DISQUS

Tyler, you are open as air, your IP say everything about you and the credit card company you paid for your domain and your adsense account all can be easily traced, just one phone call dude....
The more open you are to people, the more safe you would be, in terms of physical safety + you can easily monitize on the great work you are doing...
I wish you could have operated the way you are for long, but just know this dude, THEY already know who you are and i have repetedly warned you about your and teams safety....Be safe, stay out of this country and take your Bloomberg terminal and a magicjack with you, KEEP POSTING AND GOD BLESS YOU!

fire this ideot...when is GE going bankrupt, CDS says by this year end..!

Donny Deutsch....he was so FAKE.....FAKER THAN OCTOMOM OR OBAMA WITH LIPSTICK LIPS...MICHELLE GAVES HIM MAKEUP EVERY MONRNING....BUSH WAS WAY BETTER...HE WOULD HAVE RUINED THE BANKER HAD HE GIVEN FEW MORE MONTHS....LONG LIVE BUSH...

second that..

GS Would love to take that opportunity...

TD and Zero Hedge, I fear for your life, they might correct you.
Do yourself a favour and leave the country and blog from there, take a MajicJack and Bloomberg Terminal with you.
Good Luck and Be Safe,
Our Prayers, wishes for luck and indebtness for delivering the truth, are with you.

I second the comments from the person from India about his Grandpa buying the Gold all the time and dying rich....
My Great Grand did the same thing, he had huge land and wealth until my Grandpa screwedup...he is alive and has nothing to leave for this childerens, I might go back to India and do the same thing.

Indians do not have anything like the Decleration of Independence but I will get a rifle and few ammo for that "just in case" moment....

I went there this last fall and the countryside is still great and secure. I liked the fact that media is literally uncensored there and people still protest about small things...(ya ya child labour and all the rant is still there...it will never go for sure)

And I find it amusing that only a few avenues like Zero Hedge are in USA that report the truth and try very hard for survival.....I wish if Indian Jurnlist were given H1-B's..they'll rip apart the shit out gobermint and a few hours....

Hi Jon,

Certainly, your concerns are valid ones. I too am a member of the vine program. For the most part, I review a lot of things with a very low dollar value that I would not otherwise have purchased. I try hard to write an objective review. If I love it, I'll state that. If it's not so good, I'll share that opinion as well. The great majority of my reviews have been deemed helpful by Amazon users. I think that the number is approximately 95% of my reviews were judged in a favorable way.

I think that most Vine members are pretty conscentious and try hard to share their true feelings about the product that they are reviewing. As you might imagine, there are exceptions to this, but in general I think that the Viners are pretty fair and objective. If we're not then of course the program is meaningless or worse and I don't think that anyone wants that to be the case.

I haven't read a lot of reviews where the Vine members give a product 4 and 5 stars and everyone else (or nearly so) rates that product only 1 or 2 stars, as you stated in your blog. I'm guessing that some examples exist though. Perhaps you could link to a few of those to illustrate your point.

Again, legitimate concerns but I do feel that the Vine writers are trying hard to be honest and helpful. I know that I am.

please use blogtalkradio.com

son of bitch, what was that, my broker screwed me up, could not sell....

DO NOT USE E*TRADE....HORRIBLE

a mass pendamic is all we need, it will wipeout all the excesse and this fractional system. we can start a new from ther e with a 100% reserve system where everyone is happy!

please use BLOGTALKRADIO.COM

good job.

http://darkvalue.blogspot.com/2009/06/cramer-20...

You said laws to control guns (aka banning them in places you dont think they belong). I'm not grasping for straws...this conversation has long been about who can and cannot carry their weapon into a Chili's.

And I not just sending you links to sway your opinion. I never intended to change your mind as you are locked into a belief that as soon as a gun enters the hand of someone who has a permit...bad things are going to happen. The problem with is, and I did a little research on this (and I am kind of sad to say), more incidents happen with off-duty officers than with your average citizen with a concealed carry permit.

The responsibility to safety that the gov't is constitutionally required to do is protect us from foreign invaders. That's it. They have no responsibility to protect you from a criminal in church who decides to shoot up the place.

See...the debate is now over :-)

Below are a few stats for you are as follows (these are from the governments own studies):

1 - Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. Only 0.01% of nearly 1.2 million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other RTC states that keep such statistics. RTC is widely supported by law enforcement officials and groups.

2 - States with RTC laws have lower violent crime rates. On average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% lower murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault, compared to the rest of the country. The seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states.

3 - Crime declines in states with RTC laws. Since adopting RTC in 1987, Florida’s total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32% and 58%, respectively. Texas’ violent crime and murder rates have dropped 20% and 31%, respectively, since its 1996 RTC law.

And my favorite:
Congress affirmed the right to guns for "protective purposes" in the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (1986). In 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution described the right to arms as "a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms."

I have no attitude towards....gun control to me is color blind. It about controlling everyone, not just whites or blacks or another other color on the planet.

My Detroit line for validation was in direct response to your I'm from New York attitude.

Maybe you should research the roots of gun control and understand why I am opposed to it. A great article was written by Clayton Cramer back in 1993 prior to the Clinton weapons ban. [ http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism... ]

Maybe it will open your eyes a little more to the fact that anything the gov't does towards gun control is aimed at the wrong people.

I dont care what color anyone is in jail. If they went thru the system and were found guilty, thats the way the cookie crumbles. Secondly, race is only an issue for those who use it as one. I dont have to go thru your archives to see that you think everything is a race issue.

BTW, back the guns in bars piece, looks like we were both wrong..here is the actual TN bill: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/HB0962...

Since they have to have a kitchen and serve meals, that rules out most bars. Maybe not places like the Saucer but that would take some kind of legal precendent to establish it.

Back to the racial thing, you dont know me or what I have lived through...Memphis is a cesspool of uneducated racism. I am from Detroit and have lived thru Hell Night, have you? Any other major metropolitan city does not have the issues Memphis has for a reason. Whats even worse is the population is about 48% black, 48% white. Kind of even on the stats. But, since we are talking incarceration, we have to go national dont we. The major reason we have the highest incarceration numbers in the world is we have the strongest laws in the world. I am sorry, but you can really say race is why the majority of those in jail, can you? That just reeks of consipiracy theory more than reality. If all you can do is go back to race to discuss the legal right to own a weapon, then our debate is done.

This show is great! I loved the episode where they were interrogating bad guys tied in chairs and threw one out the window to scare the other one.

See, here we go...name calling during a good debate.

You are right, I left out the cutural piece for a reason. Because the Swiss believe in the power of a gun and the power of knowledge. Every man is required to volunteer to their version of a national guard. And in doing so, is instructed on how guns operate, how to use them, how to respect them. Therefore, you get a understanding of a gun instead of a misinterpreted fear of an inanimate object (like most of those who dont even know what an assault rifle is). Given your response, I doubt you know the difference either. But I bet you follow the same rhetoric that the Brady camp keeps pushing out.

The incarceration rates and crimes were decreasing were a result of non-violent means. Violent offenders, repeat. They do not care about any law you want to enact and will do whatever possible to get whatever they want. We already have laws in place to handle dealers who sell guns illegally and traffickers. What we dont have is consistent dealings with those on the street who sell the guns that violent people intend to use and do harm.

I am going to respond to this statement as it is offensive to make as a broad view of who is in jail: "we have MILLIONS of (mostly black) citizens who have had their franchise taken away, in the process creating a large swath of people who pay taxes but are not afforded the same rights as others". --- Those who are prison (not all but most) are there because they did something wrong. I am not going to patronize to a racial issue when this is clearly not a racial issue. What you are referring to is the judicial system, we are discussing the legislative side.

I strongly suspect you know little enough about firearms that you were unaware that "semiautomatic" firearms have been around for over a century, were available by mail order until 30+ years ago, and are generally less powerful than their "sporting" counterparts, and more likely to wound than kill. It is hard to imagine that our currently disgraceful crime rate that is so much higher than the 1950's is due to "easy availability of semiautomatic guns" when teenagers could legally buy them from mail-order catalogs back then.

As for being a violent society, it goes back to a previous post where I stated that our current judicial system needs teeth. Regardless of laws, most of the guys I lock up, laugh that they will be out within the hour. And that is a fact which leads to many opinions and assumptions that most of the criminals understand. Do a crime, go to jail for a day, get out on bond and repeat. These individuals do this over and over again and teach it to the other street thugs. These are not your tax paying citizens that you want to broad brush with your franchise taken away statement, is it?

Let me give you both a few facts:
1 - There is no persuasive evidence that gun ownership causes ordinary, responsible, law abiding adults to murder or engage in any other criminal behavior.
2 - The value of firearms in defending victims has been greatly underestimated.
3 - Gun controls are innately very difficult to enforce?

The difficulty of enforcement crucially undercuts the violence-reductive potential of gun laws. Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm.

In conclusion, criminological research and analysis forced on most researchers is that while controls carefully targeted only at the criminal and irresponsible have a place in crime-reduction strategy, the capacity of any type of gun law to reduce dangerous behavior can never be more than marginal. Hence the marginal to almost non-existent effect from the Clinton-era weapons ban.

Gun control legislation focuses on regulating access to firearms, but the availability of guns is only one of many factors contributing to crime. Any measures that attempt to restrict access to firearms without reference to drugs, poverty with its attendant lack of educational and employment opportunities, clogged courts and overcrowded prisons are bound to have only marginal effects on firearm crime.

The contention that widespread gun ownership deters violent crime is not a personal opinion, but a result of the survey conducted for the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) among 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. The results were 34% of the felons said that they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "might get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Again it is not my thinking that wreaks any kind of havoc. I think we can all agree that stupid people should not have guns or anything else that could be used to hurt themselves or others. But if that is less than 1% of the population, why should the other 99% have to suffer? The basic answer to this is that the anti-gun groups are trying to turn gun ownership from a personal responsibility to a repulsive anti-social hazard.

In what file do you put:

<LinearLayout
xmlns:android="http://schemas.android.com/apk/res/android"
android:orientation="vertical"
android:layout_width="fill_parent"
android:layout_height="fill_parent">

<TextView
android:layout_width="fill_parent"
android:layout_height="wrap_content"
android:text="Select an image to post" />

<Gallery
android:id="@+id/gallery"
android:layout_width="fill_parent"
android:layout_height="wrap_content"
android:gravity="bottom" />
</LinearLayout>

Your tutorial doesn't say, which is kind of weird

I dont care if we have the highest rate of law breakers in jail in the world. We have a society that has promoted it, sold it, and taught it for over two decades now.

Since we do not know how that guy in DC got his guns, how are you going to create more laws against it?

Assault rifle? Every rifle is an assault rifle, but that term was coined during the Clinton era as a buzz word. And the entire AWB instituted by his administration only account for less than like 5% of the total crimes commited with weapons.

Every firearm, lets call them firearms and get away from buzz words...are for one specific purpose...to go boom. With the aid of a responsible or irresponsible person, they are inanimate objects. You can not legislate evil. Going back to your statement saying that the gov't has a duty to protect its citizens (e.g me for example), then dont take away my ability to protect myself.

Straw purchases are a new buzz word and are already handled by the ATF and state agencies. The laws are already in effect and are handled. The weapon serial number is document during a purchase, so the "legitimate" vendors will be able to help prosecute those that are partaking in this activity. Here is the kicker, these types of activities account for less than 10% of the overall gun crime. Almost half occur from a prior offense (home burglary or auto theft [where the lawful citizen left his gun to go into a Chilis to eat]) thus enabling the criminal to get a FREE gun. Another nice little fact, according to the ATF (the enforcer of gun laws), is most criminals use older guns. So that means, the gun was purchased years ago...how are NEW laws going to prevent that? They arent.

Also, from what I have seen in West TN area criminals (not sure if this is a national trend or not so dont hold it against me), your typical thug on the street is carrying some piece of crap gun that has been piece mealed together and probably works once or twice. Your typical responsible gun owner wants one that works and those cost over $600 or so.

Gun dealers are already regulated and monitored and audited. I have two close friends who are FFLs and it is quite the task to sell a weapon. One has a business where he does new gun sales and transfers, the other just does it out of his house for the FFL orders. They are both audited on about every other month or so. (Just called them to check cause I wasnt sure).

As for the profit versus rehabilitation...dont to debat that point with you as it is a different subject...but do you think that guy in DC was ever capable of changing his view? (albeit, I dont know what his view was other he hated pretty much everybody, esp me a LEO).

I just love the word "asshat" dont you :-) sorry big smile!

A police force is "reactionary" in nature...as such, they are not there to protect you. That is a big misconception that everyone needs to someday understand. It is your job to protect yourself.

Now, while I think the law is good to allow individuals to carry a weapon into a restaurant that sells alcohol...I dont think it is a great for bars. My problem is, bad guys are not going to follow the law anyway so we have to plan for them. A responsible individual is most likely not going to carry his weapon into a bar or club anyway as he/she most likely plans to drink.

Also there is NO gov't responsibility and speed limits arent even an example. Speed limits were enacted strictly to save gas...not you or me.

I think you missed my point. We already have tight enough laws and the war on crack has been an abject failure. Just take a look at most arrests, they happen near school zones anyway. Drug dealers are targeting our kids, they are not scare of the laws. I'll tell you why and it because I have seen it myself...we have plenty of laws on the books, instead of investing time and money into more laws...we need to build more prisons and stopping have wussy-fied DAs give plea deals to anyone who will "admit" to doing wrong and lock these fools up for a few years. We need to put teeth to the existing laws....most criminals I come in contact with today...dont give a rats a$$ about the judicial system. It is one step away from absolute failure as well.

Secondly, it doesnt matter what kind of laws you think we need, that idiot at the museum is an exception to your ideas about laws and I will tell you why...he had no regard for his own life. When someone crosses that line, they dont care if they go to jail or die. No amount of laws can stop those kinds of people. The problem is...they are the ones that everyone gets upset about and react to.

Lets translate your argument for stricter laws to a different subject...vehicles. No one can drive one until they are of age. If you get a DUI, in most states, you lose your license for a period of time. In the frenzy, some might claim we need to outlaw that type of vehicle and we need to now outlaw that individual from owning a vehicle right? Wrong, we deny him a constitutional right? Just like owning a weapon is a constitutional right.

We do not need tighter laws...there were a host of laws this individual broke in order to commit this horrid act. The gun this retard used was not illegal...in fact, automatic weapons are not illegal. Anyone who can pass a background check and wait for the ATF to approve them can own a fully automatic weapon. This guy was in possession of something he should have never had...how he got them...is a mystery no one will probably ever know.

You are right...we need to address how this "nutjob" (quoting you) got these weapons. Any responsible legal vendor of a weapon would have never sold him that gun. So the question, is where did he get it? That should be the focus, not more guns.

Take this same scenario and put it in a crowd "park" like...Central Park in NY. Never been there myself, so I cannot give a layout...but lets say he went in there with the same intention of killing people. There arent police and armed security guards roaming around the park are there? (I dont think so, not sure though) Who would have stopped him? Probably no one...with ONE exception...as a police officer, we can carry anywhere we go, any state we go to...except a federal building. There may have been a off duty police officer there to stop him. But that would be about it. Now, they did finally remove that law for the responsible citizen who wants to carry his/her weapon whereever he goes...in the future...when you or anyone else is at the park and a "nutjob" comes looking for trouble...he might get more than he bargained for.

One more thing to think about (kind of an apples to oranges) I know...but still...

Switzerland is one of the most heavily armed societies on this planet...they have a population of around 6 to 7 million (about the size of one of big cities). They also have about 2-3 million guns in that little country (aka a US city). That means about 1 in 3 has a gun on the street or in a home at any given time...did you know they have the lowest crime rate on the planet...so low, they stopped keeping stats? Translate that to NY, LA, Chicago, etc....

Here might be a good article to read...not sure how up to date it is...googled it while responding to your piece...

[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm ]

Responsibility is the moral character to do what is right. Responsible individuals follow the laws, kind of like lemmings following the leader. If someone "higher" up than them says do it, they do.

There was nothing disingenuous about using it for the other 36 states that have similar laws....look at DC, prior to the Heller case, it was probably (not sure if there was some place worse) the most regulated gun controlling area of our country. Yet....we have some asshat come in and start shooting...the shooter was a convicted felon. The law said:
A) He couldn't possess a firearm
B) he couldn't carry a firearm into the museum
C) He was prohibited by law from firing a firearm in the city
D) Murder is a crime

So we need more laws to prevent his actions? No, thankfully we had armed individuals (security or police forget which) there to take down the shooter before he commited a massacre.

Who is going to police the bars? That is up to the location...the police cannot be everywhere...trust me...I know (I am officer in West TN). The police are not there for anyones protection, that is up the person. Who is going to check to see if they are drinking? Again, up to the restaurant and bar. But since they are concealed, unless they wand them as they enter the door, no one knows. While I personally do not go anywhere near a gun if I have been consuming an alcoholic beverage, I cannot speak for everyone. The beauty is, is some asshat decides to do something stupid, there will be plenty of those responsible ones there waiting.

Today, some washed-up old white supremacist decided to stroll into the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in D.C. and shoot up some security guard(s). Unfortunately, the guard appears to have died, though the shooter will live to see a trial.

So here we have a city that has all-but banned firearms (aka Gun Control to protect the citizens), and where it is completely illegal to carry any kind of firearm in public, and a location where not only are weapons banned, but also bag are checked and people have to go through metal detectors, and this whackjob appeared to have no problems whatsoever strolling into the joint and blazing away. Even better, this individual is a convicted felon, and him having any firearms in his possession is a crime. (Looks like the existing laws failed so we need more laws for him to break, right? Because the next law he swears he will follow!)

It was almost like those laws and signs meant absolutely nothing to him. Interesting, that. (The reality is, that only the law abiding citizens are the ones who were the unable to defend themselves...aka PREY)

Oh, and even more interestingly, guess what it took to stop this wanna-be murderer from taking out even more people? You guessed it - another guy with a gun. The guards' guns must not have had the "evil" chip installed...