Hugh_Hoy

55555555555555 LZ, I hear Wearth's group needs a "straight man". Are ya free New Year's Eve? BTW, I suppose you'd eat a shit sandwich rather than "just say no"? How polite of you. :content: HH

Just a wild guess, but I'm guessing that at least 90% of the board members here who are not multi, multi millionaires have had this experience. (Even if only "married" for a ST.) :content: :content: HH

While a noble gesture, he'd have done better by donating it to a local Boys and Girls club (or the Tea Party :content: ) Seriously, the money he sent has already been wasted on some junket by some legislator. HH

Absolutely no surprises. All BLUE states except for AZ. Can you chant "Tax and Spend; Tax and Spend; Tax and Spend"? The Demoncrap caucuses open every one of their meetings with that. Of course, they spend whether their tax receipts are enough to cover their spending sprees or not. Same in D.C. In CA, Libtards should be shot as traitors...or hung as common thieves and left to rot from the Golden Gate and Bay bridges. HH

ANOTHER LIBTARD HAS STRUCK And where other than San Francisco. Yep, folks, though the plaintiff seems to be located in a different jurisdiction, this lamer of a mother of two, has decided to file suit in San Francisco. Geeeee...I wonder why. 5555555555555 In her most liberal (read controlling) approach, she is asking that her complaint be certified as a "class action" in a SF Superior Ct. ha ha ha Her complaint? She can't say "no" to her kids when they want a Happy Meal. What a weak-ass libtard. (I know that is redundant, but felt compelled anyway.) The attorney's representing this oxygen thief oughta be disbarred and sentenced to five years of eating Big Macs and Breakfast Burritos. The plaintiff should get the same, have her ovaries and uterus removed and her kids put in a home where proper parenting can be accomplished. Clearly, this worthless cunt has no fucking biz having kids. This is just ANOTHER fucking example of libtards not being able to accomplish legislatively some etherial idea. It would have ZERO chance of passing even the Demoncrap-controlled State legislature. So, the next best thing: file suit in good old SF. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2010/12/15/mcdonalds-sued-in-san-francisco-court-over-toy-giveaways/ HH P.S. McDonald's has a Ronald McDonald house in SF. It provides housing for parents who bring their children to the city for serious/extensive medical treatment and who can not afford to get a hotel room in that overpriced bastion of liberalism. I'm surprised SF supervisors don't block MD's from providing the service, as it clearly encourages people to bring their kids to SF for medical treatment. I'm hoping the rest of California will boot SF out of the state; Let SF be it's own soverign nation where it can float off into the Pacific, never to be heard/seen again.

I'm beginning to think Scotland is a fictional country, only existing in movies. HH

Interesting, but not especially relevant. Other factors need to be considered than what is noted in the study. Factors such as voting records of the editors/reporters; favorable/unfavorable stories; reporting of certain people/topics; placement of stories/articles; favorable/unfavorable photographs. These are just a few ways that media can/do influence opinions. The quickest way for a journalist (other than a commentator) to lose his/her job is to cop out that he/she is biased. So, I wouldn't expect a news editor or any of his staff to do so. I'm not gonna bother to open another can of worms by posting a bunch of links. We can both "cherry pick" thousands from the net. Doesn't really serve a purpose. You got Mrs. LK. I got my fantasies. No need to jerk off here on the board. F the lurkers. HH

Trust me, LK. The GOP thinks that's a Big F'n deal. It's worried sick. 55555555555 HH (who thinks that corporate-run media and the Demoncraps are more than equal to what you want to say about Fox; ie, ABC/Disney and NBC/GE...I forget who runs CBS...Soros?)

You're probably right about the average Joe/Jane. As for extraordinary/catastrophic situations, those things can be addressed without breaking the bank. HH

20 states filing suits on this issue is NOT my "imagination". :content: And, if you never plan to return to the U.S., shouldn't you be more concerned with what's going on in some other part of the world. (Maybe start a thread on Tajikistan?) HH

No mention was made of forcing anybody to invest in an annuity. Interesting exchange between DOJ attorney's and Judge Vinson today as alluded to in news report. Vinson noted that the mandate provided by Obamacare is an "over-reach" of the Commerce clause and asked the attorney's if the federal government could force people to buy broccoli because it is good for them and everybody else. Vinson also asked for the Gov. position on the severability of the various provisions of the legislative mandates. Judge apparently noted the reliance upon many of the provisions dependent upon other provisions, much like a watch; that is, if you take out one part (the mandate)which is critical, does it make sense that the watch will not function. Judge seems to be leaning toward the opinion rendered earlier this week in VA...that Congress has overstepped it's Constitutional authority. HH

I have read that if one were to contribute the same amount to a private fund(s), you would receive significant multiples of what you get from SS. There may be equally arguable opinions both pro and con. HH

Well, as the saying goes, "shit flows down hill". The people in D.C. shit and it flows all the way down to cities and school districts. HH

Yeah...buy insurance or post a bond in CA. But it was a STATE mandate, not a federal mandate. Plus, you had the option of not to be a licensed driver. Same with fishing licenses. State issued. Don't wanna fish, you don't need to pay for it. Pretty simple, but important differences. Apples and oranges. HH

NG....Think absolute newbie in Pattaya...surrounded by whores and not knowing the protocols, prices, what to ask or not ask, not knowing danger signs or people/places to avoid. As for what CS wrote, it's true. It's all "smoke and mirrors" as we used to call it. "Staffers" do all the work and merely hand a page of "bullet points" to their bosses. Testimony in front of committees is almost totally scripted, from the cast of characters, to order of appearance on stage, to questions, and what answers will be given. Jing jing. Often, myself or a colleague would write testimony for our boss who would trot up to "The Hill" and read verbatim what we wrote. Wasted exercise, as committee members already had advance copies of the script. It was just being read into "the record". Occasionally, somebody would tag along to whisper answers into the bosses ear if he/she didn't have the answer to a question. Opposition is also sometimes nothing more than faux resistence, with certain party members who are "golden" in their districts put out front to hold a party line, while those "on the fence" politically, are allowed to vote with the opposition for political purposes. It's a sham, for the most part. Does anybody really believe that more than a couple of legislators actually read a 2500 page health care bill; or the pending budget bill of about the same length? HH

LK...we can continue this only if you make some cogent and accurate points. As long as you keep misstating points of law, it's really a stupid exercise. I have no problem with differences of opinion, but opinions which misstate my positions or what is/has actually occured are problemmatic to me and do not advance any discussion/debate. So revel while you can as the liberal wing of the Demoncrap Party tries to unravel the fabric of my great country. Like I've said before, liberalism is struggling to take it's last breath in U.S. politics. It's DOA and it knows it. The foreshadowing took place 6 weeks ago. HH

LK..."judicial activism" and "federal over-reach" are two concepts which I abhor. Sadly, they seem to be two of the most common tools the left attempts to use to control and achieve it's goals. If the interstate commerce clause is allowed to be used in the matter of Obamacare, it sets a precident for all and anything Congress thinks it has the right to involve itself. Do you really, really want to entrust Congress to do what it pleases? Why the f do you think there was a Revolution over 200 years ago? HH

Twice ruled constitutional. Yep. Both times by Clinton appointees. My understanding is that the 13x cases were dismissed were upon technical/standing issues, rather than upon the issue as to whether or not the Feds can force folks to buy something. Vinson, like you said, was a Reagan appointee. He merely ruled that the cases initiated by TWENTY states could proceed forward. Come on, LK. Do I really expect too much when I ask that you be at least a little bit ethi...oh, never mind. (That word is foreign to libs. Almost forgot.) Miami allegedly has a pretty good law school. Having flunked it's economic courses, you should've tried law. (Nah...you're doing pretty well with what you're doing now. You'd just be defending parking tickets if you'd studied law.) HH

Reid and Pelosi, as I've noted before, are the best things for conservatism to come on the scene in decades. Liberalism will not even be mentioned in poli-sci classes except as a footnote 50 years from now. 555555555555 The libtards might as well eat their guns now. :content: HH

BTW, LK, the two judges who have upheld the constitutionality of requiring health insurance were promoted by Demoncrats. So much for slinging mud at Hudson. Either you were unaware of that, or your ethics prevented you from disclosing the fact. 555555555555555 HH

Flash...not sure if your clip was an intentional employment of symbolism or not. However, the nature of politicians and dancing whores is not much different. Both are sponsored by "special interests" (unions, corporations, associations by politicians; bar owners and foreign sponsors by the dancers.) Politicians and whores are well-known for often promising one thing and doing quite the opposite. In most cases, the voters and "johns" get fucked. HH

I think that is part of an oath of office to which all legislators are secretly sworn. HH

Well someone has to explain the concept to the conservatives... But "ethics" isn't part of a lib's vocabulary. How many ways was it necessary to explain it to Charlie Rangel and, now, Maxine Waters? HH

That's just part of the structure of lib DNA, isn't it? HH

Now that's FUNNY: A lib talking about "ethics". HH