21 Things a Burglar Won't Tell You

Page 6 of 6  


Funny how OBAMA has decided he's going to KEEP the Patriot Act. I guess it can't be all that bad after all...
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

All you wingnuts on both sides keep blaming POTUS for things he has very little direct control over. Taxes, Deficit, stupid laws of questionable constitutionality, etc. Blame the 535 fools on the hill, for that is where the power lies. POTUS only gets away with stupid stuff they write laws authorizing, and appropriate money for. Get them some balls and a brain, and if they roll over for the party and the special interests, vote their sorry asses out. As ineffective as most of them are, the reelection rate for them is shockingly high. In a real world job, if you did that bad, you wouldn't get 2 years or 6, you'd be out in six months, tops.
-- aem sends...
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nonsense; POTUS can veto or pocket-veto any bill passed by Congress,and then Congress must either override his veto(requiring a supermajority) or the bill is dead.Then they would have to write and pass a NEW bill,perhaps more to POTUS's liking,or drop the idea.
POTUS can also make requests of Congress,that they include or remove language POTUS doesn't like,before they vote on the bill. POTUS can also ask that some Congress-person propose a bill.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
aemeijers wrote:

Generally, the executive branch develops proposed legislation dealing with the workings of government (i.e., Patriot Act) and gets a friendly member of Congress to introduce it. This makes sense in that the executive branch is the expert in the inner machinations of government.
Conversely, lobbyists propose legislation dealing with non-governmental activities (i.e., tariffs on the importation of hydrogenated yak-fat) and get a friendly member to introduce it. This, too, makes sense because industry, unions, interest groups, etc. know more about the activity under consideration than either the executive branch or the Congress.
Implicit in these two vectors is the simple truth that the Congress is the expert in exactly nothing.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert L Bass wrote:

An amendment found in the Patriot Act defines domestic terrorism as "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
See Section 802 here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname 7_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf
Which amends 18 USC 2331, the result of which is here: http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/2331.html
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert L Bass wrote:

They make them up as they go along. Pointing your finger at one of the royal federal servants is now considered terrorism. If you send them a letter and talcum powder happens to get on it, you will be charged with terrorism.
TDD
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

According to these links, it looks like both people were dealt with by the feds, one was given 30 months, the other 57 months.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id 8120&page=1
http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t9687
Doug
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug wrote:

Thanks for refreshing my memory; a six-year old story loses something in storage.
Looks like the younger terrorist (14) got the 30 months, probably until he turned 17 or 18.
Still, as Dan Rather often says, "the facts were wrong, but the narrative was correct."
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

IOW, there was never a charge of "domestic terrorism." The kid was a common thief and he got a 2-1/2 year sentence. That sounds about average, perhaps even a bit light considering there was arson involved.
--

Regards,
Robert L Bass
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert L Bass wrote:

Well, you're right in that juveniles are not "charged" with anything like an adult would be. They get sent away for "supervision," not for the act that caused the ruckus. The U.S. Attorney only had to make the case that a federal interest was involved. He could do that with the terrorism angle, or that the arson involved affected something that moved in interstate commerce, or any number of other "hooks."
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"HeyBub" wrote:

More likely someone from Bush's office called and said, "Let's go after these kids." In any case, 30 months for arson and grand larceny isn't all that much. I know of someone who nearly got five years for pointing and not firing a gun at some guy who tried to run him off the road because the "victim" was a friend of the local DA.
--

Regards,
Robert L Bass
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"HeyBub" wrote:

Hahahahahaha... Good one :^)
--

Regards,
Robert L Bass
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.