Bangkoktraveler

I suspect a lot of those convicted that were innocent did not have the means to provide proper legal defense for themselves.

The sad state of affairs is a lot of money can be made in arresting somebody. When we did away with our mining and manufacturing base, we are now left with making money by other questionable means.

In Arizona, the govenor wants to do away with the State's Medicare program.

Sounds like 2011 might be an interesting year.

Surprising to see Old Hippie in that film clip as a teamster.

The biggest issue the USA has is its willingness to borrow money instead of paying back debts.

The government is more like a drug addict concerned only for her next fix instead of getting her life back in order.

We bitch about how much we borrowed from China but have totally forgotten that we stole over twice that amount from Social Security. That is our greatest national disgrace and our government totally ignores the issue while looking for the next fix - I mean who to borrow money from.

What is killing the USA is the financing 2 questionable wars with no end in sight.

The USA has got to realize that if we fight a war, we got to pay for it. In the real world, we can not pay (afford) these wars or any more wars.

Not a bad looking woman.

California is cash strapped because the politicians keep spending. Giving them money is not going to change that.

 

I agree ... would have been better to drop it in a Salvation Army kettle. At least some poor bastards would have been fed.

 

The GOP's read the Bible a lot so what they should do for California is have California state employees work out of tents just like Moses and Abraham did. That would save a whole lot of money.

You can invent a slippery slope if you want' date=' but I don't think it really exists anywhere except in your imagination.[/quote']

 

20 states filing suits on this issue is NOT my "imagination". :content:

That just proves once again that GOPers never have an original thought. Monkey see, monkey do.

 

 

 

You never here people bitch about all the money being spent on two worthless wars and how that money (our money) could be spent on OUR own citizens.

 

I am sick of Conservatives labeling a person a socialist or Communist if we even make the slightest mention that the healthcare we provide the Iraqis should have been provided to our own citizens first.

You're probably right about the average Joe/Jane.

 

As for extraordinary/catastrophic situations, those things can be addressed [color:red]without breaking the bank.[/color]HH

The bank (Social Security and Medicare) is far from being broke.

The bank unfortunately got cleaned out by our own government who refuse to replace what they have stolen.

But then.... if the government hadn't stolen the funds, the government would not have been in so many wars.

There 'is' so much money in Social Security that people on Social Security should be getting at least 50% more in payments. The age for Social Security can be lowered to 50 or 55.

More people can be covered on Medicare and Medicare can cover more items.

So what is the problem? The one that has taken the surpluses of Social Security - the USA government - refuses to pay any of it back!

Not one damn politician will discuss this problem. I wonder why?

During GWB's administration, he lowered taxes for the rich but also made an important speech. In the speech he claimed the USA has no intentions of ever paying back the money they took from Social Security and Medicare. In effect he was saying he approved stealing the money from the old. Sick.

LK..."judicial activism" and "federal over-reach" are two concepts which I abhor. Sadly' date=' 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[/quote']

Yet you seem to be OK with this judge throwing out a chunk of the Constitution. Or does this only apply to things you don't like?

 

And you obviously do not understand the provisions of the Interstate Commerce nor the Necessary & Proper Clauses.

 

BTW, do you have car insurance? You have to buy that if you want to drive? How is this any different? Unless you can guarantee that you are not going to get sick, then you need insurance because legally you must be treated even if you cannot pay. Which law do you want to get rid of? The later? Wouldn't surprise me...AZ has and has sentenced over 100 people to death already this year.

 

But as I said, I want Medicare for All, so this ruling is OK for me (even if wrong) as it will lead to that, taken to its logical conclusion.

 

Oh, and all your boring arguments were made 40 years ago about Medicare and are just as wrong now as they were then...

 

 

It is our money so there is nothing wrong spending our money on our own people.

 

Strange how some hate providing for our own people but have no problem providing health care to Iraqis and a 300 million power plant to Afghans.

 

Just doesn't make sense.

Why is it the Republicans like giving things to other countries like healthcare to Iraqis and a $300 million dollar power plant the Afghans don't use under the pretense of Democracy but [color:red]if one cent of our own money is spent on our own citizens, it is socialism and communism?[/color]

No problem with wars ... as long as the feds only fight wars that actually concern the US. What is the endless conflict in Afganistan doing for the US except costing money and lives? Will it ever end in anything other than a return to status quo? Reinstitute conscription with no exemptions for students and politicians' sons and see how fast the US leaves.

 

 

Exactly. We have no business in Afghanastan nor do we have business in Iraq.

 

 

 

I fail to understand guys like you who are probably not in the 1% of wealthiest Americans yet blindly support them.

 

I regretfully admit I'm not in the top 1% But plenty of others that are likewise disadvantaged share my view that taxes should not be raised on anyone. One of the polls I read revealed that 20% of the respondents thought the same. I suspect that the great majority of those who wanted to raise the taxes on the top 1-2% don't pay ANY federal income taxes.

 

My reasons are simple: I don't believe that the average TAXPAYER really gets good value for his $. We are taxed too much for what we individually receive; Everybody should pay the same percentage of their gross income (from whatever source); I don't have a right to what my neighbors earn/own' date=' they don't have a reciprocal claim. It's a moral issue to me.

 

And it's not just the income tax the Demoncrats want to raise (as we all know). Among others, they want to raise the "death tax". Bunch of fucking grave robbers, in my eyes. You could bury them in one of those big piles of cow shit I see next to dairy's and it would be fine by me. :content:

 

HH[/quote']

 

 

At the Federal level, one of the main reasons since 1862 for the Internal Revenue to collect taxes was to pay for the wars.

 

If a person doesn't want to pay more in taxes, they should support the idea of not supporting wars that do not make sense.

 

Don't you agree?

I think HH goes to the same astrologer Ronnies' wife use to go to.

When are they going to bring out Ronnies movies on Blur Ray?

I dont think Ron ever actually testified. Has any president? The way I look at it is' date=' delay them coming home a few hours or a few months for what? Ron in office? No way.

 

Ron was unpredictable and willing to blast you cowboy style and let everyone know it. Carter they could trust to do as little as possible.

 

That's another counter, Iran had more to GAIN with Carter than with Ron.[/quote']

 

 

Ron definitely testified, I don't think he was president at the time. This was when he said "...I don't recall/remember..." like 137 times...I need to go back and check it all.

 

Yeah, while I can see a dirty deal being done, as in it wouldn't surprise me either way, I also have some issue with how it could be pulled off or why. The Iranians had no way of knowing who was going to win, so why make a deal with Ron?

 

As you point out, the Iranians were better off with lame assed Carter, then with Ron, UNLESS there was a deal made...of course a dirty Sanchez could have been pulled and it could have all gone to hell fast.

 

I do know there were some law suits filed on this, but not sure if any are still current. I do recall that some of the hostages were suing trying to get some of the frozen Iranian assets as well as whatever they might get from any of Ron's dealings. But no idea what the current is.

 

 

Ronnie had dementia.

 

I wonder if his wife's astrologer told her to tell him to say that.

Who the fuck is Ron? And why do we have this ridiculous thread on Thai360.com?

Ron is the actor who led the calvery thru the gates of Fort Apache in the movies. In real life, Fort Apache did not have gates.

I'll get back to the hostage thing.

 

For WMD in Iraq, they for sure did have them. We have a few burned out northern villages as proof.

 

Did they have them any more in 2003? Not sure. I say that because our sniffing machines went of constantly in some places and never in others. So there was something there at some point in the recent (as in a year or two before the invasion) past.

 

Saddam buried fully working Mig's in the sand. No telling what else might be out there.

Golly, even GWB claims he was surprised there were no WMD. Are you saying GWB is an idiot?

You seem to have a distorted view of the reality of the October surprise...seems Old Ronnie arranged to have the hostages held a bit longer in excahnge for some "gifts" later on...but I won't bother you with facts and reality...Ronnie was a saint...never faced impeachment etc...no such thing as Iran contra or anything of the sort...no doubt Obama was behind it all anyway...

Yelp, you answered your own question.

Some consider Ronnie a god because of his un-American tactics. Iran Contra was a disgrace but because that shit got covered with a rug - that makes everything okay.

I really only remember him for the Iran Hostage Crisis

He got fucked by Ray-Gun and the GOP on that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise#1980_Carter_vs._Reagan

 

According to some, Reagan did a real good job as expressed in the Iran contras shit. Best thing any president could have done.

Not bad looking woman.

The TSA airport Natzis still have people pissed off. Too bad we can't dish back to them the shit they give us.

This is the thread for all things USA, right? Okay. Here's my contribution.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101203/ap_on_re_us/us_california_legislative_vehicles

 

California lawmakers enjoy a perk that seems like a luxurious amenity in a state that has been slashing billions of dollars from its budget: taxpayer-provided cars.

The state purchases cars for lawmakers to drive around their districts and the capital under a decades-old program, spending more than $5 million for the latest suite of vehicles that includes a $55,000 Cadillac sedan and a $52,000 Lexus hybrid.

In Arizona, some prisoners are housed in tents.

So, why can't government employees work out of tents? Tents were good enough for Abraham and Moses. Are they any better?

As for cars? Jesus rode into Jerusaleum on an ass. Why can't government employees ride an ass? If they did ride an ass, it would help them to get of their ass.

I agree with you.

Here in Arizona you can drive a motorcycle without a helmet. Most drivers of motorcycles in Arizona who die in an accident might have survived if they were wearing a helmet.

But then...

Some idiots can not drive while texting and/or on a cell phone. Some of these idiots cause accidents. So what are some possible solutions?

[color:red]So how should this device work if one NEEDS to use the cell phone in the car,[/color] and can't pull over? Such as reporting a crime, hazard, a break down etc...Many times I have had to use my phone while driving, once I was following a dangerous driver who later turned out to be drunk...I was driving while talking to the highway patrol...Should there be exceptions? who gets to decide what those exceptions are, and how will it all work?

 

To my knowledge, cell phone jammers, if that is what you were talking about, are illegal in most places.

If the ignition switch is in the 'OFF' position, the low level cell phone jammer would not be working.