Taro T Posted February 12, 2020 Posted February 12, 2020 3 hours ago, Tiberius said: The courts Forced how to trade ROR?? Pegula saying "trade him right ####ing now." (Now hang up.) (Oh.) 2
KRC Posted February 12, 2020 Posted February 12, 2020 14 hours ago, Jaraxxus said: I don't like that idea at all. Well thought-out rebuttal.
KRC Posted February 12, 2020 Posted February 12, 2020 6 minutes ago, Jaraxxus said: I'm sorry, but I didn't realize this thread was for the highbrow discussion. After seeing who started this thread, you are questioning whether this is for highbrow discussion? Of course it is. 1 1
Gavin in Va Beach Posted February 12, 2020 Posted February 12, 2020 12 hours ago, Taro T said: Pegula saying "trade him right ####ing now." (Now hang up.) (Oh.) My hallergie to this ***** place, has returned. 1
Nanker Posted February 12, 2020 Posted February 12, 2020 15 hours ago, Bray Wyatt said: Is Trump using an assault budget, or perhaps an assault veto? Inquiring minds want to know what he is using to assault health care It’s probably a grain assault or maybe a pinch assault. 2
Bob in Mich Posted February 12, 2020 Posted February 12, 2020 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-budget-proposal-wont-reduce-your-social-security-check-but-it-could-lower-your-quality-of-life-and-health-care-2020-02-11 from the article The budget, if it were to pass as is (which is seen as very unlikely), would trim about $505 billion from Medicare over a decade, and $35 billion from Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income, according to the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The proposal calls for tightening eligibility requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, and toughening Medicaid eligibility requirements, such as enforcing asset limits. The good news for Medicare and Social Security retirement beneficiaries: These cuts don’t directly affect participants’ benefits. The bad news: provisions within the proposal could undermine retirement security all the same. 1
Keukasmallies Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 On 2/11/2020 at 7:09 PM, LSHMEAB said: You do understand we're talking about people who have been convicted of nothing, correct? I would think a pro-Trump crowd wouldn't be so quick to trust the powers that be. Based on the supposition that an arrest=guilt, then I'm sure that you MUST be opposed to ANY form of bail. Those with means also (apparently) did the crime, so they should also do the time. Can't have it both ways. Don't want it both ways: Do want the bail system in place and applicable to all including alternatives for the indigent. There needs to be discretion exercised by the judge in each case being considered. After all, to judge is to make decisions given the facts in place. The law as currently written eliminates the ability to make sound judgements. I also understand that every person detained, arrested, etc. has been convicted of nothing; also that arrest does NOT mean convicted. 1
Koko78 Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Keukasmallies said: Don't want it both ways: Do want the bail system in place and applicable to all including alternatives for the indigent. There needs to be discretion exercised by the judge in each case being considered. After all, to judge is to make decisions given the facts in place. The law as currently written eliminates the ability to make sound judgements. I also understand that every person detained, arrested, etc. has been convicted of nothing; also that arrest does NOT mean convicted. As to the bold, that was the entire point of reforming prior bail system. The same alternatives that exist now existed then - they simply were not being used. Judges weren't making sound decisions; many were simply setting bail and incarcerating people with no regard to anything other than putting the scary person in jail. I'll give you a real world example (and yes, this actually happened.) A judge in a small town set $1,000 bail on a person who couldn't afford it, and set his next court date about 32 days out. The horrible crimes that required this amount of bail? Traffic infractions. The maximum punishment being 15 days in jail. Fortunately, it got caught, and the guy was brought before a county court judge the next day, who reviewed the bail situation and released him. If it hadn't been caught (and it almost wasn't), he would have spent more than twice the maximum punishment in jail before being back in court - there was no chance he was making bail. Twice the maximum sentence, all while not even having a day in court. There's your discretion and sound judgment. Edited February 13, 2020 by Koko78 1 1
Nanker Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 I'm all in favor for Medicare for all. I really am, as long as they don't change the system one little bit. Once you're in the system, everything is wonderful... simply wonderful. But when you pay the premiums and the co-pays you're only going to be paying about $5k per year per family member. It'll be glorious. Give them what they want. 1
CoudyBills Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 On 2/12/2020 at 8:53 AM, Bob in Mich said: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-budget-proposal-wont-reduce-your-social-security-check-but-it-could-lower-your-quality-of-life-and-health-care-2020-02-11 from the article The budget, if it were to pass as is (which is seen as very unlikely), would trim about $505 billion from Medicare over a decade, and $35 billion from Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income, according to the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The proposal calls for tightening eligibility requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, and toughening Medicaid eligibility requirements, such as enforcing asset limits. The good news for Medicare and Social Security retirement beneficiaries: These cuts don’t directly affect participants’ benefits. The bad news: provisions within the proposal could undermine retirement security all the same. We are all going to have to feel the pain if we don't wish to slide further into financial oblivion. Everyone wants to piss and moan about the deficit, but oh boy, that pissing and moaning pails in comparison to what is heard when people find out their social welfare will be affected.
Keukasmallies Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 8 hours ago, Koko78 said: As to the bold, that was the entire point of reforming prior bail system. The same alternatives that exist now existed then - they simply were not being used. Judges weren't making sound decisions; many were simply setting bail and incarcerating people with no regard to anything other than putting the scary person in jail. I'll give you a real world example (and yes, this actually happened.) A judge in a small town set $1,000 bail on a person who couldn't afford it, and set his next court date about 32 days out. The horrible crimes that required this amount of bail? Traffic infractions. The maximum punishment being 15 days in jail. Fortunately, it got caught, and the guy was brought before a county court judge the next day, who reviewed the bail situation and released him. If it hadn't been caught (and it almost wasn't), he would have spent more than twice the maximum punishment in jail before being back in court - there was no chance he was making bail. Twice the maximum sentence, all while not even having a day in court. There's your discretion and sound judgment. So now we've illustrated that the pendulum can swing from one extreme to the other. Again, judges need the authority to use discretion in making bail/no bail decisions. If the judges contnually misuse their authority, as you've illustrated, they need to be removed from their positions. It's a lot like the current crop of politicians misusing their authority to carry out political attacks on their fellow politicians and ignoring the work of the public. They need to be voted out of office if they refuse to do the work promised to the electorate.
Koko78 Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 18 minutes ago, Keukasmallies said: Again, judges need the authority to use discretion in making bail/no bail decisions. They had that for centuries. They generally set bail. Thus the bail reforms. 19 minutes ago, Keukasmallies said: If the judges contnually misuse their authority, as you've illustrated, they need to be removed from their positions. That's an incredibly bad can of worms you suggest opening. 1
Wacka Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 Don’t worry Tibs, they’ll pay for your frontal lobotomy.
3rdnlng Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 27 minutes ago, Wacka said: Don’t worry Tibs, they’ll pay for your frontal lobotomy. That was done years ago. Sorta unfair to ask for payment now. 1
/dev/null Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 9 hours ago, Wacka said: Don’t worry Tibs, they’ll pay for your frontal lobotomy. I'm sure the surgeon will try his best, but that's not giving him much material to work with
Bob in Mich Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 20 hours ago, CoudyBills said: We are all going to have to feel the pain if we don't wish to slide further into financial oblivion. Everyone wants to piss and moan about the deficit, but oh boy, that pissing and moaning pails in comparison to what is heard when people find out their social welfare will be affected. To cut some of those safety net programs while boosting military spending is where we are going wrong, imo. I wrote this earlier On 2/11/2020 at 11:06 AM, Bob in Mich said: To find where I think we need to look to save, I would ask you to examine our annual military spending. If you enjoyed finding the welfare queen's $14K in wasted dollars, I would think examining the military budget for $14 million waste items to cut should make you giddy. Our politicians, D & R's are so bought and paid for by this industry it is disgusting. It should be criminal the percentage of our budget that is spent here. Before you tell me I hate the vets, let me head that off with, a 'bite me'. Support the soldiers, honor all of our commitments to our vets, pay them, but stop spending so much on unnecessary bases and unwanted weapons systems. I would propose a 10 year military spending plan with 5% cuts annually. Put the generals in charge of deciding what they don't actually need and if they can't decide, threaten to let the politicians decide how to cut.
Keukasmallies Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 20 hours ago, Koko78 said: They had that for centuries. They generally set bail. Thus the bail reforms. That's an incredibly bad can of worms you suggest opening. I guess that's a failing of mine; I don't like to see "officials" get away with misuse of their office, especially long periods of time. 1
Koko78 Posted February 15, 2020 Posted February 15, 2020 1 hour ago, Keukasmallies said: I guess that's a failing of mine; I don't like to see "officials" get away with misuse of their office, especially long periods of time. No, just short sighted. Should Judge so-and-so be removed for giving a fine someone didn't like? How about actually sentencing someone to jail? Man, I don't like how he ruled on my motion, out he goes. What? He didn't buy the dog bite story? Gone. He evicted someone just for not paying rent? Get rid of him. Do you begin to understand the problem with simply removing judges? That's not even getting into how it takes years for the Court of Appeals (the only entity who can actually remove a judge) to remove a judge for actual malfeasance.
Keukasmallies Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 On 2/14/2020 at 7:04 PM, Koko78 said: No, just short sighted. Should Judge so-and-so be removed for giving a fine someone didn't like? How about actually sentencing someone to jail? Man, I don't like how he ruled on my motion, out he goes. What? He didn't buy the dog bite story? Gone. He evicted someone just for not paying rent? Get rid of him. Do you begin to understand the problem with simply removing judges? That's not even getting into how it takes years for the Court of Appeals (the only entity who can actually remove a judge) to remove a judge for actual malfeasance. On the other hand, if you always do what you always did; you always get what you always got.
Recommended Posts