shooter

That happened to me several times in my youth. In one instance I was going home from work one Saturday night and the Fort Thomas police pulled me over. They asked me what I was doing and when I told them that I had been at work in Newport and that now I was going home to Highland Heights they asked me what I was doing in Fort Thomas. :ohbrother: (For those not familiar with NKY geography, the fastest way from Newport to Highland Heights is through Fort Thomas. It would have been downright inconvenient to go any other way.) I simply looked at the cop and to emphasize the ridiculousness of his enquiry, I repeated my intentions very slowly.... I was working in Newport. I am going home. He let me go without ever telling me why he pulled me over. I am convinced I was pulled over because I was young and it was 1:00 AM on a Saturday night. In another instance I was driving with three of my friends in the car when I was pulled over. The cop asked for my license but didn't ask for ID's from anybody else in the car. When he noticed that I didn't live in the town he told all of us that he knew that we were there just to cause trouble and that we all needed to "get out of town". Again, the cop never actually told us what we had done for him to pull us over but I am convinced it was because it was late at night on a weekend and we were young. We all got a good laugh at the "get out of town" comment, particularly the two friends in the car who actually lived in the town.

I'm interesting in knowing what you think the cop did wrong.

The last time I saw a leap that big I was watching the movie 'Spiderman'! Please explain how advocating doing what the cop tells you to do translates into supporting police brutality. Also note that I didn't say that the cop was always right. I said that if you refuse a police order you will be going to jail. Perhaps the order wasn't lawful and the dispute might eventually be decided in your favor but you'll be spending at least some time in police custody. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

Then I take it you also read that the professor was yelling at the police officer outside his house in front of several witnesses and only after refusing to quiet down was he arrested. Having an ID doesn't entitle you to create a disturbance and if a police officer tells you to do something, you either do it or you go to jail. The professor chose (stupidly IMHO) door number 2.

If the standards have not been set, how can Obama say it doesn't force people to the government plan? Clearly he has said it doesn't. So....have the standards been set or is Obama lying?

If you want to borrow my copy of "Socialism" or "Human Action" let me know.:thumb:

They were moving fast. Now they're slowing down. Partisan Democrats don't want debate so slowing down is bad news for them. When people find out what the real impact of the legislation they'll be against it and they'll let others know about it. That will give pause to the few moderate Democrats and there just might be enough of them to stop the legislation. That's why Obama wants everything done by August; if it takes longer he might not get what he wants: government run healthcare.

I wonder if you realize how pejorative your response is to those who are against the proposed plan. Let's play a game and replace the phrase in bold type with other phrases that refer to other groups of people, then read the first sentence with the new phrase inserted and see how it plays. How about: (1) "who is closed minded" (2) "lacking in education" (3) "who is a CovCath fan" You might argue that's it not fair to play this word game but I do think it's instructive in this instance. I'm not sure if you really meant it to be so critical but it certainly could be interpreted that way. Also, while there certainly have been unreasoned responses, I don't believe it's that hard to find well reasoned and thoughtful criticisms of the proposed plan. I also believe that as more people actually get a chance to examine the plan, we'll be knee-deep in well reasoned and thoughtful criticism of the plan. P.S. My favorite is number 3.

Here's a link to the quoted article. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=482329

Any code of conduct needs some standard against which to judge if any action is right or wrong. Unless and until a particular standard can be proven beyond any doubt that it is the standard, any standard that is adopted is adopted as a matter of faith and not science. Therefore, any and all moralities are based on faith.

Biden's experience didn't stop him from uttering this gem: "We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt." Joe Biden

Why do you need a sign written in any language to tell you that if you swim in any lake there is a danger you might drown?

Does Biden EVER take his foot out of his mouth? Call me a fool because I have never known any politician who gets in trouble more often for saying something stupid than Joe Biden. His years of experience only makes it worse because it shows he is totally incapable of learning from his mistakes.

Two years from now would probably be more appropriate but so might 22 years. Or even 26 years from now. Palin could run for the Presidency in 2036 and still be the same age as John McCain when he ran in this last election.

Was Nixon more experienced? Certainly. But the question isn't who was more experienced, it's who has a future in politics at a particular time. Nobody thought in the early '60's that Nixon would be president in the late 1960's. After being defeated in 1960 and 1962 (for Governor of California) most people thought Nixon's political career was over. He even seemed to admit as much with his famous "you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" speech. I don't believe that Palin's political career is over yet. In that sense she is less of a long shot than Nixon was.

Hmmm.......A politician who has strong support on one side of the political aisle and is loathed by the other side of the political aisle......sounds like a accurate description of both Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton...Hillary didn't manage to become president but her chances were significantly above zero...for a good part of the last campaign she was the favorite.....I see no reason why Palin's chances should be pegged at zero and to do so seems overly pessimistic (optimistic?).....I don't think I would call her the favorite but she's certainly in the mix and there certainly have been politicians who have succeeded against longer odds.....Richard Nixon after losing to Kennedy in 1960 comes to mind....

In today's world a smoke stack is seen as an ugly blemish on the landscape and a symbol of man's exploitation of the environment. A few generations ago a smoke stack was seen as a positive symbol of economic strength. Also in today's world, I often see photos of wind turbines proudly displayed as a symbol of sound economic and environmental policy. When I think about a photo of a smoke stack and a photo of a wind turbine, it's amazing how similar the photo's can be. I can't help but wonder that if wind turbines become as ubiquitous as smoke stacks were one hundred years ago, that they will come to be viewed with the same disdain.

Are you tired of it? Sure! Is it untrue? Well.....he went to Germany and apologized.....he went to Turkey and apologized....he went to Egypt and apologized...he went to Saudi Arabia and nearly got on his knees...Saying it is untrue does not make it untrue.

There are also some serious ethical/legal issues surrounding some of his financial dealings with campaign contributors. P.S. A long time ago he barely escaped getting caught up in the ABSCAM investigation.

You can try to blame Bush for ENRON but I will then simply dismiss you as either biased or ill-informed since Ken Lay and other top ENRON executives began selling their stock when they realized ENRON was in trouble in August of 2000, 6 months before Bush took the oath of office.

There was no need to take an ownership stake in any of the banks. They could have simply bought toxic assets similar to what was done during the Reagan administration and as originally proposed by the Bush administration. That method even made the government money in the 1980's. But that method gave the government less control over the banks. The Obama administration also did not need to take ownership interest in the car companies either. They could have simply let them use the system to deal with unprofitable companies that had already been established for centuries....bankruptcy court. That is, there was no need unless you want to determine who runs the company, what cars they make, or if your interested in ensuring your political allies get a better deal. It is beyond question that the Founding Fathers considered everybody, including slaves. Some of the Founding Fathers were trying to figure out a method of eliminating slavery and others were trying to find a way to preserve it. In the end they compromised by including some language in the constitution that protected slavery while at the same time institutionalizing the ideals that were sure to eliminate it.

delete

Jimmy Carter, US Grant, and James Buchanan would be at the bottom of my list.

Apparently at 28 years old, a 'kid' is still off base since MSNBC reporter David Schuster was suspended last year for saying that Hillary Clinton was 'pimping' Chelsea Clinton by having Chelsea make campaign appearances for her.

If your numbers are anywhere close to being representative then that amounts to a HUGE tax increase. Even at a 15% marginal take rate that amounts to at $1500 increase.