ctdar says:

    Soviet Union method to disarm legal gun owning citizens & military back in the day:
    …” Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.”

  9. ThatOldGuy says:

    Larry Pratt on Piers Morgan Round Two. Larry Pratt does brilliantly.

    • ThatOldGuy says:

      An article that clarifies how the British government under reports crime, and that there was no *change* in the rate of gun homicides as a result of the bans passed across the pond.

      ‘To begin with, More Guns, Less Crime author John Lott has recently explained that this is a misleading representation of the statistics: Yes, the gun murder rate is relatively low in England and Wales, but it was already low before the ban, and the stats do not show a decrease in murders committed with guns (nor overall murders) since the ban was instituted, as Morgan implies. “There is a difference between levels and changes,” he notes. Meanwhile, The Telegraph reported in 2009 that gun crime had “almost doubled in the last decade”.’

      ‘In this article, the authors explained that “the violent crime rate has risen dramatically and steadily since gun bans have been instituted,” and that Britain had accordingly lost its reputation as an “unusually safe and crime-free nation”.’

      ‘Quoting from these articles, Pratt noted the following:

      –“Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to ‘massage’ statistics.”
      –Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. “The crime figures are meaningless,” he said. “Police everywhere know exactly what is going on.”
      –“Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed.”

      But that’s only through 2000. Has this problem gone away in recent years? No. ‘

  10. ThatOldGuy says:

    A good article by the good judge, Judge Andrew Napoitano:

    There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century — from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad — have disarmed their people, and only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.

    The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

    We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

    The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us.

    Read more:

    • howie says:

      I agree with him 100%. The Deerhunters back then were a given. The reason for the 2nd is exactly what is going on here today. To wail on a tyrant. Somehow we seem to have elected one. But there are still checks. The 2nd amendment is one of those checks as are the rest. It can only be changed with another amendment. Not a ridiculous executive order by a nitwit communist. Amazing how they knew this would happen. They musta had ESP.

      • ThatOldGuy says:


        If you didn’t hunt back then, you didn’t eat. Having a second amendment for the purposes of hunting is like having a second amendment for the purposes of forks and knives.

        The reasons as to why there is a second amendment are exactly what the politicians fear, which is why they are trying to take/ban the guns. As to why they knew this would potentially happen, the same things that sparked the revolution are happening today (you saw my earlier comment about Lexington and Concord… ;)

        • aliashubbatch says:

          In regards to the pollies and their attempted ban, lemme just say this:

          If man is able to ignore the commands of Almighty God, on what basis do other men, mere mortals, possibly believe they can try to control you?

          • howie says:

            I have a plan. We get a mortgage. On the White House. Capital, IRS Bldg., and the States of New York, California, and Illinois. The we default. Whoever has the mortgage can have them. Killing 2 birds with one stone. They are the source of all our trouble.

            • texan59 says:

              You have to show the bank that you are in possession of the property first, that you live there or, you have an tenant and a rental agreement. If you can do that, please let me know how you pull it off.

  11. ytz4mee says:

    “Man, 19, shot in face on Brooklyn subway platform …”

    Read the comments. People aren’t staying silent about the “gun control” bs, or the fact that no descriptive details for the alleged perp were provided.

  12. Josh says:

    Oh, Snap! Gurl!!!
    Drive Thru Invisible Driver Prank

  13. Josh says:

    IRS Provides Updated Withholding Guidance for 2013
    IR-2013-1, Jan. 3, 2013
    WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today released updated income-tax withholding tables for 2013 reflecting this week’s changes by Congress.

    The updated tables, issued today after President Obama signed the changes into law, show the new rates in effect for 2013 and supersede the tables issued on December 31, 2012. The newly revised version of Notice 1036 contains the percentage method income-tax withholding tables and related information that employers need to implement these changes.

    In addition, employers should also begin withholding Social Security tax at the rate of 6.2 percent of wages paid following the expiration of the temporary two-percentage-point payroll tax cut in effect for 2011 and 2012. The payroll tax rates were not affected by this week’s legislation.

    Employers should start using the revised withholding tables and correct the amount of Social Security tax withheld as soon as possible in 2013, but not later than Feb. 15, 2013. For any Social Security tax under-withheld before that date, employers should make the appropriate adjustment in workers’ pay as soon as possible, but not later than March 31, 2013.

    Employers and payroll companies will handle the withholding changes, so workers typically won’t need to take any additional action, such as filling out a new W-4 withholding form.

    As always, however, the IRS urges workers to review their withholding every year and, if necessary, fill out a new W-4 and give it to their employer. For example, individuals and couples with multiple jobs, people who are having children, getting married, getting divorced or buying a home, and those who typically wind up with a balance due or large refund at the end of the year may want to consider submitting revised W-4 forms.

    More information can be found on this website.

    Notice 1036

    • Josh says:

      Tax brackets remain the same (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%) with one addition which is 39.6%.

      • Josh says:

        The number that puts you in which bracket has changed.

        • howie says:

          Wow if you make 740 bucks a week they will withold 25% of it plus 95 bucks plus 9% for social sec. So if you make 740 you take home 44 after tax. Then add whatever state tax. F**K that. I am raising my exempts to 12.

          • Josh says:

            howie, howie, your numbers are off…
            As a single person being paid weekly if you make 740 bucks a week they will withhold 25% plus 95.95 OF THE AMOUNT OVER $739.00. In addition to the withholding they will take 6.2% for social security plus 1.45% for medicare.

            • Josh says:

              To finish this up for you, my friend, if you make $740.00 bucks a week they will take out approximately $96.00 for withholding, approximately $46.00 for social security & approximately $11.00 for medicare for total deductions of $153.00 (approximately). Your net paycheck would be approximately $587.00. Keep working, howie.

              • howie says:

                25% of 740 is 185 bucks. plus 95 bucks is 280. MC and SS adds 57. Total = 337 plus 237 lost SS pmt = 674. I make 1250. Net 576. Plus all other taxes over 60%.

                • texan59 says:

                  They don’t take out a flat 25%. Look at the tables. They take out 10% of the first level. 15% up to the next level and so on. They only take out 25% on the amount over that specific level. Slow down and take a breath. As long as you are making under $8,000 per week, the only difference in your check is the 2% they are putting back in for SS deductions.

            • Josh says:

              Okay, okay, one more thing…
              This same analogy for 2012, had they kept the Social Security rate at 6.2%, would have given you a take home pay of approximately $159.00…$6.00 more.

              Regardless of everything, yes, they are taking too much of our EARNED income!

            • howie says:

              Right I was rounding. But I will lose 940 of SS. And I pay a 7% sales tax plus gas tax plus all the other taxes etc. It ands up to well over 60%. It is 95 plus 25% of amount over 739. Most all legal gun owners are taxpayers. This explains Obama’s communist plot to grab the taxpayers guns. It is crystal clear. He is disarming the taxpayers.

      • howie says:

        It no longer pays to work. If I continue I lose 1000 a month on SS and pay over 50% tax when all included. And that is at the 25% bracket. If the loss of SS is included it is 60%. And now they want to disarm me too. Nahhhh. This has got to end.

  14. WeeWeed says:

    Anyone listening to that vacuum-cleaner-suckup, Geitner??? Gag.A.Maggot.

  15. scubachick75 says:

    I drove past the post office on my home just now and there a few ladies standing outside with signs saying “Stop WW III, Impeach Obama” and one about the 2nd amendment and calling him stupid. LOL! Love it!!!

  16. Josh says:

    I just received my tax return back from the IRS. It puzzles me!!!
    They are questioning how many dependents I claimed.
    I guess it was because of my response to the question: “List all dependents”

    I replied: 20 million illegal immigrants; 3 million crack heads;
    42 million unemployed people on food stamps, 2 million people in over 243 prisons;
    Half of Mexico; and 535 persons in the U.S. House and Senate.”
    Evidently, this was NOT an acceptable answer.

    • howie says:

      Breaking…Biden just announced that if you don’t register the guns….all guns they will be confiscated by the government…All guns will be class 3 firearms. Not confirmed yet. But would not surprise me. They will go in to a database and be taxed.

  17. aliashubbatch says:

    You know in all this talk on gun control, I’m surprised that the liberal machince hasn’t trotted out Trademark for stricter gun control (read confiscation); or maybe they have and I didn’t see it.

  18. cajunkelly says:

    Biden drew complaints from Republican lawmakers when he suggested Wednesday, while meeting with gun control groups, that the administration might go around Congress to implement some provisions.

    “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken,” Biden said. He also said separate legislative action would be “required.”

    “Vice President Biden would do well to read the 2nd Amendment and revisit the meaning of the phrase ‘shall not be infringed,'” Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., said in a statement. “Bypassing Congress to implement radical policies is never acceptable.”

  19. cajunkelly says:

    I just read that Wyoming is proposing a state law that would protect its citizens.

    Several Wyoming lawmakers are proposing legislation designed to protect gun-owners from any potential federal firearm ban. The “Firearms Protection Act” bill, introduced this week, would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state’s boundaries.

    I believe Louisiana will do the same thing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s