Welcome to the IHoP

[nem 2,019]

Nothing like getting your ass kicked by ultrasonic bonders all day!

What type of plastic?

It is a nonwoven that we make, I am not sure what plastic type it is.

[dem beats 1,223]

Took a 15 min nap before heading out tonight for drinks for the W birthday. Feeling so much better today.

[OuTLaWeD 110]

Took a 15 min nap before heading out tonight for drinks for the W birthday. Feeling so much better today.

i'm still feeling shitty. my head still feels like it's going to explode every time i cough. can't wait for this crap to end

[OuTLaWeD 110]

man i know the movie The Avengers has been out for a while now, but i just watched it for the first time and it was absolutelly BAD ASSS!!!

[lithium 358]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ZED-Audio-vintage-employee-jacket-/180984043570?pt=Car_Amplifiers&hash=item2a237d5832

[ricksi30 923]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVwUphZ37Ww

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

Our gun laws are pretty sweet, though.

[sandt38 448]

Our gun laws are pretty sweet, though.

At this very moment in time, the Obama administration is working “under the radar” to secure gun control measures which will circumvent the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Constitution. Working alongside rogue nations like Iran, a nation which even now stands in violation of U.N. dictates on nuclear weapons, the U.S. is taking part in negotiating the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which is ostensibly aimed at controlling the flow of guns across borders, from one country to another. Yet in actuality this treaty, if it is to be enforceable, will have to require the registry of all privately owned guns — both handguns and long guns — at some point. (How else will a governing body know whose guns are crossing which border?)

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/12/with-gun-rights-under-fire-are-you-all-in-for-2012/#ixzz27xkEwuxs

[topgun 262]

Gun control is political suicide, and everyone knows it.

[Tirefryr 1,742]

It really doesn't matter for him though. If he wins this election, he has four more years of retardation, if he loses, so what? Either way, his political career is on a downward spiral, so it won't do him any damage.

[Tirefryr 1,742]

WE just need to get rid of the politicians and retake the country. It's no longer for or by the people.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

the fact it's from The Daily Caller doesn't help its credibility

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

[Aaron Clinton 2,372]

It really doesn't matter for him though. If he wins this election, he has four more years of retardation, if he loses, so what? Either way, his political career is on a downward spiral, so it won't do him any damage.

What do you mean "IF"? He will win.

[sandt38 448]

the fact it's from The Daily Caller doesn't help its credibility

Feel free to look at whatever source you would like to. It is common knowledge that the UN resolution is being considered and it is desired by the Obama administration. I just clicked on the first link.

[sandt38 448]

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/opinion/the-arms-trade-treaty.html

[Impious 1,476]

It really doesn't matter for him though. If he wins this election, he has four more years of retardation, if he loses, so what? Either way, his political career is on a downward spiral, so it won't do him any damage.

What do you mean "IF"? He will win.

I hope so. Not saying Obama has been great, but Mitt scares me.

Not liking Obama doesn't inherently make Mitt a better option. It's the lesser of the 2 evils....but then again, that's all politics is. If either side were "right", we wouldn't need to have debates

the fact it's from The Daily Caller doesn't help its credibility

Feel free to look at whatever source you would like to. It is common knowledge that the UN resolution is being considered and it is desired by the Obama administration. I just clicked on the first link.

http://www.un.org/di...rmsTradeTreaty/

http://en.wikipedia....ms_Trade_Treaty

http://www.nytimes.c...ade-treaty.html

I'm confused. You say Obama desires an Arms Treaty, then post 2 links that show the US voted against the treaty ?

The United States of America voted against the resolution.

In bowing to the gun lobby, the Obama administration passed up the opportunity to make the world a little more secure. It was a political victory for the National Rifle Association, perhaps, but not for Americans or for the world.

[Tirefryr 1,742]

I hate to say it, but Tiger is done.

[sandt38 448]

I suppose I should have read them instead of just posting links. I have read on various news agency websites the same thing that I posted in the initial article. I guess I should have figured that the NY Times would flip flop. Anyways, here are 3 articles, one left, one center left, and one right wing leaning publications, all stating contrary to the user edited wiki and the FlipFlop Times.

The first quote shows where the administration was pressured to vote against it, and that the number of senators forced the Admin to vote against it so as not to seem weak. With 51 senators opposing (all republicans and a handful of democrats) there is no way the treaty could be ratified.

The Obama administration was under pressure to delay or walk away from an agreement. Fifty-one senators had urged the administration not to sign it in a letter sent Thursday. That letter sent an important signal of defeat because ratification requires 67 Senate votes.

“As defenders of the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, we write to express our grave concern about the dangers posed by the United Nations’ arms trade treaty,” the senators said in the letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. “Our country’s sovereignty and the constitutional protection of these individual freedoms must not be infringed.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/opinion/the-arms-trade-treaty.html?_r=0

One of the reasons this month's negotiations are taking place is that the United States, the world's biggest arms trader accounting for over 40 percent of global conventional arms transfers, reversed U.S. policy on the issue after Barack Obama became president and decided in 2009 to support a treaty.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/27/us-arms-treaty-idUSBRE86Q1MW20120727

]The treaty seemed to have a good shot in 2009, when the Obama administration broke from the Bush administration's opposition and showed support.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/un-arms-trade-treaty-nra_n_1711578.html

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

What do you mean "IF"? He will win.

I hope so. Not saying Obama has been great, but Mitt scares me.

Not liking Obama doesn't inherently make Mitt a better option. It's the lesser of the 2 evils....but then again, that's all politics is. If either side were "right", we wouldn't need to have debates

Doing it the Reagan way didn't work the first 4 or 5 times we tried it, why try for a sixth?

Edited September 30, 2012 by Penguin4x4

[sandt38 448]

It really doesn't matter for him though. If he wins this election, he has four more years of retardation, if he loses, so what? Either way, his political career is on a downward spiral, so it won't do him any damage.

What do you mean "IF"? He will win.

I hope so. Not saying Obama has been great, but Mitt scares me.

Not liking Obama doesn't inherently make Mitt a better option. It's the lesser of the 2 evils....but then again, that's all politics is. If either side were "right", we wouldn't need to have debates

the fact it's from The Daily Caller doesn't help its credibility

Feel free to look at whatever source you would like to. It is common knowledge that the UN resolution is being considered and it is desired by the Obama administration. I just clicked on the first link.

http://www.un.org/di...rmsTradeTreaty/

http://en.wikipedia....ms_Trade_Treaty

http://www.nytimes.c...ade-treaty.html

I'm confused. You say Obama desires an Arms Treaty, then post 2 links that show the US voted against the treaty ?

The United States of America voted against the resolution.

In bowing to the gun lobby, the Obama administration passed up the opportunity to make the world a little more secure. It was a political victory for the National Rifle Association, perhaps, but not for Americans or for the world.

Did you really read either article? After going back and reading them, wiki stated just what the original article stated, and the times said nothing of why the US voted against it...

On October 14, 2009, the Obama administration announced in a statement released by Hillary Clinton and the State Department that it was overturning the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed a proposed Arms Trade treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.^[11] The shift in position by the U.S., the world's biggest arms exporter with a $55-billion-a-year trade in conventional firearms^[12] (40 percent of the global total), led to the launching of formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to begin drafting the Arms Trade Treaty. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement the U.S. would support the negotiations on condition they are “under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation.” Clinton said the consensus, in which every nation has an effective veto on agreements, was needed “to avoid loopholes in the treaty that can be directly exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.”^[12]

So how is this confusing?

[Adrian_D 520]

Addco's FTW

Best investment so far.

Going up twisties I can keep up with higher powered diesel cars now because in bends where they have to brake, I just power through

[nem 2,019]

I am just going to become a foreigner and live in the islands.

[sandt38 448]

What do you mean "IF"? He will win.

I hope so. Not saying Obama has been great, but Mitt scares me.

Not liking Obama doesn't inherently make Mitt a better option. It's the lesser of the 2 evils....but then again, that's all politics is. If either side were "right", we wouldn't need to have debates

Doing it the Reagan way didn't work the first 4 or 5 times we tried it, why try for a sixth?

Really? Can you tell me what Obama is doing that is working?

Raising taxes on the rich as per the Obama plan will yield an astounding $1.6 trillion over 10 years... This figure is roughly equal to the amount of deficit the Obama administration has accumulated annually.

How is that "working"?

Obama has had the dubious distinction of having the highest average unemployment rate over the course of his term since the Great depression. I know, he inherited a bad economy, but so did Regan. Regan never blamed Carter for handing him the highest inflation rates since the depression, the highest interest rates since the depression (he was handed off an average of 20% on typical mortgage interest rates), and some of the highest unemployment rates since the Depression (only beaten by the 12% of Ford's administration). Regan took hold of the economy and reduced everything within his term. Are you aware that black unemployment is at it's highest rates in decades? Are you aware that the rate of permanently disabled (ie those receiving lifetime SS benefits) has tripled during the Obama administration (further coloring the actual unemployment rates)?

Taxing the wealthy, particularly the cap gains, is a detriment to the nation's employment. The wealthy provide income for start up businesses, and expansion of businesses. I will have a hard time investing my money anymore if I know that I stand to be taxed at a far greater rate then I can expect as a typical yield. They are already taxed on this income once, as income tax, and also a second time, as cap gains. How is it fair that they are taxed twice? How is it fair that over 50% of all Americans are not only untaxed, but also receive tax benefits for not contributing to the tax base (you might know this as earned income credit or child care credits, and other such low income hand outs).

How is the cutting of the military budget a plus? Don't you think that the security of our nation is at least as important as getting free healthcare? I am not a big proponent of sticking our nose into foreign issues, believe it or not. But similarly I am not a proponent of giving countries who don't want us there money and military in aid... You know like the 1.6 billion in aid we give to Egypt each year (thank God the Repubs blocked the recently proposed 450 million in aid offered by Obama after the attacks on our embassy).

I can go on, but these few little eggs get to me. No, I am not a fan of Mitt. But how anyone can honestly believe that what Obama has done is worth a second chance is bewildering to me.

[Aaron Clinton 2,372]

I am just going to become a foreigner and live in the islands.

I come from a land down under...