[quote] Obama spokesman Jay Carney has insisted it would be "wholly inappropriate" for the president ....... to weigh in on an active investigation [/quote]

Didn't stop him before, He opened his first term with a beer summit after opening his mouth about an active investigation, and nearly closed his first term by inserting himself in an active investigation by proclaiming "If I had a son..... ". And both of those instances were a matter for the local police to handle.

If it is inappropriate now, then it was inappropriate then.

[quote] Obama is trying to halt a perception spreading among both White House opponents and allies that he has been passive and disengaged [/quote]

There were reports of that in his first term. Liberals and their allies in the media kept it quiet. It must be tought to swallow when the ultra right winged conservative blogs got it right 3 years ago.

It's hard to not look passive when there's nothing to campaign for.

[quote][b]dzogchen[/b] - Out of all the organizations targeted, only Emerge America, a democratic group that lobbied on behalf of women's businesses, was denied tax-exempt status for their political activities.[/quote]

They may have been denied because of the code section they were applying under didn't allow for political activities. It's not a thing that should exonerate the actions toward other non-profit applicants.

Someone had the munchies.

[quote][b]keepitsimple[/b] -

One word- Daddy?

[/quote]

Who?

@mpd0.59: To a degree, yes. The community already decided in the zoning laws to make it commercial, yes? While the homeowners clearly have an opinion, and a right to voice that opinion, do they have a right to impede with the rights of the landlord to rent his commercial building to a legal commercial business for a legal commercial purpose that falls within the scope of teh zoning laws already decided upon. If it's zoned for that activity (ie: commercial), then they can't stop it.

Maybe the disgruntled homeowners will rent the space so it stays the abandoned building it currently is.

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] -

I am all for that. The issue is that if they get in trouble and go to jail we are still paying for them.

[/quote]

Well, they had better be nice to someone, I'll suggest their mamma, because they'll depend on her to bring them food and clothing, a warm blankie, and care for their woulds. Working taxpayers shouldn't have to support people who break the laws.

Government benefits should come with rules, and at the top of the list should be "Don't get in trouble with the law", and #2 should be "Stay in school".

[quote][b]whatsthepoint[/b] -

Tell me again what this cesspool contributes to a civilized world besides providing daily material for the blotter?

[/quote]

They're job creators. More police, more EMS, more people working in the justice and penal/corrections system, more jobs at DFACS. Of course, more jobs down at the couple dozen welfare and social services providers, as well as at the IRS to collect taxes from those of us who are providers of taxes and not consumers of taxes.

I'm sure eveyone involved is receiving financial support from the taxes paid by those of us who work, who love and care for our children, and who respect authority even when we disagree with some of it. With no possibility that the money flow will get cut off, there's no incentive to act like normal human beings. So what we end up with are people who act like animals and get paid for it.

It doesn't look like they used enough pepper spray, he can still open his eyes a little.

You can change people's behavior by taking away their benefits. Good behavior should get paid, bad behavior, not.

I bet background checks would have prevented this.................

[quote][b]Farmer GA[/b] -

Irrational fear of weapons

[/quote]

Spurred on by irresponsible reporting.

[quote][b]Colonel McCheese[/b] -

Who would want to live 800 ft. down range from a firing range? If I owned property and a range was trying to move in next door and put me in such a position you bet I'd be [filtered word]. Go to the damn wilderness or some backwater like Douglasville or Lawrenceville for that.

[/quote]

Indoor gun ranges are safe. There are rules and protocol for how to construct them to meet safety concerns. The feds already have rules that would apply here, and how dare some liberal goonies over rule the federal government. Someone might confuse them for a conservative.

Seriously though, the firing line out Atlanta Hwy doesn't have holes in it's walls or roof. Proper use of plating and traps, and safe firearms practices by the users keep it that way. Sound proofing helps dampen the sound outside the structure, as well as in other parts of the same structure. Safest though would be a basement facility, or one that can construct a dirt backstop behind the target wall. Oh, they're inspected often for possible problems with the safety structure and systems in place. Any weaknesses or damaged plates are repaired or replaced. This applies to outdoor ranges too.

The lady they interviewed on TV seemed to be more concerned about the types of people that would be carrying big scary guns into and out of the facility, and seemed oblivious to the very limited possibility of a round finding a way out of the facility.

[quote][b]crankyyankee[/b] - If no one in America today is responsible for anything [/quote]

The working stiffs are responsible.....for paying the bills rung up by maroons that got elected by more maroons.

What else is to be expected by the administrative staff of the most irresponsible (lets blame someone else) presidency in history. The tone is set at the top, and we know what that tone is: goof off, then blame someone else.

They're either incompetent boobs that don't know who is doing what, when or where, or they're conniving lying backstabbing theives willing and able to sell out their friends, coworkers, employees and countrymen. Either way they should all be fired ASAFP.

Maybe he saw the sign for Krystal chicks and thought "I'll take a couple home tonight".

Wonder if he got those with or without cheese.

[quote][b]hjfedrick[/b] - If you say that the buck stops at the top, then why didn't Bush say he was responsible.[/quote]

Who did Bush blame? Clinton? No. Cite one time that Bush blamed Clinton. Just one. And if you can find one instance, I've got thousands of instances where Obama blaned Bush.

Who did Obama blame.

You may not like the decisions Bush made. I might not like the decisions Bush made. But he made them, he stuck by his decisions, and he didn't pawn off the results to the prior president, his cabinet, staffers, or unnamed low-level government employees.

If those Global Warming folks didn't make it so damn COLD in May maybe the homeless wouldn't have a fire going.

[quote][b]hjfedrick[/b] - What other eveidence to you have at this current time in reference to Obama[/quote]

He's either in-charge and responsible for the government he runs, or he's not responsible.

I'm banking on not in-charge, not-responsible, irresponsible, etc.

So the question is, why's he there if he's not in charge and not responsible.

Truman said: "The buck stops here"

Obama says: "It's someone elses fault"

Take responsibility for the government you are the head of, or get out.

[quote][b]Chief Weems[/b] - I had a hamburger.[/quote]

And then caught the hamburglar.

"no stranger to the criminal justice system."

Maybe that system isn't working like it should.

[quote][b]ecco1[/b] -

@grove600: I think it would have to be via certified mail wouldn't it?

[/quote]

I would think so, but probably first class mail would suffice. I suspect that's how the photo tickets are delivered. What would happen if say someone took your ticket, or it blew off and the driver didn't know about it. What if payment is sent, but never received (post office failure) or never properly processed (court house failure). Just boot the guy? Leaving a ticket isn't giving proper notice. There needs to be that one extra step to ensure notice is given.

........and scooters get to park on the sidewalk. For free.

[quote][b]Tripollo[/b] - My point is simply that nothing is "free" and if you think that your free parking space exists[/quote]

Seems taxes paid for the parking spece to begin with, and taxes pay to maintain it. Seems the parking fee is used to pay the salaries of the parking meter police.

[quote][b]Ben Had[/b] -

"The youngsters are doing all this,"

Most people say they would give their life to defend their country. We need to see that same commitment to defending their community.

[/quote]

Unfortunately the community has been de-balled from years, decades really, of government reliance. "The government needs to do something!!" is the most you'll hear. And nothing will get done. People haven't been groomed to fend for themselves.

[quote][b]Tripollo[/b] -

@grove600: Hate to break it to you, but nothing in this life is free. The customer is paying for those "free" spaces through other indirect costs charged by the business either in their hourly rate for services or in the mark-up in retail prices.

[/quote]

Yeah. I understand the theory, but the meal prices aren't cheaper downtown because I pay separately for the parking.