Cops harass siblings going on cross country trip.
Man, this blows my mind. I lived in Tampa, and went camping in Zephyrhills; it's such a nice mellow place.
Little did I know my life was in peril.......of course, the ankle bracelet kid with the ak 47 was prolly 11 years old when I went there.
Cops harass siblings going on cross country trip.
Are the Dougherty Gang supposed to be comparable to a town of Libyans bombed from the sky, a woman video-taping cops beating someone with flashlights, or a schizophrenic beaten to a pancake by six officers?
Socialists have long known that there's only one side in DC--the bosses', who have always used the government to protect their interests.Not witty or clever.
:(
I want my surrogate mommy!!!!
If you haven't, check out The Inside Job, about the subprime loan bust. It comes right out and names a lot of the names we've been obliquely dicussing as if they were academic examples.I, for one, will check out that book.To save you some time: The doccumentary film.
What I found interesting was that the same like 4-5 people, over the course of literally decades, repeatedly made the situation progressively worse and worse, and then all lived happily ever after.
Watched this today. I thought it was pretty damning.
I might point out that in the house, a higher percentage of Dems voted against the increase in the debt limit than the percent of self-proclaimed Tea Party Reps voted against it.
Humanitarian interventionism strikes in Majer
This doesn't seem like helping to me.
Cops harass siblings going on cross country trip.Are the Dougherty Gang supposed to be comparable to a town of Libyans bombed from the sky, a woman video-taping cops beating someone with flashlights, or a schizophrenic beaten to a pancake by six officers?
I think PM is being tongue in cheek, but I hardly think the government doing its job once in a while justifies a police state (not that PM is arguing for that).
Capuano, of course, is not a Republican.
This makes me laugh because, I knew a couple of guys who were ex-bank robbers in Boston including the guy who lived on the third floor with his mother in the triple-decker I occupied for 7 years.
I first became aware of Capuano when he was the mayor of Somerville and denounced my friend Omar and his roommates in the local press. They were having a party that went out-of-control in the way that only underage college kids parties can and they ended up hanging a blow-up doll out of the window. The PC police decided that, instead of drunken tomfoolery, this was an act of "violence against women."
More recently, he addressed my union local after the election of Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat. In fact, we got harrangued by the top echelons of the state Democratic Party--Governor Patrick, Mayor Menino, Reps Capuano and Steve Lynch, etc.
Anyway, at one point Capuano was talking about how working-class people voted against their own interests to elect Brown (his words, not mine). He was getting wrapped up in rhetorical excess when he said, "Look, I'm not going to ask for a show of hands on who voted Republican" when someone in the front row got defiant and shouted out "Yeah? Go ahead!"
Hee hee!
I think PM is being tongue in cheek, but I hardly think the government doing its job once in a while justifies a police state (not that PM is arguing for that).Cops harass siblings going on cross country trip.Are the Dougherty Gang supposed to be comparable to a town of Libyans bombed from the sky, a woman video-taping cops beating someone with flashlights, or a schizophrenic beaten to a pancake by six officers?
Holy...BT, are you saying the government got something right?!??!
Saw this comment on another board...thought I'd offer it up for debate.
Figured this is a good place for it.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
as income.
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the Democrats suck. Always have, always will.
Both sides suck. Always have, always will.
True dat.
I knew if it wasn't true, I'd find out quickly enough here.
Not to nit pick the article, but the guy debunking a couple of the things listed equates what Roosevelt promised with what he signed into law.
We know that there is often a large gulf between what a person says will go into a bill to get support from voters, and what is actually passed and signed into law.
But other than that this clearly looks false, thanks.
Par for the course.
People don't care about what was promised 3 years ago either.
Par for the course.
People don't care about what was promised 3 years ago either.
Oh they care, but they only do so when they can complain about it.
Pay Your Carbon Taxes To Al Gore Or Space Aliens Will Attack!
Hee hee!
I don't know or care if this is fair or accurate--it's funny.
I, myself, can count Al Gore as the highest-ranking person I ever snubbed. During the 2000 elections my girlfriend and I were visiting my mother and we all went out to breakfast. I had partied in an epic fashion the night before and looked it.
When we got to our destination, there were a bunch of cop cars in the parking lot. I didn't want to go in, but the ladies wanted their proper brunch and I was already in trouble from the night before for running around the yard naked, so in we went.
Anyway, as you can guess it was Al Gore on the campaign trail. I shot him dirty looks and through the fog of my hangover I thought about the PMRC and all those dead Branch Davidians. Frickin' Al Gore! I hate him! (Whether Al Frickin' Gore had anything to do with Waco is besides the point--that's what I thought about.)
Make a long story short: at the end of his meal, Al Frickin' Gore decided that he had to walk around the room and stick his Internet-inventing hand into everyone's face and interrupt their meals. This wasn't a political event--I wasn't here to see Al Frickin' Gore--what chutzpah!
So I refused to shake his hand. At first I ignored it. He looked at me and said "Sir, I'd like to shake your hand." And I looked back with steely determination and the defiant hostility of the unremitting class-war: "I'd prefer not."
Take that Vice-President Al Frickin' Gore!
Well, in good news:
The West Memphis 3 got out which is a qualified +1. Looks like they had to cop some b*$$!%@& plea to get out, though.
I didn't want to go in, but the ladies wanted their proper brunch and I was already in trouble from the night before for running around the yard naked, so in we went.
And I thought I was the only one who started a lot of personal stories with that sentence, or at least something close to it...
Please note that even if the 2% that turn away are on drugs as well (instead of say not being able to afford the testing upfront) that still gives only 4% of those tested compared to the widely cited 6~8% of the Florida population that is supposed to be on drugs.
But lets not let facts get in the way of beating those already down!
|
Please note that even if the 2% that turn away are on drugs as well (instead of say not being able to afford the testing upfront) that still gives only 4% of those tested compared to the widely cited 6~8% of the Florida population that is supposed to be on drugs.
But lets not let facts get in the way of beating those already down!
Huh? I see nothing in there about the number of people that WOULD have applied for benefits... but knew beforehand that they'd fail a drug test so didn't apply.
Without those numbers, the article doesn't really tell the whole story.
Please note that even if the 2% that turn away are on drugs as well (instead of say not being able to afford the testing upfront) that still gives only 4% of those tested compared to the widely cited 6~8% of the Florida population that is supposed to be on drugs.
But lets not let facts get in the way of beating those already down!
Huh? I see nothing in there about the number of people that WOULD have applied for benefits... but knew beforehand that they'd fail a drug test so didn't apply.
Without those numbers, the article doesn't really tell the whole story.
That's valid point, but how would one quantify it?
|
|
That's valid point, but how would one quantify it?Please note that even if the 2% that turn away are on drugs as well (instead of say not being able to afford the testing upfront) that still gives only 4% of those tested compared to the widely cited 6~8% of the Florida population that is supposed to be on drugs.
But lets not let facts get in the way of beating those already down!
Huh? I see nothing in there about the number of people that WOULD have applied for benefits... but knew beforehand that they'd fail a drug test so didn't apply.
Without those numbers, the article doesn't really tell the whole story.
Historic data maybe? Usually this month we get X applicants for benefits and this month we received Y. Not sure if that would even get a good number since even the number of applicants has been fluxuating wildly over the months (disclosure: source is my mother who works for State Human Services. lol)
I'm just saying that it's a bad conclussion to draw that only 4% of poor people do drugs based on tests that the applicants walked into willingly. Seems a bit silly to me. :)
Prison Rape: Still a Problem. Government: Still Not All That Concerned About It.
"Finally, in January, the Justice Department published its first plausible estimates. In 2008, it now says, more than 216,600 people were sexually abused in prisons and jails and, in the case of at least 17,100 of them, in juvenile detention. Overall, that’s almost six hundred people a day—twenty-five an hour."
Of course this doesn't include things like foster care, group homes, rehab, and psychiatric institutions that government forces kids into.
A former cop's 15-year prison sentence illustrates the absurdity of federal child porn laws.
Hmm. Something sounds off here. I have no problem with him enjoying sex consensually, but the article glosses over how this situation came to light -a conversation with a counselor. Also, the fact that he was in a relationship with two barely legal individuals and one of them was offering to take some photos for him doesn't help his case. Not saying he should be put away for the rest of his natural life or anything, but he knew one of the individuals since they were not legal -there is a lot here to raise eyebrows, even if only circumstantially. I do think a cop should have known better.
A former cop's 15-year prison sentence illustrates the absurdity of federal child porn laws.Hmm. Something sounds off here. I have no problem with him enjoying sex consensually, but the article glosses over how this situation came to light -a conversation with a counselor. Also, the fact that he was in a relationship with two barely legal individuals and one of them was offering to take some photos for him doesn't help his case. Not saying he should be put away for the rest of his natural life or anything, but he knew one of the individuals since they were not legal -there is a lot here to raise eyebrows, even if only circumstantially. I do think a cop should have known better.
I think his judgement was bad to say the least, and some divorced older cop banging a 16 and 17 year old just flat out creeps me out.
That said, he could have been married to the 16 year old and still been hit with the mandatory(?) 15 year sentence as far as I know.
Our laws are insane.
EDIT: The way I understand the federal possession statute a father could get a 5 year mandatory federal minimum sentence for his 17 year old daughter having a single naked pic on a cell phone that he technically owns as part of his cell plan even if that single picture was never transmitted any where.
A former cop's 15-year prison sentence illustrates the absurdity of federal child porn laws.Hmm. Something sounds off here. I have no problem with him enjoying sex consensually, but the article glosses over how this situation came to light -a conversation with a counselor. Also, the fact that he was in a relationship with two barely legal individuals and one of them was offering to take some photos for him doesn't help his case. Not saying he should be put away for the rest of his natural life or anything, but he knew one of the individuals since they were not legal -there is a lot here to raise eyebrows, even if only circumstantially. I do think a cop should have known better.I think his judgement was bad to say the least, and some divorced older cop banging a 16 and 17 year old just flat out creeps me out.
That said, he could have been married to the 16 year old and still been hit with the mandatory(?) 15 year sentence as far as I know.
Our laws are insane.
EDIT: The way I understand the federal possession statute a father could get a 5 year mandatory federal minimum sentence for his 17 year old daughter having a single naked pic on a cell phone that he technically owns as part of his cell plan even if that single picture was never transmitted any where.
id say we both need to do more reasearch, both on the law and with this case.
And so could the daughter. I'm not sure if anyone has been convicted, but there have been multiple cases of teens being threatened and forced to agree to plea bargains for sexting photos of themselves. Not a good idea certainly, but also not worthy of the full weight of child pornography laws.
I would agree. There is also the issue that even with a plea bargain the girl could then be a registered sex offender for life for taking a picture of herself. That seems like a terrible use of a national data base to me, but there are quite a few examples of just such occurrences.
id say we both need to do more reasearch, both on the law and with this case.A former cop's 15-year prison sentence illustrates the absurdity of federal child porn laws.Hmm. Something sounds off here. I have no problem with him enjoying sex consensually, but the article glosses over how this situation came to light -a conversation with a counselor. Also, the fact that he was in a relationship with two barely legal individuals and one of them was offering to take some photos for him doesn't help his case. Not saying he should be put away for the rest of his natural life or anything, but he knew one of the individuals since they were not legal -there is a lot here to raise eyebrows, even if only circumstantially. I do think a cop should have known better.I think his judgement was bad to say the least, and some divorced older cop banging a 16 and 17 year old just flat out creeps me out.
That said, he could have been married to the 16 year old and still been hit with the mandatory(?) 15 year sentence as far as I know.
Our laws are insane.
EDIT: The way I understand the federal possession statute a father could get a 5 year mandatory federal minimum sentence for his 17 year old daughter having a single naked pic on a cell phone that he technically owns as part of his cell plan even if that single picture was never transmitted any where.
The sentencing statement from the federal judge is informative.
It basically says mandatory minimum sentences are a bad idea. Which I certainly agree with. Cases like this are exactly where judges should be allowed discretion.
I'm not a fan of mandatory minimums, but I also think the whole law is absurdly written.
A big part of the larger problem is variability of the age of majority just at the federal level. The federal standard for sexual consent is 16, for alcohol it's 21, and for everything else I can think of it's 18. This leaves us with these bizarre situations where 2 16 year old's can get married and have kids, but they vote for another 2 years or drink for 5. I think the drinking age should be 18, but I'm not sure how to approach reconciling many of the contradicting laws at the state and federal level with the federal child porn laws.
Any exceptions are apt to be exploited, but the idea that a couple could marry at 17 and be sentenced to 200 years in prison for taking 40 naughty pictures on their honeymoon seems insane to me.
EDIT: Leaving bad or outdated laws on the books and hoping that law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges use discretion is also a problem for me. It's a huge opening for discriminatory prosecution of whomever law enforcement, prosecutors or judges want to use those laws to hurt.
Senator blasts promotions for ATF’s ‘Fast and Furious’ supervisors
ATF claims the moves are lateral.
ATF head removed by DOJ after 'Fast and Furious' controversy
Of course he wasn't fired or anything.
Senator blasts promotions for ATF’s ‘Fast and Furious’ supervisors
ATF claims the moves are lateral.
ATF head removed by DOJ after 'Fast and Furious' controversy
Of course he wasn't fired or anything.
glad he was removed. Would have preferred he be fired.