Taino Johnnie

I hunt deer and am in the market for a lever action rifle. Though I want a .30-30 at some point, I want to get an Uberti 1866 Yellowboy. I really want one in .44-40 but it would be easier to get one chambered in .45 Colt because I already have some Single Action Army clones. Is the .45 Colt round good enough to take down whitetail or Blacktail deer within 100 yards? Thanks.

If one added a new back up iron sight to a rifle, then added a red dot...would a person sight in the iron sights first then just align the red dot to match the front sight post? Or would one sight in the red dot after having sighted in the iron sights? Just trying to figure out how I should do this. Thanks!

I have a Remington 700 and just picked up a Vortex Viper PST scope for it. I need 30mm rings. Was wondering what people would recommend. I prefer a 2 piece set up for the base. Thanks!

Alright..so I am wanting to buy a Tupac CD at a local store and I have whittled it down to these three choices based on what they have available (No 2pacalypse Now, Strictly 4 My N.I.G.G.A.Z, or Me Against the World-which would be my choice hands down).

All Eyez on Me -The Digitally Remastered Version

2Pac's Greatest Hits

Loyal to The Game

Seems like an obvious choice, right? Hold on though:

All Eyez On Me has a remix of California Love that I can't stand. I purchased this as a tape set back in 1996 and that has the original version, not this remixed sh*t.

I don't generally care for compilation albums..but in Pac's case I can make an exception because I like every single song on that one.

Loyal to the Game...I have some questions about what he actually sang on the album. Sounds crazy, I know, but there are some songs that seem like it's not really Tupac, but a sound-a-like stand in. Particularly Ghetto Gospel. I know the man was gone by then and all, but something doesn't jive well with me about the album.

So which would you get, if you were in my shoes? Thanks!

I currently have 2 Kicker Comp 10's wired in parallel bridged to an amp that is pushing them with 400 Watts. I want to add a 12" Kicker Comp VR to my set up.

My thought is to have an amp that can push the 10's as they are (in parallel and bridged) and add the 12, so it gets 400 watts, but only use one amp.

Can this be done as I have described it? Any suggestions for an amp? I've looked on Crutchfield but am not finding one that fits my needs.

Lastly, my current headunit has 4 pre-amp outputs...well 2 inputs and 2 outputs. Would I have to get a new headunit?

Thanks!

I have 2 Kicker Comp 10" 8 Ohm sub woofers. They have a peak of 300 Watts and an RMS of 150.

If I wire them in parallel to trim then down to 4 ohms...what is the wattage, amplifier-wise, that I should be looking at RMS-wise? 150? 300? Thanks!

Also, should I look for a mono, or bridgeable 2-channel?

Thanks!

I have 2 Kicker Comp 10 rated at 150 RMS with 300 Watt Peak 8 ohms. The Amp I am using is a Pioneer GM-5500T 820 Watt 2 Channel with the following specs:

RMS 125 x 2

Peak 410 x 2

Power @ 2 ohms 190 x 2

Minimum Impedance Bridged 4

minimum Impedance Unbridged 2

I am thinking of running the Kickers in Paraller to try and get them down to 4 Ohms? Will this work with this amp? if so, how do I know how much Wattage the Amp and the Subs be pushing. Thanks in advance!

I am buying 2 1200 W subs that are rated at 350 W each and a 1000 W amp with a rated output of 200 W RMS x2 @ 2 ohms. What gauge wire should I be using to connect everything? I was thinking of 8 but thought that 4 might produce better sound quality. I don't know much about this stuff and cannot find any good recommendations online. Thanks!

From Gallup Poll.com

For perspective, please note that Obama is in a similar position as Reagan was at the same time in his Presidency:

By the end of 1981, Reagan's job approval rating had drifted down to 49%.

Things got worse for Reagan in 1982. The public's view of the economy remained sour, and the president's ratings during 1982 stayed concomitantly low, in the 40% range, ending the year at 41%.

The 1982 midterm elections were not good ones for Reagan and for the GOP. The Republicans lost about 25 seats in the House.

A clear cause for all of this was the economy. Still, Gallup analysts at the time presciently noted that there was some cause for optimism for Reagan:

Throughout the year [1982] a solid majority of Gallup's respondents have taken the position that Reaganomics will worsen, rather than improve, their own financial situation. Yet, Gallup consistently has found somewhat more public faith that Reaganomics will help the nation as a whole and even more faith in the president's program when the question is posed with regard to the long run. Surveys also indicate that the public has more confidence in Reagan than approval ratings of his performance would suggest. While only one third approve of the way he is handling the economy, close to half express some degree of confidence that he will do the right thing with regard to the economy.

Indeed, although 1983 began for Reagan with a 35% job approval rating -- the worst of his administration -- things started to look better.

His ratings moved back above 50% by November 1983 -- not only because the economy was picking up, but also in part as a result of rally effects associated with the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the terrorist explosion that killed 241 American Marines in Beirut, Lebanon

WASHINGTON, DC (March 16, 2011) – Today Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), member of President Obama’s 18-member Fiscal Commission, introduced the Fairness in Taxation Act, which would create new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires. Original co-sponsors include co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), as well as Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY), and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR).

Income inequality in America is the worst we’ve seen it since 1928. Wages have stagnated for middle and lower income families despite enormous gains in productivity. Where has all the money gone?

“In the United States today, the richest 1% owns 34 % of our nation’s wealth – that’s more than the entire bottom 90%, who own just 29% of the country’s wealth,” said Rep. Schakowsky. “And the top one-hundredth of 1% now makes an average of $27 million per household per year. The average income for the bottom 90% of Americans? $31,244. It’s time for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share, which is why I introduced the Fairness in Taxation Act. This isn’t about punishment or revenge. It’s about fairness. It’s about avoiding budget cuts that harm middle class families and those who aspire to it. We can choose to cut education, job creation and health care, or we can choose to ask those who can contribute more to do so.”

The current top tax bracket begins at $373,000 in income and fails to distinguish between the “well off” and billionaires – like the top 20 hedge fund managers whose average income last year was over $1 billion.

The Fairness in Taxation Act asks enacts new tax brackets for income starting at $1 million and ends with a $1 billion bracket. The new brackets would be:

•$1-10 million: 45%

•$10-20 million: 46%

•$20-100 million: 47%

•$100 million to $1 billion: 48%

•$1 billion and over: 49%

The bill would also tax capital gains and dividend income as ordinary income for those taxpayers with income over $1 million. If enacted in 2011, the Fairness in Taxation Act would raise more than $78 billion.

http://schakowsky.house.gov/index.php?option=com_c...

Can some one tell me what the economic theories are that are commonly used to create US Economic policies?

I often hear about the Laffer Curve and Keynesian Economics.

Any others?

This is for self-research, so I would appreciate it if people would put politics aside to help me out.

Thank you!

49% believe that Romney is the most qualified, 43% believe Ron Paul is unqualified, and then there's Faux News Media darling..Palin.

Everyhing points to Romney..and it's early...but if Palin is this great politician, why do 63% of the people polled think she's unqualified?

=============================================================================

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol...

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters think that Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and unsuccessful GOP presidential candidate in 2008, is qualified to be president. Twenty-five percent (25%) say he is not qualified, and another 25% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Still, that’s well above how voters view some of Romney’s chief competitors in the race. Twenty-seven percent (27%) rate both former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and maverick Texas GOP Congressman Ron Paul as qualified to be in the White House. But 32% say Pawlenty is not qualified, and 42% are undecided.

As for Paul, 43% think he’s not qualified to serve as president, but 31% aren’t sure.

Twenty-six percent (26%) believe former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has the qualifications to be president, but nearly half (48%) disagree. Twenty-six percent (26%) are not sure.

However, voters feel strongest that Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008, is not qualified. Twenty-three percent (23%) say the former Alaska governor is qualified to serve as the nation’s chief executive, but 63% say she is not qualified. Palin is the best-known of the Republicans with just 15% undecided about her.

Perceptions of Romney and Palin are unchanged from a year ago, but voters are a little more skeptical of Gingrich’s qualifications now.

Can we say it's because the people in the Republican Party who disagreed with his views and voted against him were racists?

See, sounds just as dumb as when Cons say if Libs don't vote for him it's because we're racists.

First, the problem:

"More than 1 in 8 children, 13 %, were in a family living in poverty in 2008, up from 12 % the previous year, according to...“New Jersey Kids Count 2010.”

Poverty is defined, for a family of 4, as households living on $21,000 per year or less.

N.J.'s high housing costs put pressure on low-income families (defined as those below double the poverty level, or $42,000 in annual income for a family of 4).

In N.J., 82 % of children living in low-income families came from families whose housing expenses exceeded 30 percent of income, which is typically the maximum recommended for housing costs. That 82 % figure in '08 was 16 % points higher than the national average, according to the report. It was also 2 percentage points higher than in '07 or in '04"

So what does Republican Messiah Chris Christie propose?

The Christie administration is expected to propose cutting the maximum income level of Medicaid from $24,645 to $5,317 a year for a family of 3, said Ray Castro, senior analyst for New Jersey Policy Perspective...who was briefed by administration officials. State officials confirmed the figure.

"That is about 1/3 of the poverty level," Castro said. "That means that an uninsured parent working full time at a minimum-wage job wouldn’t be eligible. … A parent who works half-time for minimum wage wouldn’t even qualify.

"Unfortunately, the only way these parents can become eligible for health coverage in the future is if the parent applies for and is eligible for welfare," Castro added.

The change would drive up charity care, the uncompensated care hospitals provide to people without insurance, Vitale said, and leave people hanging until 2014, when the federal health care reform law is expected to provide states a cash windfall to cover people without insurance.

"I can’t imagine how it could be any worse," (Joseph) Vitale said.

"I guess they could freeze enrollment for children, but that would only buy them a ticket to hell.’’

Doesn't this type of radical solution encourage families to quit working and go on the public dole?

After all, if you do the right thing and work, but can't afford insurance for your children, but cannot get assistance with with insurance...you can just not work, get on welfare and get full coverage.

Is this fiscally, ethically, and morally responsible? Can budget woes really be an excuse to kill assistance for working families?

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/proposed_...

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2010/01/more_nj...

Not feeling that they could win the recall elections, Republicans in Wisconsin contemplate running a shill candidate against Democrat Jennifer Shcilling. Oh and for the bonus, they record the meeting in which they discuss it.

Here's the news story:

http://lacrossetribune.com/courierlifenews/news/lo...

And for the win the tape on the Ed Show, hosted by Al Sharpton:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43261855#4...

Are they so desperate to maintain power, that they will resort to cheating, to split the votes and pull out the win? Also, did Faux News cover this at all?

I see plenty of gloating, but in reality the vote for the debt ceiling that the House rejected is not really binding. It was a symbolic measure designed to let people know that they are serious about reducing spending. In the end, they still have to raise the debt ceiling and they will.

Speaker John Boehner said Wednesday that the debt ceiling “needs to be” raised in the next month, the clearest time line the House leader has set for increasing the nation’s borrowing capability.

“I just think we’re now in June, this really needs to be done over the next month if we’re serious about no brinksmanship, no rattling investors,” the Ohio Republican told a group of reporters in his Capitol office suite.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56059.ht...

So how do you Republicans feel knowing that this was sound and fury signifying nothing, because they still have to and will raise the debt ceiling within a month?

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56059.ht...

Given some of the responses I am seeing from posters who support it, I get the sense that many of you have not actually read it. Particularly, the section involving Medicare.

All I see is the same mantras, "Republicans are trying to save Medicare," "Paul Ryan's a hero," "Stop demagoging the plan." Most of the posts I have read, just spew the same things that the party leaders are saying without supporting positions or exhibiting some basic knowledge of how the plan works.

So have you read it? Please be honest.

Libertarian Rand Paul said on Sean Hannity’s radio show that: "If someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after, they should be deported or put in prison."

Perhaps as a Libertarian, Mr. Paul would be familiar with the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

And the first Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Is Ron Paul’s son really drifting from the Libertarian values, his father clings to?

I live on 20 acres of land that is essentially a rectangle, facing north-south. I would estimate that the dimensions are about 5 acres wide by 10 acres long. The back part has a good cluster of trees and there is a river that flows back there. There is about 100 yards from the end of my property to the property across the river.

Can I shoot pistols and rifles safely from about 10 acres in?

Rifles range from .17hmr- 30.06

Pistols from .22LR-.45 Colt

Thank you!

I am considering buying a used .270 Win for my son to use. He can shoot my .30-06 with 150 grain shells without a problem. However, it seems that the 180 grain may be a bit much for him and as he is pretty inexperienced, I don't want him thrashing my rifles as we trample through the woods stalking game. He goes in for hunter safety in a week.

So what would be a good used one to purchase and what kind of price should I be looking for. Thanks!