Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Whembly wrote: "Okay... tell you what, you tell me what the GOP could propose that the Democrats/Obama would permit to pass. "
Are you speaking about the Iran nuclear negotiations specifically or just in general?
If the former, I would bet good money that if the GOP could get the Iranians to sign the treaty that the GOP might want, short of declaring war on Iran, Obama and the dems would back it. It would be political suicide not to. The problem is that there is no way in hell Iran would sign that bill.
If you are speaking more generally, how about the entire premise behind the ACA?
I meant both.
Because my point, that I've often have a hard time articulating, is that we've lost the art of true compromise. Both parties, both branch of government isn't interested in compromise.
Hence the gridlock we're seeing now...
Hence the squabbles between Congress and the Executive branch...
Hence things like the PPACA and stimulous acts...
etc...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Or if one wanted to be really cynical, they would see that Cotten just had a breakfast date with the National Defense Industrial Association — a trade group for Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. Treaty negotiations fail, bomb Iranian nuclear infrastructure ever five years, money gets banked by the bomb makers, money gets banked by the lawmakers who set it all up. Laugh at election time.
That's pretty damn cynical.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/11 19:03:48
When a legislative body acts against the executive on the international stage it makes the state weaker as no foreign state be assured as to whether or not it is negotiating with the executive, or the legislature.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
When a legislative body acts against the executive on the international stage it makes the state weaker as no foreign state be assured as to whether or not it is negotiating with the executive, or the legislature.
Are you implying that had Obama actually has a treaty on the table whereby Iran actually gives up it's nuclear ambition... that the GOP Congress won't ratify it? Because it simply came from Obama? Is that what you're really saying?
Its debatable, and the fact that it is speaks volumes. The GOP has spent so much time building the Democrats up as monsters that being seen approving any action by the Monster in Chief is politically dangerous.
Are you implying that had Obama actually has a treaty on the table whereby Iran actually gives up it's nuclear ambition... that the GOP Congress won't ratify it? Because it simply came from Obama? Is that what you're really saying?
Its debatable, and the fact that it is speaks volumes.
I beg to differ.
You know that I detest Obama's politics... but, man... if he get's Iran to sign a binding nuclear disarmament, the GOP would be absolute fools to refuse to approve it simply because they don't want to give Obama "a win". To me, I'd work to primary them in the next election.
For some interesting legislation coming from the democrats that's not clinton related: I like this guy, let's put a end to victimless crimes. And as for the timing 50th anniversary of Selma, and just in time to get his name out there for a presidential run?
Legislation would make it a civil rights violation to enforce criminal or traffic laws for the purpose of raising revenue.
Today, U.S. Representative Emanuel Cleaver, II (MO-05) in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Selma, and in response to the tragic events of Ferguson, announced his plan to introduce a bill to ban criminal and traffic law enforcement activities motivated by revenue raising purposes.
Announcing introduction of the Fair Justice Act, Congressman Cleaver stated, "The time has come to end the practice of using law enforcement as a cash register, a practice that has impacted too many Americans and has disproportionately affected minority and low-income communities. No American should have to face arbitrary police enforcement, the sole purpose of which is to raise revenue for a town, city, or state.”
Congressman Cleaver's Fair Justice Act would make it a civil rights violation, punishable by up to five years in prison, to enforce criminal or traffic laws solely to raise revenue. Thus, no official or agency of a state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision may adopt a policy or engage in any activity that authorizes, promotes, or executes the enforcement of criminal, civil, or traffic laws for the purpose of raising revenue.
This legislation will help prevent the kind of reprehensible activities that occurred in Ferguson, Missouri, where the Department of Justice found that Ferguson's law enforcement practices were shaped by the city's overwhelming focus on raising revenue rather than protecting the public.
“It is a common practice of certain law enforcement officials of state and local municipalities to target communities solely for profit,” said Congressman Cleaver. “Americans of all stripes have faced this, but there can be no doubt that minorities and low-income residents have faced the brunt of this. Make no mistake, the Fair Justice Act is needed now more than ever, in order to finally put an end to criminal and traffic law enforcement activities motivated solely by raising revenue,” said Congressman Cleaver.
Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the results of the Department of Justice’s investigation of the Ferguson police department. The report provided a searing account of unconstitutional police practices motivated by the purpose of generating revenue. The DOJ reported that police work disproportionately targeted minorities in generating revenue from fines and fees, rather than protecting the community.
President Barack Obama recently stated, in light of the report, that, “[w]hat we saw was that the Ferguson Police Department, in conjunction with the municipality, saw traffic stops, arrests, tickets as a revenue generator, as opposed to serving the community, and that it systematically was biased against African-Americans in that city who were stopped, harassed, mistreated, abused, called names, fined.”
Additionally, The U.S. Department of Justice report on the Ferguson Police Department offers examples of other unfortunate incidents in recent years outside of Ferguson and across the United States:
In Jennings, Missouri a new lawsuit alleges that the court system has almost exclusively black defendants, who are routinely sent to jail for failing to pay minor traffic fines.
In Alabama, which has made heavy budget cuts to court funding, several lawsuits contend that local courts perpetuate a cycle of steep fines for minor offenses, and jail those who cannot pay.
In California, residents in the predominantly Latino community of southeast L.A. County have complained for years that they are unfairly targeted by city officials for profit. Citizens allege that the city extracted tens of thousands of dollars from plumbers, carpet cleaners, even people scavenging for bottles and cans, by seizing vehicles for alleged code violations, and then pressuring the owners to pay arbitrary fines. Additionally, it was reported that local law enforcement officers targeted immigrants in the U.S. without proper papers by using towing schemes. Police would pull over drivers simply to impound their cars, forcing the drivers to pay large impound fees.
Emanuel Cleaver, II is the U.S. Representative for Missouri’s Fifth Congressional District, which includes Kansas City, Independence, Lee's Summit, Raytown, Grandview, Sugar Creek, Blue Springs, Grain Valley, Oak Grove, North Kansas City, Gladstone, Claycomo, and all of Ray, Lafayette, and Saline Counties. He is a member of the exclusive House Financial Services Committee, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, and also a Senior Whip of the Democratic Caucus. A high-resolution photo of Congressman Cleaver is available here.
You know that I detest Obama's politics... but, man... if he get's Iran to sign a binding nuclear disarmament, the GOP would be absolute fools to refuse to approve it simply because they don't want to give Obama "a win".
My edit addresses your point.
Anyway: It is highly unlikely that Iran would ever sign a binding disarmament treaty during these negotiations. No state would unless placed under extreme duress, and the Guardian Council is more than willing to sacrifice the quality of life of the Iranian people if it means greater strength for Iran and the empowered clergy; who also happen to have a series of rather nice populist arguments stored up.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah, the only state in the past 40 years to carry out a death sentence by firing squad, is poised to bring back the Old West-style executions if the state cannot track down drugs used in lethal injections.
The Republican-controlled state Legislature gave final approval to the proposal Tuesday night, with lawmakers billing it as a backup plan as states struggle to find execution drugs amid a nationwide shortage.
If the governor signs the measure, Utah would become the only state to allow executions by firing squad if there is a drug shortage. Republican Gov. Gary Herbert has declined to say if he will approve or veto the bill, a decision that's not expected for a week or so.
The bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Paul Ray of Clearfield, said it would give the state options.
"We would love to get the lethal injection worked out so we can continue with that. But if not, now we have a backup plan," Ray told The Associated Press.
Utah is one of several states to seek out new forms of capital punishment after a botched lethal injection in Oklahoma last year and one in Arizona that took nearly two hours for the condemned man to die.
Legislation to allow firing squads has been introduced in Arkansas this year, while a Wyoming firing-squad measure failed. In Oklahoma, lawmakers are considering legislation that would allow the state to use nitrogen gas to execute inmates.
Ray says a firing squad is a more humane form of execution. He argued that a team of trained marksmen is faster than the drawn-out deaths that have occurred in botched lethal injections.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
It's like people forget that Congress is actually co-equal to the Executive Branch and the President is NOT. THE. FETHING. KING.
The President is not the King, but Congress does not have the same powers as the President. The Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary were never intended to be co-equal.
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah, the only state in the past 40 years to carry out a death sentence by firing squad, is poised to bring back the Old West-style executions if the state cannot track down drugs used in lethal injections.
The Republican-controlled state Legislature gave final approval to the proposal Tuesday night, with lawmakers billing it as a backup plan as states struggle to find execution drugs amid a nationwide shortage.
If the governor signs the measure, Utah would become the only state to allow executions by firing squad if there is a drug shortage. Republican Gov. Gary Herbert has declined to say if he will approve or veto the bill, a decision that's not expected for a week or so.
The bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Paul Ray of Clearfield, said it would give the state options.
"We would love to get the lethal injection worked out so we can continue with that. But if not, now we have a backup plan," Ray told The Associated Press.
Utah is one of several states to seek out new forms of capital punishment after a botched lethal injection in Oklahoma last year and one in Arizona that took nearly two hours for the condemned man to die.
Legislation to allow firing squads has been introduced in Arkansas this year, while a Wyoming firing-squad measure failed. In Oklahoma, lawmakers are considering legislation that would allow the state to use nitrogen gas to execute inmates.
Ray says a firing squad is a more humane form of execution. He argued that a team of trained marksmen is faster than the drawn-out deaths that have occurred in botched lethal injections.
I saw that. I bet the folks who pushed the drug companies to refuse to sell to the states using lethal injection didn't see this one coming. There is a few years before it goes into effect (I think I read the next expected execution isn't until 2017 ) so I'm sure it will get challenged.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Sounds like good legilation from a man with an awsome name.
edit:ninjed
Sounds like massive Federal over reach and a mockery of the concept of civil rights.
How so? If they states refuse to deal with these sort of practices, then it falls to the feds to do something.
It does not fall on the feds. Local traffic enforcement, even if the tickets are for revenue purposes, is not something our federal government has any business getting involved in. If a state doesn't care, and the county/municipality does it, that is on them. As long as it is not targeting people based solely on color or religion, enforcing traffic laws has nothing to do with civli rights.
FFS, why not just advocate disbanding all county, municipality, and state LE agencies and turn everything over to the feds if you honestly believe even local traffic law enforcement is a federal issue. Clearly at that point there is really no local, county or state LE issues, it is all federal.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Sounds like good legilation from a man with an awsome name.
edit:ninjed
Sounds like massive Federal over reach and a mockery of the concept of civil rights.
How so? If they states refuse to deal with these sort of practices, then it falls to the feds to do something.
It does not fall on the feds. Local traffic enforcement, even if the tickets are for revenue purposes, is not something our federal government has any business getting involved in. If a state doesn't care, and the county/municipality does it, that is on them. As long as it is not targeting people based solely on color or religion, enforcing traffic laws has nothing to do with civli rights.
FFS, why not just advocate disbanding all county, municipality, and state LE agencies and turn everything over to the feds if you honestly believe even local traffic law enforcement is a federal issue. Clearly at that point there is really no local, county or state LE issues, it is all federal.
So they should do nothing while communites are used as piggy banks?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Sounds like good legilation from a man with an awsome name.
edit:ninjed
Sounds like massive Federal over reach and a mockery of the concept of civil rights.
How so? If they states refuse to deal with these sort of practices, then it falls to the feds to do something.
It does not fall on the feds. Local traffic enforcement, even if the tickets are for revenue purposes, is not something our federal government has any business getting involved in. If a state doesn't care, and the county/municipality does it, that is on them. As long as it is not targeting people based solely on color or religion, enforcing traffic laws has nothing to do with civli rights.
FFS, why not just advocate disbanding all county, municipality, and state LE agencies and turn everything over to the feds if you honestly believe even local traffic law enforcement is a federal issue. Clearly at that point there is really no local, county or state LE issues, it is all federal.
So they should do nothing while communites are used as piggy banks?
LOL same applies to the Federal Government
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Co'tor Shas wrote: Sounds like good legilation from a man with an awsome name.
edit:ninjed
Sounds like massive Federal over reach and a mockery of the concept of civil rights.
How so? If they states refuse to deal with these sort of practices, then it falls to the feds to do something.
It does not fall on the feds. Local traffic enforcement, even if the tickets are for revenue purposes, is not something our federal government has any business getting involved in. If a state doesn't care, and the county/municipality does it, that is on them. As long as it is not targeting people based solely on color or religion, enforcing traffic laws has nothing to do with civli rights.
FFS, why not just advocate disbanding all county, municipality, and state LE agencies and turn everything over to the feds if you honestly believe even local traffic law enforcement is a federal issue. Clearly at that point there is really no local, county or state LE issues, it is all federal.
So they should do nothing while communites are used as piggy banks?
Again, you ought to just come right out and advocate that all LE functions are federal issues and should be only handled by federal LEOs. As it stands, local traffic laws and their enforcement are not a federal issue.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
So they should do nothing while communites are used as piggy banks?
LOL same applies to the Federal Government
And legeslation such as this would help take of that, would it not?
Cannot have double standards
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Co'tor Shas wrote: Sounds like good legilation from a man with an awsome name.
edit:ninjed
Sounds like massive Federal over reach and a mockery of the concept of civil rights.
How so? If they states refuse to deal with these sort of practices, then it falls to the feds to do something.
It does not fall on the feds. Local traffic enforcement, even if the tickets are for revenue purposes, is not something our federal government has any business getting involved in. If a state doesn't care, and the county/municipality does it, that is on them. As long as it is not targeting people based solely on color or religion, enforcing traffic laws has nothing to do with civli rights.
FFS, why not just advocate disbanding all county, municipality, and state LE agencies and turn everything over to the feds if you honestly believe even local traffic law enforcement is a federal issue. Clearly at that point there is really no local, county or state LE issues, it is all federal.
So they should do nothing while communites are used as piggy banks?
Again, you ought to just come right out and advocate that all LE functions are federal issues and should be only handled by federal LEOs. As it stands, local traffic laws and their enforcement are not a federal issue.
They are when rights violations occor. I would argue that practices such as these violate the 8th amendment (exsessive fines).
Co'tor Shas wrote: Sounds like good legilation from a man with an awsome name.
edit:ninjed
Sounds like massive Federal over reach and a mockery of the concept of civil rights.
How so? If they states refuse to deal with these sort of practices, then it falls to the feds to do something.
It does not fall on the feds. Local traffic enforcement, even if the tickets are for revenue purposes, is not something our federal government has any business getting involved in. If a state doesn't care, and the county/municipality does it, that is on them. As long as it is not targeting people based solely on color or religion, enforcing traffic laws has nothing to do with civli rights.
Isn't the simple solution to, you know, not break the traffic laws in the first place?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
whembly wrote: No. What's fething outrageous is some people are losing their fething minds over this.
It's like people forget that Congress is actually co-equal to the Executive Branch and the President is NOT. THE. FETHING. KING.
Just peruse the usual liberal/lefty sites... they're pushing the meme that this letter is actually treasonous.
Yes, that are, and they're also ridiculous. But so what? There's always idiots on the fringes of every political party.
The difference here is that 47 sitting Republican senators signed up to that piece of stupid, an overwhelming majority. That's what matters here - that letter is nothing but dumb, pointlessly partisan politics, and it's something the overwhelming majority of Republican senators want to sign up for.
Every party has a lunatic fringe, the issue is that the Republicans now have a lunatic majority.
It's meant for all parties involved, really it's meant to be a message to Obama by saying "hey dude, we're still here".
Once again, telephone. Hell, they could even walk to the Whitehouse to tell him that. The only reason this was an open letter was to bring the public in to the issue.
Look... I think it'd be politically wiser for Cotton to put it in the form of something like an op ed in the Washington Post, or NY Times... rather than a direct letter to IRAN. But Congress obviously felt the need to speak out stemming from Obama’s seemingly mindless pursuit of a deal at-all-costs... rather than allowing current sanctions to force a capitulation.
An op ed would be stupid, but at least it would be stupid committed by only one senator, and more or less in line with the kind of stupid we've seen on this in the past. The best course of action would be to have conservative press raise the issue, and have senators only respond to questions asked, saying they weren't a rubber stamp etc.
Oh, and trying to force capitulation (which will likely only come after much political instability in Iran) is needlessly reckless. If a good deal can be worked out before then, then it shouldn't be rejected.
Of course, we don't know the terms of the deal at this point, but neither do the Republicans. And that's where the wisdom of my proposed method and the letter to Iran should become clear - the former sends the message without making any commitment before terms are known, the latter forces 47 senators into rejecting any deal that comes their way.
Do you get the problem now?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Okay... tell you what, you tell me what the GOP could propose that the Democrats/Obama would permit to pass.
Do you honestly, truly not get the political situation the 47 senators have placed themselves in? You write a letter like that, you can't just turn around 6 months later and say 'actually, this treaty is pretty good, I'll happily sign up for this'. It can't happen, those senators have locked themselves in to rejecting anything that Obama produces.
What those guys did was stupid, partisan politics.
But surely you see the difference between 3 guys from the house of reps, out of the more than 200 Democrats serving there, and 47 out of 54 Republicans doing something similar. There in plain numbers is the difference between a lunatic fringe and lunatic majority.
I mean, just read the article you linked to - it talks about how the rest of the Democratic party was backing off from what those three guys did as fast as possible. And yet here the majority didn't back off the issue, the overwhelming majority straight up signed up for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: For the record I do believe that this letter was ill advised, but it is a symptom of the hyper-partisan politics that both sides have willingly engaged in.
It will never cease to amaze me that when the Republicans pull these kinds of stunts, some people will conclude 'both sides' every time.
Seriously, only one of your two major parties has gone flying rodent gak. The DNC is more or less the same machine it's been for the last few generations - basically built around selling a nice line about progressive values, while actually working to keep a more or less steady ship that keeps favours and money flowing to corporate & union special interests.
The Republicans used to have a very similar model - conservative instead of progressive values, and there were no unions among their special interests, but otherwise everything was pretty much the same. What's broken down is that the new generation of Republicans believe in some of the most hyperbolic claims about conservative ideology sold to them by previous generations of Republicans, and they simply don't get that on a basic level all that stuff is just window dressing for the real game of keeping things steady.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: No.... The compromises were not with/for the Rs, they were to get the Blue Dog Ds on board.
In the end, yes. Because Republicans had worked at every stage up until then to try and dismantle the process.
You don't put out memos saying that this is the issue that will ruin Obama and the Democrats, and revive the Republican party, and organise for people to attend meeting hall events to shout down senators, repeat a constant stream of known lies like 'death panels'... then get to the end of the process and ask why you weren't invited to be part of the negotiation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Isn't the simple solution to, you know, not break the traffic laws in the first place?
"Hey, that constitutional amendment you're working up, that puts limits on governments ability to mete out punishment, you should put something in there banning excessive fines." "Nah, if people are worried about excessive fines then they just shouldn't break the law in the first place. Best way to prevent a speeding fine costing you your home and life savings isn't with some civil protection, but by just not speeding." "Good point, leave it out then. Good thing we're not the USA, those idiots amended their constitution to prohibit 'excessive fines', they mustn't have thought of that people should just never, ever do anything wrong." "What a bunch of idiots those guys must have been."
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2015/03/12 05:28:03
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
CptJake wrote: No.... The compromises were not with/for the Rs, they were to get the Blue Dog Ds on board.
In the end, yes. Because Republicans had worked at every stage up until then to try and dismantle the process.
You don't put out memos saying that this is the issue that will ruin Obama and the Democrats, and revive the Republican party, and organise for people to attend meeting hall events to shout down senators, repeat a constant stream of known lies like 'death panels'... then get to the end of the process and ask why you weren't invited to be part of the negotiation.
Just out of curiosity, why do you see the need to go off on an anti-R diatribe under the guise of agreeing with my point (which was correcting an incorrect statement by another poster)? Nothing you brought up other than "In the end, yes' had any relevance to correcting the mistaken assumption Pelosi compromised with the Rs on the ACA. In fact, everything after the 'yes really only goes to show that your 'in the end' is wrong. Pelosi never had any intention of offering compromise to the Rs on the ACA. She had no reason to do so as she had the numbers and was very effective at whipping her side. Of course she can also lay claim to making Blue Dog Democrats an extinct sort of congress critter. Her holding them to the fire on the ACA killed them off.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Isn't the simple solution to, you know, not break the traffic laws in the first place?
"Hey, that constitutional amendment you're working up, that puts limits on governments ability to mete out punishment, you should put something in there banning excessive fines." "Nah, if people are worried about excessive fines then they just shouldn't break the law in the first place. Best way to prevent a speeding fine costing you your home and life savings isn't with some civil protection, but by just not speeding." "Good point, leave it out then. Good thing we're not the USA, those idiots amended their constitution to prohibit 'excessive fines', they mustn't have thought of that people should just never, ever do anything wrong." "What a bunch of idiots those guys must have been."
You do realize no one is making anything close to a legitimate claim the fines are excessive, right? The issue revolves around the fact some localities use traffic enforcement as revenue generation, not the amount of the fines. It is not now, nor should it be a federal issue and has nothing to do with the VIIIth amendment.
Yeah, you knew that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/03/12 10:12:24
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: For the record I do believe that this letter was ill advised, but it is a symptom of the hyper-partisan politics that both sides have willingly engaged in.
It will never cease to amaze me that when the Republicans pull these kinds of stunts, some people will conclude 'both sides' every time.
