Jump to content

KirtFalcon

Members
  • Posts

    47,656
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    348

Everything posted by KirtFalcon

  1. Warning: Remember this is a "G" rated forum. I don't see this thread lasting much longer if the sexually suggestive comments continue.
  2. The Rangers should have kept him. His bat will be hard to replace! :coolball:
  3. By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Hybrid cars are a good bet for tax breaks in 2006. The new year will bring more savings for buyers of at least 13 gas-electric vehicles, with those showing the most improvement in fuel efficiency securing bigger tax breaks for their new owners. The breaks will come in the form of tax credits, and they range from $3,150 for buyers of the Toyota Prius to $250 for Chevrolet's Silverado pickup truck, according to an analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. The credits give buyers of American hybrids incentives similar to those now enjoyed mostly by Honda and Toyota owners. Official figures on the hybrid tax credits weren't available Friday from the Internal Revenue Service. Still, some car-shoppers already have figured out they would do better to hold off on buying a hybrid until after Jan. 1, when the new credits kick in. The law previously allowed buyers of one of eight hybrid models in 2005 to qualify for a $2,000 tax deduction from their income taxes. That would come out to about $700 for people in the 35 percent tax bracket, and less for those in lower brackets. "For our family, it made the most sense to not take delivery until 2006," said John Krivit, an associate professor at The New England Institute of Art, whose wife, Robin, drives 52 miles a day shuttling their children to school around Boston. "It's not an inexpensive car, but the savings in gas along with the tax credit made it a no-brainer for us with all the driving that my wife has to do," he said. "Not to mention the good feeling that you're doing something positive for the environment." A few months after a car maker has sold 60,000 hybrid vehicles, the tax credit begins phasing out, reducing the chance buyers late in the year will get the same break as those who buy in January or February. At least 13 vehicles in 2006 are expected to qualify for tax credits, which are determined by how much fuel efficiency is improved. Alternative-fuel cars can get credits, such as $3,600 for a natural gas-powered Honda Civic GX. Some states provide additional incentives to hybrid buyers. Even buyers of hybrids that are less efficient than some gas-only vehicles would get breaks, including $650 for a four-wheel-drive Chevy Silverado. It only gets 17 mpg in the city, but that is still an improvement over the fuel efficiency of a gasoline-fueled Silverado. Although a non-hybrid Volkswagen Jetta gets twice the mileage of the hybrid Silverado, the Jetta does not quality for the tax credit because its fuel efficiency did not improve enough to qualify. The focus on hybridization instead of actual gallons-saved hurts efforts to reduce oil dependency, said John Coequyt, an energy policy specialist for the environmental group Greenpeace. "Handing over this little tiny rebate to the inefficient hybrids is a way to recognize their very hesitant acceptance of this technology." Some drivers of gas-sipping hybrids don't mind sharing the wealth with less-efficient models. Sev MacPete, president of the Prius Club of San Diego, plans to pick up his new Prius on Jan. 2 to qualify for the tax credit. He says it makes sense to give tax breaks to people who buy less-efficient hybrids because they aren't likely to look at more efficient cars, and any improvement helps. "A person buying a Silverado or whatever is not in the market to buy a Jetta," he said. Tax incentives may not matter much to drivers anyway. Hybrid dealers report long waiting lists and fast-selling cars, regardless of whether people will qualify for the 2005 or 2006 tax breaks. Ahmad Rabiei, a Honda salesman in Gardena, Calif., said he has a list of 20 people waiting for hybrid Civics. "If the car is available they get it as soon as possible," he said. "You have to be lucky." ___ Associated Press Writer Tim Molloy contributed to this report from Los Angeles.
  4. Bill "Superfoot" Wallace would mop the floor with all of them. Chuck Norris retired from competition . . . instead of facing Superfoot Wallace in the ring! He actually appeared in a movie with Norris called "A Force Of One"
  5. You are growing wiser . . . grasshopper! :thumbsup:
  6. I'm not afraid of people of different ethenicity either. Just the ones communicating with terorist organizations plotting terrorist acts. Anyone white, black, or any color should be monitored if they are suspected for good reason of terrorism. That does not mean we should monitor any race of people indiscriminatly . . . and no, ordinary citizens like you shouldn't be monitored either. That's not whats going on with these wiretaps and I think you know it. The NSA doesn't have the time, manpower or desire to monitor ordinary the communication of non-suspicious citizens. As for tightening up the borders, that may only slow down illegal imigration . . . it won't stop any determined terrorists from crossing our borders . . . and it certnly won't stop communication links with foreign terrorists. I agree with you all American citizens are entitled to the same rights regardless of race. However, when anyone's behavior becomes suspicious and their actions show signs of sympathy toward radical Islam I believe our government has every right and even a responsibility to wiretap their communications in the war against terrorism in order to protect innocent Americans! :whistle: Let's not try and turn this into the NSA wiretapping your Aunt Alice talking to Betty Sue over the phone about their knitting party like the liberals are trying to do! This is very limited, precise surveillance of people suspected of links to terrorism and the government has every right to do it! :w00t:
  7. I have eaten several caribu. They are quite tasty! I also have a trophy-class caribu rack hanging on my wall I killed on a hunt near Tok, Alaska in 1986! :w00t:
  8. Deuce, Would you rather we just leave them alone, because they are citizens, and let them help plot and carry out another 9/11 style attack with foreign terrorists or heaven forbid something even worse? They might be able to detonate a small nuke or dirty bomb in the middle of Dallas or Chicago killing a few hundred thousand innocent people. Is protecting their civil liberties worth more than a few thousand lives, how about a few hundred thousand lives, or maybe a million lives? Sometimes I wonder if you really understand what is at stake here. You seem to have no sense of what is best for the greater good of America. Sometimes we have to sacrifice a little personal liberty for the good of America. Many brave Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice for the the greater good of America . . . the least we can do is honor their sacrifice by giving up a little personal liberty in this fight against terrorism for the protection of millions of Americans. But alas, you would rather obstruct the fight against terrorism for petty politics. What will you say after the next attack on America that might have been thwarted except for politically motivated obstructionists limiting our intelligence capability? :whistle:
  9. They are Americans of middle eastern decent. You say we shouldn't be able to wiretap them? That's ridiculous! :w00t: If they are collaborating with foreign terrotists by providing information andor supplies they should not only be wiretapped . . . they should be lined up and shot for treason! :w00t:
  10. You are sadly mistaken if you think our founding fathers would not have used every option available to protect America from terrorism! :w00t:
  11. If general, I would also agree that civil liberties should be protected when it comes to average Americans. The people that the wiretaps were used on are far from average Americans. They are suspected or known radical Islamic fundamentalists that our government has reason to suspect want to do harm to Americans by committing acts of terror. If you watched the news this morning you would have seen over a dozen faces of those these wiretaps were used against. They might have been Americans, but they were all of middle eastern decent with connections to radical Islam. Our president is doing his best to protect America and sometimes may be required to use these powers granted to him to protect us from terrorist attacks . . . and that in my opinion takes priority over the civil liberties of these characters! I would rather step on a few toes of a few shady characters than see another terrorist act kill a few thousand more innocent Americans. Sometimes you have to make some tough choices when you are in charge . . . believe me I know! :w00t: I too am prepared to protect myself with force, if necessary. I also understand it is a different world we live in since 9/11 and I trust this president not to abuse his power protecting me and my country . . . instead of playing politics with our security like is political opponents. :whistle:
  12. James P. Pinkerton December 29, 2005 This will be remembered as the year in which mass surveillance became normal, even popular. Revelations about the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping rocked the civil liberties establishment, but the country as a whole didn't seem upset. Instead, the American people, mindful of the possible danger that we face, seem happy enough that Uncle Sam is taking steps to keep up with the challenges created by new technology. Ask yourself: Do you think it's a bad idea for the feds, as U.S. News & World Report mentioned, to monitor Islamic sites inside the United States for any possible suspicious radiation leaks? The Council on American-Islamic Relations is up in arms - but are you? If you were to read in the paper that some FBI agent has gotten in trouble over pointing a Geiger counter at a mosque, would you be inclined to give the FBI agent the benefit of the doubt? I thought so. Or take another example: Wednesday's USA Today details government plans to deploy security agents at major airports to engage in "behavioral screening." That is, agents chat up passengers, looking for anything suspicious. It's a tactic that's worked in Israel for years, and it's being introduced here, starting with Boston's Logan Airport. That airport, some might recall, was the departure point for two of the doomed flights on 9/11. But of course, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts has already sued to oppose any such program. Who do you think the overwhelming majority of Americans want to see prevail on this question? Yes, civil liberties matter, but the majority has rights, too, and if the majority puts a premium on the nation's safety, that view deserves respect. Some say that these new government actions are taking us closer to "1984." But, in fact, the key year was 1651. That's when the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes published "The Leviathan," a hugely influential political science tome that laid the intellectual groundwork for a strong central government. Hobbes wrote that in a state of nature, without benefit of law and law enforcement, life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes believed in strong government, but he was no totalitarian. Instead, he was reacting to the Wars of Religion that had raged across Europe for the previous century-and-a-half, in which Catholics and Protestants enthusiastically burned and butchered one another by the millions. In addition, Hobbes' own country had just been wracked by a decade-long civil war. Clearly, a powerful state was needed - a regime that, as he put it, would possess a monopoly of force within the society. Would people lose some of their freedoms? Sure they would, and among the freedoms lost was the freedom to hack to death the deviationist next door. We like to think that we have made progress in the four centuries since, especially here in the United States. But we're up against a basic reality: As populations grow denser, and as technology improves, there's a natural need for more regulation to keep people's elbows, and machines, from banging into each other. That's the reason why, for example, Wyoming is a more libertarian place than New York City. Out in the West, where miles might separate people, you can pretty much do what you want. But, if millions are going to live in close proximity to one another, then lots of red tape is going to thread itself around each resident, governing not only the obvious concerns, such as weapons and pollution, but matters such as noise abatement and cigarette smoking. And now, in the name of homeland security, more regulating - spying, if you prefer - is coming. Even so, someday, somewhere, a Big One is going to go off. And after that, all controversies about civil liberties - and, by the way, immigration - will look different in the eyes of the survivors. An updated Hobbesian paradigm of governance will emerge - unless, of course, it's an Orwellian paradigm instead. James P. Pinkerton's e-mail ad- dress is [email protected].
  13. A good year for America is a bad year for liberals dimocrats . . . . what a political corner to be backed into!!! The economy is booming due to increased revenues and business expansion . . . all direct result of tax cuts. Unemployment is near record lows and job growth is strong. Iraq is becoming a democracy and millions of Iraqi people now have the same hope of freedom that we enjoy. Yes . . . I'd say it's been a good year for the American people, unless you are a doom and gloom liberal pouting because you were voted out office by the American people! :whistle:
  14. For all of our liberal members: :w00t:
  15. Bush Administration Defends Spying Program By TONI LOCY, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The Bush administration formally defended its domestic spying program in a letter to Congress late Thursday saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored. In a letter to the chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the Justice Department said President Bush authorized electronic surveillance without first obtaining a warrant in an effort to thwart terrorist acts against the United States. "There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at stake with respect to the activities described by the president," wrote Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella. "That must be balanced, however, against the government's compelling interest in the security of the nation." President Bush has acknowledged he authorized such surveillance and repeatedly has defended it in recent days. But Moschella's letter was the administration's first public notice to Congress about the program in which electronic surveillance was conducted without the approval of a secret court created to examine requests for wiretaps and searches in the most sensitive terrorism and espionage cases. Moschella maintained that Bush acted legally when he authorized the National Security Agency to go around the court to conduct electronic surveillance of international communications into and out of the United States by suspects tied to al-Qaida or its affiliates. Moschella relied on a Sept. 18, 2001, congressional resolution, known as the Authorization to Use Military Force, as primary legal justification for Bush's creation of a domestic spying program. He said Bush's powers as commander-in-chief give the president "the responsibility to protect the nation." The resolution "clearly contemplates action within the United States," Moschella wrote, and acknowledges Bush's power to prevent terrorism against the United States. Congress adopted the resolution in the chaotic days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, authorizing the president to wage war against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups that pose a threat to the United States. Moschella said the president's constitutional authority also includes power to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance inside the United States. He said that power has been affirmed by federal courts, including the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. The FISA court was created in 1978 after public outcry over government spying on anti-war and civil rights protesters. The administration deliberately bypassed the FISA court, which requires the government to provide evidence that a terrorism or espionage suspect is "an agent of a foreign power." The foreign intelligence law makes it a crime for anyone who "intentionally intercepts" a communication without a warrant. Moschella said Bush's action was legal because the foreign intelligence law provides a "broad" exception if the spying is authorized by another statute. In this case, he said, Congress' authorization provided such authority. The resolution didn't limit the president to going after al-Qaida only in Afghanistan, Moschella wrote. Moschella also maintained the NSA program is "consistent" with the Fourth Amendment — which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures — and civil liberties. For searches to be reasonable under law, a warrant is needed, Moschella said. But, outside criminal investigations, he said, the Supreme Court has created exceptions where warrants are not needed, finding that the "reasonableness of a search" depends on "the totality of the circumstances." "Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the 'special needs' exception to the warrant requirement," Moschella wrote. "Intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al-Qaida in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable."
  16. I generally don't watch much hockey until closer to the playoffs :whistle::w00t::whistle:
  17. I don't think any of them are very close, but the Stars are probably the closest. :w00t:
  18. Most of the programs on FoxNews fall into the "centerist" catagory. Whether you admit it or not, they tend to balance their guests and coverage . . . they also go well out of their way in many cases to insure liberals get to voice their opinions with more than just a single soundbite, unlike most of the dominant liberal news outlets. :whistle:
  19. Good riddance to Celina and Argyle from Class AA! These two "little" fish are about to be dumped out of the aquarium back into the lake! :w00t:
  20. This is straight from UCLA News . . . hardly a right wing propaganda source. Once again, as usual, the libs on SDC fail to address the substance of the article and resort to attacking the source! Where have we seen this pattern before? I guess it's the only page left in their liberal playbook! :whistle:
  21. I think if he plays it will be with Houston or Texas. I can't see him ending his career outside the Lone Star State. Houston is my guess because it gives him the better chance of post season action and he is closer to home. :houastros:
×
×
  • Create New...