Sorry, my computer is acting up for some reason.
This is the correct link for NOT tanks:https://www.google.com/search?q=armored+personnel+carrier&rlz=1C2SNNT_enUS401&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=hEFbVZuwFYmFsAXpvIHABg&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQsAQ
Sorry, My computer is acting up. This is the correct link for NOT tanks: https://www.google.com/search?q=armored+personnel+carrier&rlz=1C2SNNT_enUS401&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=hEFbVZuwFYmFsAXpvIHABg&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQsAQ
Still not appropriate for police to be using.
I like to call the MRAP a tank with wheels! but yes it is just a big armored truck.
 May 19, 2015 at 9:50am
Will someone, ANYONE, please tell me which police department in this country actually has a tank???
I hear this claim made all the time, even in this commentary that police departments are using tanks. Do any of these “college educated” (as Jerry Clower would say “educated beyond their intelligence”) morons actually know what a tank is??
I have seen many armored cars and personnel carriers, but I have never seen a tank in use by anything other than a military unit. Has the definition of tank changed?
I was called “Tank” & "Hulk" in my more youthful days cause I am built like a hickory stump with legs and arms. Are they talking about me here? I feel honored, but they got it all wrong cause I am not with the cops.
One rural department had a an old personnel carrier. Tracked but not a tank. Saw one used in the middle of a city to save two lives. Two girls were trapped in flood waters in the middle of a flooded. street. No way to get a boat through the fast water. After an hour of hanging on a lamp post an old armored personnel carrier drove up beside them and the back door was opened and they stepped in to safety. See proper us of old military style equipment.
People nowadays think anything with armor or tracks is a tank. Usually they're armored personnel carriers or MRAPs. Some riot control vehicles do have water cannons mounted on top that make them look more tank-like.
This is one that got reported on widely. It happened in Gainesville, FL, and it was actually an armored personnel carrier. Still kind of terrifying this was done for a traffic stop:
May 17, 2015 at 7:16am
Actually there are many cars now that have no physical linkage between the shift lever and the transmission. However, there IS a physical connection between the steering wheel and the steering rack. The old hydraulic power steering has been mostly replaced by electric assist, but it is still a bolt on feature. So, while yes, the ECM and BCM may be hackable, the ability to take over control of the car and drive it remotely is still just the stuff of science fiction. Unless we are talking about the autonomous cars being tested in various places.
 May 15, 2015 at 10:04am
Actually, we are commanded to teach the truth. Only God can save.
 March 7, 2015 at 12:11pm
There are a very few honest dealers in the world. That being said, I have worked for many dealers, I have been fired from many dealers. I try to help my customers find a car that fits there wants and needs within their budget. Therefore, my numbers tended to be lower than the more unscrupulous sales people. I find that the largest problem, at least in the area I live and work in, is that there are too many old farts that were selling in the 70′s and 80′s when anything and everything goes. Until these ancient bastions of stupidity and crookedness die off or retire out, change in the auto sales industry will come very slowly. BTW- I work at walmart now.
It is really awesome when you find a good dealership though. I was floored a long time ago when I took the plunge and bought my first car after my credit was destroyed from a 'tote your note' lot. I didn't think I'd ever do that, but it was amazing - those people were super nice, actually had reasonable interest rates that were not on the moon, and good prices on top of it. I sold cars for a couple of years, I knew what I was getting into, and I have to say these guys were running a more legit business than most 'big lots' ever thought about. I hope they keep it up. There's a reason they do so well.
Oh and I paid that car off, really helped rebuild my credit, sold it and bought the first new car I'd ever had. Just awesome people.
Dishonest people come in every age bracket.
 March 7, 2015 at 12:05pm
On cash deals, it is still required to obtain the social security number, when credit is run, it also runs it through the government system that tracks terrorists. It sucks, but it is the law, and if you are a franchised dealer, you follow it. I worked at many dealers, and I had a friend that couldn’t buy any cars except cash cars from someone’s front yard because his name was similar to someone on the list. I hated it for him.
I've found it easiest to get financing from my trusted credit union and bring it to the dealership when buying cars. The dealer will usually say they still need to run your credit for identification but that is FALSE as your credit union (bank) has already verified you when approving the loan. Don't fall for that when the dealer tries it as they will just walk your info to different lenders and try to "upsell" you on their financing. I'll usually pay my credit Union off right away or within the year depending on the amount.
That's for transactions greater than $10,000 and it's a form. If credit isn't being used by the patron then a credit report isn't needed nor required. The dealership was trying to do the something that one near me did before it was shutdown. They would run your credit then will use a new "price" from CA for the car if you are financing that is three to four times higher and say that the price listed on the windshield is a down if you are paying cash and not the price of the car. Deceptive advertisement.
He probably got a better deal that way anyhow.
By cash, I mean a certified check from my bank, to the dealer. There are NO requirements in that type of transaction. It is a direct transaction similar to a check.
Reg C doesn't require the dealer get your data, even though they do for the car. My SS# is not necessary because their is no tax exposure for me. Using my SS# for paying in cash, not the withdrawal of it, is a misinterpretation of the laws.
The more numbers they have, the easier it is to hide their "cash business."
 March 2, 2015 at 4:37pm
Actually 5.56 mm is the NATO (metric) designation, .223 Caliber is the US designation for the same round.
 March 2, 2015 at 4:10pm
The easily concealed weapons they are referencing are guns like the FN-57, which can use the .223 round. They are fairly easily concealed, however, they are rare and incredibly expensive, so the average street thug is highly unlikely to have one.
As far as the “Armor Piercing” ability of the M855, I just have to say this, When I worked for the North Carolina Department of Correction, we used the Ruger Mini-14 Carbine as our standard rifle. We fired .223 SOFT POINT copper jacketed rounds. These are rounds that are supposed to “squish” as our instructors said, to keep them from passing through the body. HOWEVER, they also demonstrated the state issued body armor, using the .357 that was our standard side arm, the Remington 870 with 2 3/4 inch .00 buck loads, and the Ruger Mini-14 Carbine with preveiously mentioned .223 Soft Point CJR. The armor quite nicely and easily stopped the .357 hollow points and the .00 Buck, the .223 went through the vest without even shaking the target on the line. We initially thought the instructor missed.
The majority of rifle rounds and calibers would do the same thing.
I may be wrong, but I believe that any gun chambered in 5.56 can use .223?
Can not use 5.56 in a .223 chambered weapon as .223 is just slightly smaller.
Most rifle round typically coming out of the barrel at roughly 3000fps
 February 27, 2015 at 8:24pm
I wish my rep was on the list. Unfortunately when we voted I had the choice of Renee Ellmers who is a progressive republican obama lover, or Clay Aiken, a progressive democrat obama lover. Wish I had the money to run myself next go around.
 February 14, 2015 at 1:39pm
Until my grandmother came to live with me and my family, her rent was $35 a month in subsidized housing.
Wow, that is sort of like how my very first power bill in my name was for $3.12 from TECO. Yeah, it was that long ago. Not quite a full month, but I was also busy at work or in school so much that I was hardly at home long enough to run up the bill. If I recall correctly, when cable was made available a short time later my bill for that was something like $3.40 a month. I was pissed though that gas had gone up to $0.35 a gallon though.
Correct. In this lady's case, her balance was $235.00. Taxpayers pay the remaining $1015.00, or whatever.
But we got "Green Stamps".
And we were working for $1.59 an hour (in my case) over in Palm Bay.
 February 13, 2015 at 11:53am
I would think that since the logbook is a legal document, that only the people ACTUALLY operating the vehicle are the only allowed names to be inscribed. While I believe that Jesus is with me every day, I don’t list him on documents that can be subpoenaed for court use because it is difficult to subpoena Jesus to testify as to what he did during any contested incident involving the log book.
The article indicates that he has been writing in Jesus as his co-driver for more than just this one time; so why was there no previous comment or talk to him about it if this is unacceptable? I would like to know what changed with in his company; is there a new log book person who is against religion? What OTHER reason is there, really? Seems like there is much more to this story than is being told, and this happens a lot here.
 February 6, 2015 at 1:47pm
Most of the “relics” out there in the world likely have little to nothing to do with Jesus. I have always doubted the shroud of turin, and pretty much any other “relic” touted by the catholic church as “blessed”. I equate the whole relic garbage as idol worship. I worship God. That’s why I don’t get upset when monuments of the ten commandments, crosses, statues, nativities, and other such things are protested or removed. You can take away and destroy an object, but you can not take away and destroy my faith or my God.
I agree with you. People need to understand that JESUS THE MAN existed without question. The Roman records prove that.
But CHRIST is another matter. The noun CHRIST makes him the Son of God. That is a matter of FAITH. And the “Church people” make up all sorts of nonsense to sell their faith.
It is a shame that what JESUS the MAN had to say is so muddled up with the FAITH STUFF.
The Secularists who dabble in this subject never seem to get it right, like the author of this article.
"I equate the whole relic garbage as idol worship. I worship God."
You are blessed to have such strong faith that you don't need visual reminders of the glory of God. However, to those without even the basic knowledge of God, holy relics can be a source of comfort knowing that the Living God was truly living at one point. Before the mass literacy and wide spread printing technology, people couldn't read and those that could may not have had the money to spend on a hand copied Bible. As I understand, it costs the equivalent of 3 years of wages back in the 1600's. So, to teach the faith and the Bible, churches began using statues, paintings, and stain glass windows so the illiterate could learn by visual cue.
I used to travel a lot and would look for cues on other people to tell me if we had things in common. Even in a foreign country, I could spot the Christian in the group and they "knew" me from my Crucifix.
God Bless you.
[-1] February 4, 2015 at 4:24pm
Accept-The-Truth: I’m thinking that I am probably older than you. And for everyone else, I do know a thing or two about government regulation and taxes and etc…
I also know this, Utility companies are regulated by the government. This is why they can not arbitrarily, willy-nilly raise rates whenever the CEO decides he wants a new boat. What the internet companies want to do, is be able to decide who (by right of most money) can be on the internet. It works like this: Say I have an internet based business. I also have several competitors. Suppose that my small internet business is just that, a one or two man start up operation. Then suppose, that one of my competitors, is purchased by a large corporate conglomerate. They see me on the web, and decide that they don’t like having competition, so, they start dumping piles of cash on the ISP’s, more cash than I can hope to compete with, since they are getting so much money from my competitor, anyone anywhere can access their website at light speed, while those who want to check out mine, can only access it at dial up speed. Because my competitor gives more money, the ISP says that I don’t deserve for YOU to have the same access to my site as my competitor does to his. Or how about this, your community college can’t afford to pay up like Duke University, so their web site is constrained to allow more people to freely access the Duke web site.
Maybe you guys should remove your anti-obama glasses and think about what you’re read
 February 4, 2015 at 3:02pm
This is THE ONE THING the administration gets right. Why do not these people understand that the FCC rules are GOOD FOR US???
For those of you that scream against this because “Obama”, let me ask you, do you want to pay a larger amount of money to access the blaze?? Do you think that it is fair that people with little money and have to go to the library for internet access will be allowed access only at speeds equivalent to dial up??
If you answer yes, than you are a moron. The internet should be freely accessible to ANYONE that has a connection, and people should NOT have to pay more to access content. How would you feel if your internet provider decided that The Blaze, or whatever porn site you visit was not paying them enough so they hindered your access to it?????
Were you lucid when you typed these comments? Give me an example of something the government has got control over that it hasn't ruined by over regulating and over taxing? Not to mention that it will operate half as well as it currently does.
This reeks of the FCC Fairness Doctrine that liberals tried to use to control content of public radio stations. Liberals already control most of what used to be television news stations, all the news papers and now they are going after the net. We don't want to be spoon fed the liberal kool aid. No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig it still reeks.
I stand corrected, in that Fingerprintguy understands the issue. Everyone else who's comparing this to the ACA, and the Fairness Doctrine, have absolutely NO comprehension at ALL, on what this is about.
*No. You do not have to pay to read the Blaze.
*Before we could afford a computer, we took our kids to the library for school work that had to be completed on a computer. We did not feel slighted. We thought "Wow! We actually get to use something our taxes paid for."
*Internet is not a right. Neither is a phone, tv, etc... They are luxuries if not needed for work. Go to the library. If one is not near your location, it sucks but nobody owes anybody else internet.
*I think you need to reread the items on how it will be taxed, fees to the hilt, and limit speech. Either you have not read up on this or you are someone who believes gooberment should take care of you from cradle to grave. A true pity if this be the case.
FCC rules are NOT good for us, which you would understand if you look at anything the government regulates or controls. The end result will be that everyone will get the same service, the absolute slowest available so that it's not unfair to anyone. It will also be taxed raising our cost for access, and the government employees hired to watch over the regulation will add more taxes. You're too young and dumb to understand how government regulation works, it's not the fairy tale your favorite democrats promised.
Accept-The-Truth: I'm thinking that I am probably older than you. And for everyone else, I do know a thing or two about government regulation and taxes and etc...
I also know this, Utility companies are regulated by the government. This is why they can not arbitrarily, willy-nilly raise rates whenever the CEO decides he wants a new boat. What the internet companies want to do, is be able to decide who (by right of most money) can be on the internet. It works like this: Say I have an internet based business. I also have several competitors. Suppose that my small internet business is just that, a one or two man start up operation. Then suppose, that one of my competitors, is purchased by a large corporate conglomerate. They see me on the web, and decide that they don't like having competition, so, they start dumping piles of cash on the ISP's, more cash than I can hope to compete with, since they are getting so much money from my competitor, anyone anywhere can access their website at light speed, while those who want to check out mine, can only access it at dial up speed. Because my competitor gives more money, the ISP says that I don't deserve for YOU to have the same access to my site as my competitor does to his. Or how about this, your community college can't afford to pay up like Duke University, so their web site is constrained to allow more people to freely access the Duke web site.
Maybe you guys should remove your anti-obama glasses and think about what you're read
I understand your concepts, but government is the problem. Power companies and telephone companies are regulated, but the regulations are there to protect the big companies that pay off government officials. The regulations are there to protect their asses and keep small companies from getting in their faces. Follow the money. It always goes back to government officials. How else do those bastards, dem or rep, enter office worth a few hundred thousand dollars, and leave worth many millions, sometimes after 4-6years.
I understand that the net should be the same for everyone, but nothing ever works out the way it should, let GovCo get involved and it will suck for all.
"This is THE ONE THING the administration gets right."
No, it isn't. I'm betting that you ALSO don't know how the internet works. I'm willing to bet that you didn't even realize that the internet is ALREADY regulated - just not by the feds.
We need to keep it that way.
This issue arose over Netflix being throttled down by Comcast. Comcast wanted more money from Netflix. Netflix paid them more. Netflix speed on Comcast is now double what it was before the dispute.
Since the problem has been solved and is no longer relevant, do you still want to hand the Internet over to the FCC? It’s no longer a contested point.
 February 3, 2015 at 2:56pm
On a serious note, I have always wondered why no energy company has used things like hog waste to produce electricity. Heck, the theory has been around for a while, it was even central to the story of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. If I had a hog farm, I would find a way to utilize it rather than just having it sit around in lagoons.
 February 3, 2015 at 1:17pm
When I was in the Air Force, I regularly watched air crews pulling planes around with gadgets not much larger than your average pallet jack. So I was understandably unimpressed by the Toyota pulling the space shuttle.
 January 28, 2015 at 9:14am
I grew up watching Larry Stogner. I have met him a couple of times at events like the state fair. He was always very personable on screen and off. I hate to hear of anyone contracting such a terrible disease. I wish him and his family well.
 January 28, 2015 at 9:13am
Actually, WTVD moved their operations to Raleigh about 6 years ago. They are located on Fayetteville Street.