Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
formerresident

Decatur, GA

#10531 May 11, 2013
The first draft? You folks have created a royal mess, that takes volumes and volumes of education, but the core fundamental is that Americans have rights to live free of government harm, and trust our paper, and experts, what we watch and what we are told when we purchase brand new, and own our homes free of debt, having paid them off.

The rest... good luck to all of us! The spirit of the law. Money is good, but not worth it if liberty, freedom, and human rights disappear, in the process.

You may think it only about money, shareholders, but it is not. Our country is more then that. I hope.
Stophating

Alma, GA

#10532 May 11, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>Are you a blonde chick???
Who did you support for U.S. Senate Georgia 3 years ago?
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#10533 May 11, 2013
Let's see.

We are bombing a sovereign nation.

That sovereign nation seems to object to being bombed.

Now, this is interesting - if our CIA can bomb them - can they're CIA also bomb us ?

If our CIA can kidnap, torture and assassinate their citizens in their country - can their CIA kidnap, torture and assassinate our citizens in our country ?

Understanding we are "exceptional" and always "right", if one is intellectually honest and rational, what are the answers to those questions ?

Pakistan's highest court rules U.S. drone strikes illegal
NATASHA LENNARD | May 09, 2013 04:46 PM

The highest court in Pakistan ruled Thursday that U.S. drone strikes are illegal.

The Peshawar High Court advised the Pakistani government to move a resolution against the attacks in the United Nations, the U.K.'s Independent newspaper reported.

The ruling bolsters recent claims made by U.N. human rights expert Ben Emmerson Q.C., following a visit to Pakistan, that authorities in the country gave no consent, tacit or otherwise, for the CIA strikes to be carried out in its tribal regions.

... The high court's decision Thursday declared that the drone strikes court must be declared a war crime as they killed innocent people.

In March of this year, the Pakistani government said that "at least 400" have been killed by drone strikes in the country. The British Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates a similar figure.

The Independent reported on Thursday's Peshawar High Court ruling, which human rights advocates are celebrating as a landmark:

Chief Justice Dost Muhammad Khan, who headed a two-judge bench that heard the petitions, ruled the drone strikes were illegal, inhumane and a violation of the U.N. charter on human rights.

The court said the strikes must be declared a War Crime as they killed innocent people.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#10534 May 11, 2013
DrinknChickn wrote:
<quoted text>
Everybody take a shot! He said "clueless and uneducated"!
Alright, finally, a decent post from this poster. I'll buy the first round (OK, maybe 2) if everyone meets up. Say when and where...
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#10535 May 11, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>If you have a complaint with the number of unnecessary tests that doctors order, blame the trial lawyers. Doctors admit to ordering many tests that they do not feel are warranted out of fear of lawsuits. If something comes up that a NON- indicated test could have shown - it doesn't matter that there was no reason to order the test, the trial lawyer will argue that "if only Dr X had ordered this test" and the jury will buy it.
What a load of crap.

Because every state has protected doctors with highly biased legislation, most attorneys won't come within a mile of a malpractice claim.

That's why over 90,000 Americans a year die from preventable medical negligence.

Hopefully, you'll never have to learn that when someone you love is damaged or killed through medical negligence. If it happens, your attitude will change - it always does.

By the way- medical malpractice insurance costs account for less than 1% of health care costs - yep- less than 1%.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#10536 May 11, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of crap.
... most attorneys won't come within a mile of a malpractice claim.
...
Complete and utter BS, uttered (posted) by someone that doesn't know what they're talking about. Not surprised.

Been there and done that...
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#10537 May 11, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
Below is a very interesting article discussing the Super-Majority requirements in the U.S. Senate. It was written by Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley.

It's well worth a read in the interest of general knowledge.

By Jeff Merkley,November 04, 2011

My colleague Sen. Ron Johnson recently argued on these pages that a supermajority voting requirement in the Senate is part of our Founding Fathers’ constitutional design and that recent efforts to change it are driving the “bankrupting of America”[“A simple majority is not enough,” op-ed, Oct. 23].

I take a different view.

At no time did our Founders envision that the Senate would require a supermajority to pass legislation. Indeed, the Constitution requires a supermajority only for very limited purposes, including the ratification of treaties and the override of a presidential veto.

Nor did the early Senate adopt any supermajority requirements by rule. Senators extended the courtesy of extensive debate as a basic principle of deliberation, but they passed all legislation by simple majorities.

While some were tempted to talk a bill to death by not agreeing to a final vote, this temptation was moderated by working relations — historically, the Senate had many fewer members than it does today — a deep commitment to the principle of majority rule, and the prospect that if individuals were to abuse the process, the Senate could respond by adopting a rule change with a simple majority.

Many Founders saw the possibility of a supermajority requirement for passing bills as destructive, inappropriately subjugating the wisdom of the many to the wisdom of the few. Alexander Hamilton observed in the Federalist papers that a supermajority requirement has a “tendency to embarrass the operations of government” and would generate “tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.” This characterization matches how many Americans perceive the Senate today.

ARTICLE CONTINUED AT: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-11-04...
What with the distribution of senators by state, the use if a supermajority allows a very small Right Wing Wacko minority, to stop all action in the senate.

I expect that from the RWWs.

What is annoying is Harry Reid and the majority, roll over every time a RWW senator even claims he' "filibuster" legislation.

I think it's a great game. RWW Senate Republicans claim they'll filibuster almost every bill proposed, and Senate Democrats pretend they are powerless to overcome the filibuster.

Kind if like the AFC and the NFC pretending anything matters but the NFL making money.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#10538 May 11, 2013
Although, that being said, I guess one would have to define what "most attorneys" means...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#10539 May 11, 2013
Here's a question, so many of you have such a problem with the salaries that successful business entrepreneurs earn. It doesn't seem to matter that most of them started from scratch and risked their own money to start a business that succeeded (when so many of them fail and lose everything they invested) and so they were able to expand and hire more employees - thus enabling those people to earn a living and support their families. Those employees would then advance through the company, achieving higher earnings as they went. Expand, hire more people and on and on.

Physicians go through many years of schooling before they ever see a decent paycheck. Four years of college, followed by four years of medical school followed by 3-6 years of residency and possibly 1-2 more years of fellowship training. So they are anywhere from 12 -16 years of training before getting their first "real" job and they are facing the joy of paying back college and medical school loans as well. And different specialties earn very different salaries.

So while you are complaining about the businessman and the physician, where is your anger at the Hollywood elite who demand millions to work a few months on a film - thus driving up the costs of movie tickets. Try taking a family of 5 to the movies and letting the kids get something as basic as a drink and popcorn and maybe split some candy. It could easily set them back $70-$80 dollars - just to go to a movie. Let's look at what some actors pulled in from May 2011- May 2012 - that's one year, folks.
Tom Cruise -$75 million
Leonardo DiCaprio and Adam Sandler -$37 million
Kristen Stewart -$34.5 million

And then we have our professional athletes who demand multimillion dollar a year contracts - what do you think that does to the price of a sports ticket. Anybody tried to take that same family of 5 to a game recently? I went on the Braves website and a seat in the nose bleed section of Right Field cost a lovely $47 - that's for ONE ticket.

But somehow when the Left is harping on about how unfair it is that presidents of companies or some doctors make what are admittedly some very nice incomes, no one is talking about the actors who make multimillions for pretending and athletes who make multimillions for playing a children's game.

Anybody else see selective outrage at work??
danger zone

Fayetteville, GA

#10540 May 11, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
Spooky!
I made a post awhile ago revealing the location of the 2013
B*i*l*d*e*r*b*u*r*g Group Meeting.
It was yanked off of here in minutes. That's just creepy.


Interesting. The Bohemian Grove is a California camp where powerful politicians & elite gather most every summer. I've read several articles about it. They're able to go there & let loose without being exposed. Gated and guarded.
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#10541 May 11, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
Are all of you familiar with teh B*i*l*d*e*r*b*e*r*g Group?

They're meeting j%u%n%e Sixth through Eighth this year at W%a%t%f%o%r%d UK at the lovely G%r%o%v%e Hotel which as a beautiful place.

My lights flickered while I was writing this. No kidding.

I'm turning my router off. If you never hear from me again - well - your loss.:) You can't have my stuff.
Great post.

Bilderberg,
Trilateral Commission,
Council of Foreign Relations,
North American Union,

Anytime the richest and most powerful people in the world meet secretly,
I am sure they have only the best interests of the working man at heart.

Yea - right.

What's depressing is that no political or financial power opposes them, the media actually works to maintain the secrecy, and we continue to vote their members into office.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#10542 May 11, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
Here's a question, so many of you have such a problem with the salaries that successful business entrepreneurs earn. It doesn't seem to matter that most of them started from scratch and risked their own money to start a business that succeeded (when so many of them fail and lose everything they invested) and so they were able to expand and hire more employees - thus enabling those people to earn a living and support their families. Those employees would then advance through the company, achieving higher earnings as they went. Expand, hire more people and on and on.
Physicians go through many years of schooling before they ever see a decent paycheck. Four years of college, followed by four years of medical school followed by 3-6 years of residency and possibly 1-2 more years of fellowship training. So they are anywhere from 12 -16 years of training before getting their first "real" job and they are facing the joy of paying back college and medical school loans as well. And different specialties earn very different salaries.
So while you are complaining about the businessman and the physician, where is your anger at the Hollywood elite who demand millions to work a few months on a film - thus driving up the costs of movie tickets. Try taking a family of 5 to the movies and letting the kids get something as basic as a drink and popcorn and maybe split some candy. It could easily set them back $70-$80 dollars - just to go to a movie. Let's look at what some actors pulled in from May 2011- May 2012 - that's one year, folks.
Tom Cruise -$75 million
Leonardo DiCaprio and Adam Sandler -$37 million
Kristen Stewart -$34.5 million
And then we have our professional athletes who demand multimillion dollar a year contracts - what do you think that does to the price of a sports ticket. Anybody tried to take that same family of 5 to a game recently? I went on the Braves website and a seat in the nose bleed section of Right Field cost a lovely $47 - that's for ONE ticket.
But somehow when the Left is harping on about how unfair it is that presidents of companies or some doctors make what are admittedly some very nice incomes, no one is talking about the actors who make multimillions for pretending and athletes who make multimillions for playing a children's game.
Anybody else see selective outrage at work??
+1

Probably, since (it seems) most of Hollywood supports the "Liberace" cause, many will not have an outrage against this...

What a lot of the clueless and uneducated don't understand is how stock options work, particularly in small, start up companies where the founders (owners) risk a significant portion of their personal wealth for potential gains. Been thee and done that...
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#10543 May 11, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>And I will repeat (sorry, Bill)- and just how does that explain the next 12 revisions?

ABC Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/...

Will you acknowledge that? Doubt it - too full of truth and facts.
What a joke.

Is this supposed to be a matter if any importance ?

Bush protected bin Laden, and lied us into a war that killed thousands of Marines, hundreds of thousands of civilians, and will cost our us, our children, and our grandchildren $6,000,000,000,000.00.

Are you demanding and investigation into that ?

Are you demanding Bush be tried for treason and War Crimes ?

No ?

But 4 Americans are killed in the 17th attack on embassies and consulates and suddenly we have to "investigate".

And Right Wing Wackos wonder why they're not taken seriously.
truth

Lawrenceville, GA

#10544 May 11, 2013
I know what you are saying, Aggie. I have a friend that went to medical school 7-yrs, 3- yrs to specialize. He is about to go through a 5- yr internship. His education has cost in excess of $600,000.00.
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#10545 May 11, 2013
DrinknChickn wrote:
<quoted text>So what? They worked on the wording of their presentation. That isn't a big deal.

I'd be much more concerned if a POTUS wasn't careful about what he chose to present and how he chose to word it.

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x62/DFW_ph...
It's worse than that.

The original press release was on blue paper - and and later it was printed on green paper,

The final version had parts in "Bold" while earlier versions had those same sections in "Italics".

Outrageously, the original also had a coffee stain in the upper left hand corner - and when you see the final version - THERE'S NO COFFEE STAIN.
truth

Lawrenceville, GA

#10546 May 11, 2013
truth wrote:
I know what you are saying, Aggie. I have a friend that went to medical school 7-yrs, 3- yrs to specialize. He is about to go through a 5- yr internship. His education has cost in excess of $600,000.00.
Excuse me! He calls it residency, not internship.
DrinknChickn

Douglasville, GA

#10547 May 11, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
It's worse than that.
The original press release was on blue paper - and and later it was printed on green paper,
The final version had parts in "Bold" while earlier versions had those same sections in "Italics".
Outrageously, the original also had a coffee stain in the upper left hand corner - and when you see the final version - THERE'S NO COFFEE STAIN.
I'm starting to see the insidious nature of the whole plan now. Why didn't Aggie just state this to begin with! Now I understand. There are dangerous forces at work here.

http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/syBRZGU95aA/mqdefault....
Apparently

Chagrin Falls, OH

#10548 May 11, 2013
Apparently

Chagrin Falls, OH

#10549 May 11, 2013
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#10550 May 11, 2013
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>Complete and utter BS, uttered (posted) by someone that doesn't know what they're talking about. Not surprised.

Been there and done that...
Lord, I despise ignorance.

It's always sadly ironic whenever a Right Wing Wackos come into a law office to complain your doctor or surgeon has harmed them or a family member through malpractice.

In the states with which I'm familiar, the attorney will explain to you that, unless unless your spouse earned substantial income, his or her death just isn't worth suing over, because statutory limits on recovery for pain and suffering and lack of consortium and companionship make the potential recovery not worth an attorney's time or effort.

The attorney will explain that under statutes enacted to discourage lawsuits against doctors, it may cost a minimum of $100,000 to hire medical doctors as experts to file affidavits just to have the right to even file the lawsuit, and doctors to testify at trial, and years of litigation and work by the attorney to prosecute any decent sized malpractice lawsuit.

They'll explain to you that if you don't win, you'll have to pay the costs for the other side, and in some cases, if offers of judgment were made, you'll have to pay their fees also.

Got an extra $1,000,000 lying around ?

You won't have the money to pay for a lawyer, or you being a good Right Winger, you'll want the attorney to risk his money and years of his life, and take the case on contingency, so you can transfer the risk and the cost to someone else.

When the attorney refuses, you'll be angry - where's the justice ?

Suddenly, it'll come home to you what it means to be a little guy in modern day America, where all those rules made to protect defendants from those "bad" plaintiff's attorneys actually work.

It's ironic, but it's the result of your getting the very laws you wanted.

Having seen this rodeo about 200 X, tell me again how I have no idea what I'm talking about.

The vast majority of attorneys won't go near a medmal case because the rules are designed to make it as difficult and expensive as possible to prevail.

Why are Right Wing Wackos so proud if their ignorance ?,

and

why do they assume everyone else is as ignorant as get are ?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Kingsland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Judy Thurner Running For Council 7 hr Big Dog 3
T&G Letter Scorches Jay Moreno 7 hr Laughing Bob 72
To Donald Trump: You have sacrificed nothing 7 hr Lucy 3
Democratic National Convention summary 8 hr Truth 2
2016 City Council Election 8 hr LMAO 78
You have to vote for me. No I don't. 8 hr Larry 1
Republican site tell truth re Trump 8 hr Joseph 3

Kingsland Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Kingsland Mortgages