Highmark

Nope in the movie there were rules. Certain weapons classifications and certain govt officials were off limits. People with money would have a huge advantage. How many people would kill their boss and show up for work then next day realizing the company no longer existed.

Its hilarious to think people would follow the rules. OK you can kill almost anyone you want but you have to follow these rules.

Come on MC, just admit it you're voting for Hillary and want to eat the dingleberries out of her ass.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/23/supreme-court-blocks-obama-immigration-plan.html The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Obama’s immigration executive actions, in a tie decision that delivers a win to states challenging his plan to give a deportation reprieve to millions of illegal immigrants. The justices' one-sentence opinion on Thursday effectively kills the plan for the duration of Obama's presidency. The 4-4 tie vote sets no national precedent but leaves in place the ruling by the lower court. In this case, the federal appeals court in New Orleans said the Obama administration lacked the authority to shield up to 4 million immigrants from deportation and make them eligible for work permits without approval from Congress. Texas led 26 Republican-dominated states in challenging the program Obama announced in November 2014. Congressional Republicans also backed the states' lawsuit. House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday that the court ruling rendered Obama's actions "null and void." "The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws—only Congress is. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers," he said in a statement. The decision lands in the middle of a heated election season in which immigration is a central issue. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, won the primaries while railing against Obama administration immigration policies as dangerous. Democrats have, in turn, called his rhetoric racially divisive while defending the administration's move to expand existing programs that would effectively give temporary legal status to some undocumented residents. Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton countered Ryan's statement saying the decision was "purely procedural" and leaves "no doubt" the programs were within the president's authority. Referencing the 4-4 split on the court, she again urged the Senate to give Obama's nominee to fill the remaining court vacancy a vote. "Today’s deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable, and show us all just how high the stakes are in this election," Clinton said in a statement. The immigration case dealt with two separate Obama programs. One would allow undocumented immigrants who are parents of either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents to live and work in the U.S. without the threat of deportation. The other would expand an existing program to protect from deportation a larger population of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. Obama decided to move forward after Republicans won control of the Senate in the 2014 midterm elections, and the chances for an immigration overhaul, already remote, were further diminished. The Senate had passed a broad immigration bill with Democratic and Republican support in 2013, but the measure went nowhere in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives. The states quickly went to court to block the Obama initiatives. Their lawsuit was heard initially by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas. Hanen previously had criticized the administration for lax immigration enforcement. Hanen sided with the states, blocking the programs from taking effect. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled for the states, and the Justice Department rushed an appeal to the high court so that it could be heard this term.

Even Salon.com gets it. http://www.salon.com/2016/01/23/there_is_no_foreign_policy_d_league_hillarys_foreign_policy_disastrous_experience_partner/ Tuesday the Clinton campaign released a signed letter by ten prominent diplomats and career national security wonks backing Clinton for President and calling Sanders foreign policy expertise into question. The letter was both unsurprising and underwhelming. Unsurprising because it was signed by former Bill and Hillary Clinton appointees (half of whom have connections to weapons contractors and all of whom will be looking for work in January 2017) and underwhelming because she could only muster ten signatories. This isn’t to say there aren’t legitimate critiques of Sanders’s foreign policy – there certainly are – but as the democratic primary race heats up with only days until the first primary, Clinton and her partisans are doubling down on the conventional wisdom she can pass the “Commander-in-Chief test” due to her foreign policy experience – a consensus widely shared by registered Democrats, 72% of whom trust Clinton over Sanders on matters of “foreign policy”. There’s only one problem: this consensus is entirely without objective merit. The entire notion of “foreign policy” experience is based more on vague impression than reality. What matters above all, as Obama rightly insisted in 2008, is judgment not “experience”. In the case of Clinton there hasn’t been a major foreign policy decision in the Middle East she pushed for that didn’t end up being a disaster both at home and the countries she advocated meddling in. The most commonly cited “mistake” was her support for the Iraq war which is one of the main reasons she lost the nomination the first time around. But even if one excludes this. Even if one puts it into a memory hole and buries it along with her support for DOMA, welfare reform, and harsh prison sentences, the choices she’s made after 2008 show she not only didn’t learn any lessons from that war but has only grown more bellicose and hawkish. From her advocating regime change in Libya, to arming dubious opposition forces in Syria, to undermining peace with Iran — Clinton has consistently been wrong on foreign policy even after her supposedly humbling loss of 2008. Politics deals in impressions, approximants and nowhere is this more clear than on matters of “foreign policy” – a topic where those wrong are more likely to rise to the top. William Kristol, Thomas Friedman, Dan Savage, all of whom were colossally wrong about the Iraq War, are currently working in cushy pundit jobs while those in the media who sounded the alarm like Peter Arnett and Phil Donahue were relegated to obscurity. Longtime Clinton ally Ann Marie Slaughter was asked on Bill Maher in October what achievements Clinton could point to as Secretary of State. Her answer? Clinton’s championing for regime change in Libya – a foreign policy “experience” that hasreduced Libya to a failed state run largely by ISIS and other jihadists. A point Sanders himself made, going after Clinton aggressively in the December debates over the matter. In fairness, Sanders did tacitly support the invasion and the fact that one of Clinton’s most notable boosters can only point to the bombing and destruction of another country as evidence of foreign policy “achievement” says more about the toxic nature of the U.S. national security consensus than Clinton as such, but those insisting she has come up the ranks in some type of “foreign policy” development league and thus has some essential “experience” still have all their work ahead of them. One does not need even to look as far back as Libya in 2011 to see Clinton embracing wreckless, hawkish positions in the Middle East. As of this moment Clinton is calling for a no-fly zone in Syria – an act that would by definition, involve the US potentially shooting down not just Syrian planes but Russian ones as well. If this looks like regime change, that’s because it almost certainly is, According to one 2013 Defense Department estimate a no-fly zone over Syria would entail bombing Syrian military infrastructure and would require over 70,000 servicemen — and this was before Russia entered the war last fall. The costs are almost certainly much higher now. A “no fly zone” is a vaguely liberal way of calling for the air invasion of another country. It’s a position, though embraced by Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, both Sanders and Obama have dismissed out of hand for being irresponsible and unrealistic. Even here Clinton attempts to weasel out of this neocon stance by insisting, as she did to ABC moderator Martha Raddatz in December’s democratic debate, that implementing a no-fly zone in Syria would not require shooting down Russian planes because Russia would “join us”. This, to anyone who has a cursory understanding of the Syrian conflict, is absurd. Why would Russia betray its ally of 44 years and become a US client state on a dime? They wouldn’t, which perhaps explains why Clinton dropped the no-fly zone rhetoric altogether in the subsequent debate on Sunday night.

Bernie supports a "assault" weapons ban and magazine restrictions.

Depends on the state whether or not you lose it prior to conviction. Has to do with Implied Consent statutes that you signed in order to get your license. How else can you be accused of something and lose your license? If you go back and prove you were against no fly lists I will retract my claim.

Disfunction? If you mean problems yes we have close to $20 trillion of them. Lets not forget the $127 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. Govt is NOT suppose to have its hand in everything. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/01/17/you-think-the-deficit-is-bad-federal-unfunded-liabilities-exceed-127-trillion/

You can get on a no fly list without a conviction. Your example the person had to be convicted.

Are those blacktail or coues deer?

I don't know what is more sad, the fact that statement has some truth to it or people like you believe its a good thing. Oh no corporations run my life. but govt doesn't. Carry on little lamb.

You do realize that the bill in question goes beyond the "no fly list." Anyone they want to put on a terror watch list could be included. If it was 1.1 million people in 2013 how many are on it now? Should they go and confiscate over 1 million peoples guns all while giving fully automatic or true assault weapons to current and future terrorists in Libya, Syria and other places? http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/not-just-the-no-fly-list/ The Senate amendment in question, proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, would have applied to a much larger group than the no-fly list. As we reported in December, Feinstein’s office told us the measure, which would have allowed the attorney general to block gun sales to individuals on these lists, would have included a few terrorist databases, and the no-fly list is a subset of one of them. The largest of the databases is the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE, which included 1.1 million people as of December 2013. The second is the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database, which is referred to simply as the Terrorist Watchlist, and contained about 800,000 names, Christopher M. Piehota, the Terrorist Screening Center director, said in congressional testimony on Sept. 18, 2014. The no-fly list is a part of that database. It contains about 64,000 names, according to Piehota’s testimony. So, while Clinton said the measure applied to suspected terrorists on the no-fly list, that’s only 64,000 names. It actually would have applied to well over 1 million people who are on government watch lists. Republicans defeated the amendment in early December

I hope Putin and Wikileaks destroy her with releases of emails.

Poor Ben. Got any more DOT examples.

Only to a liberal or a socialist democrat.

Even Huffpo gets the danger of this. From an intercepted govt document. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html Earlier this week, The Intercept published a 166-page document outlining the government’s guidelines for placing people on an expansive network of terror watch lists, including the no-fly list. In their report, Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux highlighted the extremely vague and loosely defined criteria developed by 19 federal agencies, supposedly to fight terrorism. Using these criteria, government officials have secretly characterized an unknown number of individuals as threats or potential threats to national security. In 2013 alone, 468,749 watch-list nominations were submitted to the National Counterterrorism Center. It rejected only 1 percent of the recommendations. Critics say the system is bloated and imprecise, needlessly sweeping up thousands of people while simultaneously failing to catch legitimate threats, like Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev. While some individuals are surely placed on these watch lists for valid reasons, the murky language of the guidelines suggests that innocent people can get caught up in this web, too, and be subjected to the same possible restrictions on travel and other forms of monitoring. Here are several ways you could find yourself on a terror watch list, even if you aren’t a terrorist: 1. You could raise “reasonable suspicion” that you’re involved in terrorism. “Irrefutable evidence or concrete facts” are not required. This guidance addresses how to place people in the broader Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), of which the no-fly list and the selectee lists — which cover those selected for enhanced screenings before boarding flights — are both subsections. In determining whether a suspicion about you is “reasonable,” a “nominator” must “rely upon articulable intelligence or information which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,” can link you to possible terrorism. As Scahill and Devereaux noted, words like “reasonable,” “articulable” and “rational” are not expressly defined. While the document outlines the need for an “objective factual basis,” the next section clarifies that “irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary” to make a final determination as to whether a suspicion is “reasonable.” So how could intelligence officials be led to put you on the watch list? 2. You could post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises “reasonable suspicion.” According to the document, “postings on social media sites ... should not be discounted merely because of the manner in which it was received.” Instead, those investigating the individual should “evaluate the credibility of the source” and, if they judge the content to pose a “reasonable suspicion” of a link to terrorism, nominate the person to the watch list, even if that source is “uncorroborated.” If this sounds disturbing, don’t worry: There’s a sentence that explicitly prohibits listing an individual “for engaging solely in constitutionally protected activities.” So as long as your free speech isn’t accompanied by any other “suspicious” behavior, you should be fine, maybe. 3. Or somebody else could just think you’re a potential terror threat. The guidelines also consider the use of “walk-in” or “write-in” information about potential candidates for the watch list. Nominators are encouraged not to dismiss such tips and, after evaluating “the credibility of the source,” could opt to nominate you to the watch list. 4. You could be a little terrorist-ish, at least according to someone. The document explains that you could be put on a suspected-terrorist watch list if you are determined to be a “representative” of a terrorist group, even if you have “neither membership in nor association with the organization.” Individuals accused of being involved with a terrorist organization, but who later are acquitted in a court of law or saw their charges dropped, are still potential nominees for watch-listing, so long as “reasonable suspicion” is established. 5. Or you could just know someone terrorist-y, maybe. Scahill and Devereaux reported that the immediate family of a suspected terrorist — including spouse, children, parents and siblings — may be added to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), a broad terror database that feeds into the TSDB, “without any suspicion that they themselves are engaged in terrorist activity.” According to the document, “associates or affiliates” of known or suspected terrorists, or just those somehow “linked to” them, can also be nominated to the TSDB watchlist, so long as the relationship is defined and constitutes a “reasonable suspicion” of a connection to terrorist activity. The document states that “individuals who merely ‘may be’ members, associates or affiliates of a terrorist organization” may not be put into the latter database, unless that suspicion can be backed by “derogatory information.” But there’s also a more nebulous connection that could prompt your placement in the TIDE database. The document specifically provides for nominating “individuals with a possible nexus to terrorism ... but for whom additional derogatory information is needed to meet the reasonable suspicion standard.” 6. And if you’re in a “category” of people determined to be a threat, your threat status could be “upgraded” at the snap of a finger. The watch-list guidelines explain a process by which the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism can move an entire “category of individuals” to an elevated threat status. It’s unclear exactly how these categories are defined, but according to the document, there must be “current and credible intelligence information” suggesting that the group is a particular threat to conduct a terrorist act. Such determinations can be implemented and remain in place for up to 72 hours before a committee convenes to decide whether the watch-list upgrade should be extended. 7. Finally, you could just be unlucky. The process of adding people to the terror watch lists is as imperfect as the intelligence officials tasked with doing so. There have been reports of “false positives,” or instances in which an innocent passenger has been subject to treatment under a no-fly or selectee list because his or her name was similar to that of another individual. In one highly publicized incident in 2005, a 4-year-old boy was nearly barred from boarding a plane to visit his grandmother. The watch-list guidance was supposedly revised in part to prevent incidents like these, but with more than 1.5 million people added to the lists in the last five years, mistakes are always inevitable. Just ask Rahinah Ibrahim, a Stanford University student who ended up on a no-fly list in 2004 after an FBI agent accidentally checked the wrong box on a form. But then if you were to be mistakenly added to a list, you probably wouldn’t know — unless it stopped you from flying. The government has been extremely secretive about the names on the various watch lists. If you were to learn that you were wrongly placed on a watch list, good luck getting off it. As Scahill and Devereaux reported, you can file a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, which begins a review “that is not subject to oversight by any court or entity outside the counterterrorism community.” And if you were to get your name removed from the watch list, the intelligence agencies aren’t even obligated to inform you of your updated status. Helpful. The secretive nature of the terror watch lists has come under court scrutiny recently. A federal judge ruled in June that the government must develop a new process under which individuals can challenge their inclusion on the no-fly list. The judge found the current process “wholly ineffective.”

If I take a poll of single men whether or not they want to get laid by a supermodel tonight probably 99% would say yes. In the same poll if I add the supermodel is habitual heroin user and has HIV I'd bet 100% say no. Polls written to get a certain response immediately after a tragedy should not set law in this country. Reality is I really believe you know that but your bias has fucked up your brain.

But the forecasting agency has regularly and repeatedly revised spending estimates downward over the past six years. In 2015, it estimated that health care would cost the United States $2.6 trillion less over that same five-year period, a new analysis from the Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation shows. So because ESTIMATES were wrong we are spending less.

So now votes should be taken in congress based off unscientific, biased written polls? God damn you are a shitty American.

Its hilarious hearing you libs defend and support these people. Most transparent administration ever. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/22/clinton-it-specialist-invokes-5th-more-than-125-times-in-deposition.html The official said Pagliano was working off an index card and read the same crafted statement each time. “It was a sad day for government transparency,” the Judicial Watch official said, adding they asked all their questions and Pagliano invoked the Fifth Amendment right not to answer them. Pagliano was a central figure in the set-up and management of Clinton’s personal server she used exclusively for government business while secretary of state. The State Department inspector general found Clinton violated government rules with that arrangement. He was deposed as part of Judicial Watch's lawsuit seeking Clinton emails and other records. A federal judge granted discovery, in turn allowing the depositions, which is highly unusual in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The judge cited "reasonable suspicion" Clinton and her aides were trying to avoid federal records law. Pagliano’s deposition before Judicial Watch is one of several interviews with high-profile Clinton aides, taking place as the FBI separately is continuing its federal criminal investigation. A federal court agreed to keep sealed Pagliano’s immunity deal struck with the Justice Department in December, citing the sensitivity of the FBI probe and calling it a “criminal” matter. The next Clinton aide to testify is Huma Abedin. In an earlier deposition, lawyers for senior Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, during a nearly five-hour deposition in Washington, repeatedly objected to questions about Pagliano’s role in setting up the former secretary of state’s private server. According to a transcript of that deposition which Judicial Watch released, Mills attorney Beth Wilkinson – as well as Obama administration lawyers – objected to the line of questioning about Pagliano. “I'm going to instruct her not to answer. It's a legal question,” Wilkinson responded, when asked by Judicial Watch whether Pagliano was an “agent of the Clintons” when the server was set up. A transcript of the Pagliano deposition will be reviewed and is expected to be released next week. Clinton could also be deposed in the Judicial Watch lawsuit. There was no immediate comment from Pagliano's attorney. Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent. Pamela K. Browne is Senior Executive Producer at the FOX News Channel (FNC) and is Director of Long-Form Series and Specials. Her journalism has been recognized with several awards. Browne first joined FOX in 1997 to launch the news magazine “Fox Files” and later, “War Stories. ”

Dude you must be off your meds. Wipe that shit off your face again will ya.

Well defending its constitutionality would be a start. Are you denying you did this?

And the GOP are the obstructionists.

http://www.barrons.com/articles/warren-buffetts-nifty-tax-loophole-1428726092 If he wasn't spouting off about higher taxes the left would crucify him. Its actually funny to watch the stupidity of the average liberal.

No doubt the MSM will push the anti-gay angle more than the radical islam angle.