:howdy: I have this other reform idea that we could improve the law by making so Bars can stay open all night 24 hours every day, and that way the patrons would not have to leave or drive at or before 2am.

That would make for less DUIs / DWIs and a patron would then be able to sleep in their automobile if they needed to, and then there would be no last-call-for-alcohol where people are hurried up to drink their last fast drink at the arbitrary 2am closing time.

Closing Bars at 2am is totally arbitrary and capricious and no real reason for it.

I have spoken with people employed in drinking places that some say they do not like this idea but their points are not sustainable. Because the bar would be able to employ a night shift and a morning shift or they could decide to close their place at 1am or at 5am or whenever they choose.

Long ago I lived a while in New Orleans with 24 hour liquor sales and in the Dance Halls they would have one band ending like at 3am and a new next shift replacement band come in and start performing at 3am and it worked out just fine.

Of course I must point out that this is only a side issue while my foremost priority is in reforming the child support and custody system.

:larry:

:howdy: I have this other reform idea that we could improve the law by making so Bars can stay open all night 24 hours every day, and that way the patrons would not have to leave or drive at or before 2am.

That would make for less DUIs / DWIs and a patron would then be able to sleep in their automobile if they needed to, and then there would be no last-call-for-alcohol where people are hurried up to drink their last fast drink at the arbitrary 2am closing time.

Closing Bars at 2am is totally arbitrary and capricious and no real reason for it.

I have spoken with people employed in drinking places that some say they do not like this idea but their points are not sustainable. Because the bar would be able to employ a night shift and a morning shift or they could decide to close their place at 1am or at 5am or whenever they choose.

Long ago I lived a while in New Orleans with 24 hour liquor sales and in the Dance Halls they would have one band ending like at 3am and a new next shift replacement band come in and start performing at 3am and it worked out just fine.

Of course I must point out that this is only a side issue while my foremost priority is in reforming the child support and custody system.

:larry:

You are really kidding now, right?

I suppose that since you have not had the personal responsibility to work in the last 20 years, you would have no problem with drunks on the road at rush hour.
I on the other hand think that having people leaving the bars and driving to work drunk at the same time that school kids are standing on the corners waiting for the bus, could present some problems.

please stop posting, every time you come up with some new demented idea, it just makes you look like even a bigger idiot.

wait a second, I get it.
maybe the drunk can run over some child that has divorced parents, and the death of that child could end the fathers debt.

what a genius you are.

Need to come up with something better... Bad Idea... Next..

Need to come up with something better... Bad Idea... Next..

It's actually getting kind of fun seeing the idiotic ideas he's coming up with, can't wait to see what's next. Anyone care to venture a guess?

I suppose that since you have not had the personal responsibility to work in the last 20 years, you would have no problem with drunks on the road at rush hour.
I on the other hand think that having people leaving the bars and driving to work drunk at the same time that school kids are standing on the corners waiting for the bus, could present some problems.
:buddies: There is no reason to so much distrust our fellow citizens in doing what is best, and this would be laws that help the Bar patron to do their best.

You are just being paranoid in seeing school kids dying and rush hour drunks.

This is a very pro-active idea.

:duel:

It's actually getting kind of fun seeing the idiotic ideas he's coming up with, can't wait to see what's next. Anyone care to venture a guess?
I mentioned NAMBLA earlier, I'm pretty sure that once he looks at them he will see their value.

but, I wont put legalizing rape past him. It is not fair to punish a man for doing what nature intended him to do. Breed, and if the woman does not wish to breed, it is the mans duty to force her.

Jimmy, who did your running mate assault? Did you meet him in jail?

I mentioned :blahblah:.
:diva: Your dirty mind :brownnose has absolutely nothing at all to do with me. :snooze:

:diva: Your dirty mind :brownnose has absolutely nothing at all to do with me. :snooze:
My dirty mind?

I don't think so.
you on the other hand are certainly showing a lack of respect and concern for decent people.
you are, a real life POS.

but thanks for playing.

Jimmy, who did your running mate assault?

Did you meet him in prison?

Is he any more mentally stable than you?

:howdy: I have this other reform idea that we could improve the law by making so Bars can stay open all night 24 hours every day, and that way the patrons would not have to leave or drive at or before 2am.

That would make for less DUIs / DWIs and a patron would then be able to sleep in their automobile if they needed to, and then there would be no last-call-for-alcohol where people are hurried up to drink their last fast drink at the arbitrary 2am closing time.

Closing Bars at 2am is totally arbitrary and capricious and no real reason for it.

I have spoken with people employed in drinking places that some say they do not like this idea but their points are not sustainable. Because the bar would be able to employ a night shift and a morning shift or they could decide to close their place at 1am or at 5am or whenever they choose.

Long ago I lived a while in New Orleans with 24 hour liquor sales and in the Dance Halls they would have one band ending like at 3am and a new next shift replacement band come in and start performing at 3am and it worked out just fine.

Of course I must point out that this is only a side issue while my foremost priority is in reforming the child support and custody system.

:larry:

You truly are a MORON!!

You truly are a MORON!!
:whistle: Well I certainly hope that you did not use up your entire vocabulary in that one sentence. :killingme

:whistle: Well I certainly hope that you did not use up your entire vocabulary in that one sentence. :killingme

Jimmy, who did your running mate assault?

Did you meet him in prison?

Is he as delusional as you?

who is his running mate?
who is that stupid?

who is his running mate?
who is that stupid?

Lang, Michael W. Jr.

24581 Greenview Drive
Hollywood, MD 20636

:whistle: Well I certainly hope that you did not use up your entire vocabulary in that one sentence. :killingme

You're an embarassment to men and fathers everywhere.

I never had an issue paying my child support and paying what I deemed to be a fair amount (the court suggested less). I had NO qualms with doing what a MAN and a FATHER should do.

You, on the other hand, are a worthless piece of ####, that would rather go without a job and suck on the goverments teat instead of manning up and doing the right thing.

Calling you a Moron would be an insult to Morons, so I apologize to the Morons on the forums.

Lang, Michael W. Jr.

24581 Greenview Drive
Hollywood, MD 20636
:howdy: I do like it better when you answer your own questions. :killingme

You're an embarassment to men and fathers everywhere.

I never had an issue paying my child support and paying what I deemed to be a fair amount (the court suggested less). I had NO qualms with doing what a MAN and a FATHER should do.

You, on the other hand, are a worthless piece of ####, that would rather go without a job and suck on the goverments teat instead of manning up and doing the right thing.

Calling you a Moron would be an insult to Morons, so I apologize to the Morons on the forums.
apology accepted

:howdy: I do like it better when you answer your own questions. :killingme

More stupid smilies?? Really Retard? You can't communicate without using stupid smilies??

:howdy: I do like it better when you answer your own questions. :killingme

Moron - you still haven't answered. I know who he is. That isn't what I asked.

Who did he assault bad enough to get sentenced to 18 months?

Did you meet him in prison?

Is he as mentally unstable as you are?

Moron - you still haven't answered. I know who he is. That isn't what I asked.

Who did he assault bad enough to get sentenced to 18 months?

Did you meet him in prison?

Is he as mentally unstable as you are?
I bet he assaulted a child. Most likely his own child because the child asked him if he could have a dollar to get something to eat.

cant have the little begger thinking food is free, even if they are only 3

I do not see this creating less drunk driving. You think a person is going to sit at a bar until they feel sobor? They will probably just drink more and become even more dangerous to themselves and others. The cost to stay open 24 hours will probably be more money then the bars will make. How many people do you see at a bar at 4 am on a Tuesday? Normal people have jobs and are responsible.

Why don't you work on a way to decrease the deficit. That is what the people of Maryland are concerned about. Not whether or not Toots will be open 24 hours.

here is an idea for saving the state some money.
How about getting all the deadbeat dads to pay up and get the mothers and their children off of state assistance programs.

I think thats a good start.

here is an idea for saving the state some money.
How about getting all the deadbeat dads to pay up and get the mothers and their children off of state assistance programs.

I think thats a good start.

No, he thinks the mothers should be using the state assistance programs so the dads don't have to pay child support. I also saw in another thread where he condones teen pregnancy.

http://forums.somd.com/religion/190277-religion-s-link-teen-pregnancy.html#post3973003

No, he thinks the mothers should be using the state assistance programs so the dads don't have to pay child support. I also saw in another thread where he condones teen pregnancy.

http://forums.somd.com/religion/190277-religion-s-link-teen-pregnancy.html#post3973003
:dye: Well that is far better then criticizing and condemning other people like you do.

Doing self righteous bigotry is the opposite of my way. :whistle:

:dye: Well that is far better then criticizing and condemning other people like you do.

Doing self righteous bigotry is the opposite of my way. :whistle:

So JP, you've got all these pregnant teens, the dads don't stick around to take care of their child, you don't feel they should have to pay child support, so who pays for the child? I'm sure mom can work, but do you have any idea what child care costs for a newborn, any child for that matter but especially a newborn? I doubt you do.

I do not see this creating less drunk driving. You think a person is going to sit at a bar until they feel sobor? They will probably just drink more and become even more dangerous to themselves and others.
:popcorn: Alcohol is a depressant so as time goes by the drinker get tired and more tired and that slows down the drinking and it sobers up the drinker and then the Bar could provide some coffee or the drinker could sleep in their car.

When a Bar is open 24 hours then the police have no business looking into parked cars to see if a drinker is sleeping off the booze, but when the Bars are forced to close at 2am then the police come to arrest people at 2:01am because the drinker is forced out at 2am.

Open the Bars for 24 hours make for less drunken driving or public intoxication.

The cost to stay open 24 hours will probably be more money then the bars will make. How many people do you see at a bar at 4 am on a Tuesday? Normal people have jobs and are responsible.
:dye: Bars close early anyway when there are not enough customers and I do not suggest we order the Bars to stay open 24.

And we do not see Bar patrons at 4am any day because right now it is against the law and the police enforce that law.

Toots Bar in Hollywood closes early everyday including weekends just because the owner does not like the atmosphere of patrons at the 2am closing time because the forced 2am closing causes problems at all Bars.

The 2am closing time is just a time limit based out of thin air that has no real reason or justification to it, and it is not helpful to the dealing with drinking of booze.

Why don't you work on a way to decrease the deficit. That is what the people of Maryland are concerned about. Not whether or not Toots will be open 24 hours.
:otter: Yes, I agree to work on the deficit too.

Like President Obama said; we can do many things at the same time. :howdy:

:sarcasm:

Hey JPC, how about getting rid of the arbitrary age law for concentual sex. All those men who get needlessly sentenced to prison and having their lives disrupted for forcing themselves... I mean sweet talking those little 12 to 16 year old girls into bed with them. That should fit right into your political agenda also. What do you think?

So JP, you've got all these pregnant teens, the dads don't stick around to take care of their child, you don't feel they should have to pay child support, so who pays for the child?
:bigwhoop: It is not truly accurate to say "Dads" since it is many mothers that are being disposed of through those family break-up laws.

And that point is what you are leaving out that the separated parents would not be separated from their children except because of those family break-up laws.

As it is now the separated parents are attacked and degraded and robbed and put into jail and other depravities thrown onto the separated parents and yet you blame that parent for not "sticking around" when in fact it is the ignorant laws that push the parents away.

We need to stop blaming the parents for the stuff that our ignorant laws do.

The child support and custody laws right now promote divorces and empowers adultery and it breaks up the family units, and this crap is what we need to stop.

I'm sure mom can work, but do you have any idea what child care costs for a newborn, any child for that matter but especially a newborn? I doubt you do.
:popcorn: I do know that there are expenses to babies and to children but you are mistakenly equating them in a negative cash-only perspective and that is not a fair nor true equation.

The newborn or older child are fun and rewarding to have and to raise and most parents buy huge extras and luxuries for their offspring because it is a blessed and happy thing to do.

The missing or separated parent is not escaping or getting the better deal - oh no, the separated parent is getting cheated and alienated and slandered and in child support the alienated parent is getting abused.

Custodial parents complain and cry about taking care of their own children and it is all a complete fraud and a dishonorable charade.

:drummer:

:sarcasm:

Hey JPC, how about getting rid of the arbitrary age law for concentual sex. All those men who get needlessly sentenced to prison and having their lives disrupted for forcing themselves... I mean sweet talking those little 12 to 16 year old girls into bed with them. That should fit right into your political agenda also. What do you think?
:popcorn: Of course not.

So I guess you are like the creep bcp and so I say the same to you that your dirty mind has absolutely no connection to me at all.

And calling it as "sarcasm" does not change the reality that your filth is coming only from your self.

You really do need to pull your self out of the gutter. :pete:

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

Jimmy, who did your running mate assault? Did you meet him in jail?

Jimmy, these are legitimate questions. Why won't you answer? Are you afraid of the truth?

All of the other stuff aside, how do you plan on financing you campaign? Here's the contributions to the governor race in VA. Where are you going to get funds, James? You don't have a dime to your name.

Deeds --

* Political $2,180,727
* Organized Labor $1,441,644
* Law $1,155,282
* Real Estate-Construction $999,521
* Finance, Insurance $873,826
* Miscellaneous $842,529
* Business - Retail, Services $702,454
* Technology, Communication $375,363
* Transportation $354,920
* Health Care $353,170
* Public Employees $297,531
* Energy, Natural Resources $293,825
* Agriculture $200,557
* Defense $104,060
* Undetermined $61,390
* Single-Issue Groups $31,804
* Manufacturing $28,925
* Total $10,297,528

McDonnell --

* Political $4,479,729
* Real Estate-Construction $1,965,156
* Finance, Insurance $1,412,715
* Business - Retail, Services $1,114,648
* Energy, Natural Resources $1,029,882
* Law $786,936
* Technology, Communication $691,154
* Health Care $622,553
* Miscellaneous $557,660
* Transportation $502,197
* Agriculture $491,210
* Manufacturing $408,639
* Defense $165,961
* Public Employees $129,659
* Single-Issue Groups $101,317
* Undetermined $92,496
* Organized Labor $0
* Total $14,551,912

:popcorn: Of course not.

So I guess you are like the creep bcp and so I say the same to you that your dirty mind has absolutely no connection to me at all.

And calling it as "sarcasm" does not change the reality that your filth is coming only from your self.

You really do need to pull your self out of the gutter. :pete:

So instead you will campaign to rape spouses of deadbeat parents of any support for raising a child that both conceived. If you want one lowlife scumfilled idea to blossum, why not the other?

I think most of you people sound like a crazed angry mob and it speaks of your character much more than it does JPC's.

[QUOTE=GWguy;3973599]All of the other stuff aside, how do you plan on financing you campaign? Here's the contributions to the governor race in VA. Where are you going to get funds, James? You don't have a dime to your name.

This is why I think this guy is a big joke, he can't even get a vehicle to drive, can't imagine where he got a computer, unless he's hanging out at the library all the time. I look at him as entertainment only, some of his ideas are so off the wall, they are actually funny.

[quote=GWguy;3973599]All of the other stuff aside, how do you plan on financing you campaign? Here's the contributions to the governor race in VA. Where are you going to get funds, James? You don't have a dime to your name.

This is why I think this guy is a big joke, he can't even get a vehicle to drive, can't imagine where he got a computer, unless he's hanging out at the library all the time. I look at him as entertainment only, some of his ideas are so off the wall, they are actually funny.
I just have fun poking at his ignorant ideas.

[quote=Bay_Kat;3973614]
I just have fun poking at his ignorant ideas.

:yeahthat:

Calling you a Moron would be an insult to Morons, so I apologize to the Morons on the forums.


Apology accepted.


Just don't let the #### happen again.

I just have fun poking at his ignorant ideas.

I can imagine how he'll be ripped limb from limb in the real world during a real debate. The one or two not-completely-thought-thru ideas just won't cut it.

I can imagine how he'll be ripped limb from limb in the real world during a real debate. The one or two not-completely-thought-thru ideas just won't cut it.

Au contraire. JPC did participate in the LOWV event last time around and he did quite well.

Au contraire. JPC did participate in the LOWV event last time around and he did quite well.

Didn't see it, so I'll take your word on that.

I still have my doubts.

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

All of the other stuff aside, how do you plan on financing you campaign? Here's the contributions to the governor race in VA. Where are you going to get funds, James? You don't have a dime to your name.

Deeds --

* Political $2,180,727
* Organized Labor $1,441,644
* Law $1,155,282
* Real Estate-Construction $999,521
* Finance, Insurance $873,826
* Miscellaneous $842,529
* Business - Retail, Services $702,454
* Technology, Communication $375,363
* Transportation $354,920
* Health Care $353,170
* Public Employees $297,531
* Energy, Natural Resources $293,825
* Agriculture $200,557
* Defense $104,060
* Undetermined $61,390
* Single-Issue Groups $31,804
* Manufacturing $28,925
* Total $10,297,528

McDonnell --

* Political $4,479,729
* Real Estate-Construction $1,965,156
* Finance, Insurance $1,412,715
* Business - Retail, Services $1,114,648
* Energy, Natural Resources $1,029,882
* Law $786,936
* Technology, Communication $691,154
* Health Care $622,553
* Miscellaneous $557,660
* Transportation $502,197
* Agriculture $491,210
* Manufacturing $408,639
* Defense $165,961
* Public Employees $129,659
* Single-Issue Groups $101,317
* Undetermined $92,496
* Organized Labor $0
* Total $14,551,912

Book sales. He's a best-selling author.

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)



Book sales. He's a best-selling author.

OMG, how could I have forgotten this? :doh:

All of the other stuff aside, how do you plan on financing you campaign? Here's the contributions to the governor race in VA. Where are you going to get funds, James? You don't have a dime to your name.

Deeds --

* Political $2,180,727
* Organized Labor $1,441,644
* Law $1,155,282
* Real Estate-Construction $999,521
* Finance, Insurance $873,826
* Miscellaneous $842,529
* Business - Retail, Services $702,454
* Technology, Communication $375,363
* Transportation $354,920
* Health Care $353,170
* Public Employees $297,531
* Energy, Natural Resources $293,825
* Agriculture $200,557
* Defense $104,060
* Undetermined $61,390
* Single-Issue Groups $31,804
* Manufacturing $28,925
* Total $10,297,528

McDonnell --

* Political $4,479,729
* Real Estate-Construction $1,965,156
* Finance, Insurance $1,412,715
* Business - Retail, Services $1,114,648
* Energy, Natural Resources $1,029,882
* Law $786,936
* Technology, Communication $691,154
* Health Care $622,553
* Miscellaneous $557,660
* Transportation $502,197
* Agriculture $491,210
* Manufacturing $408,639
* Defense $165,961
* Public Employees $129,659
* Single-Issue Groups $101,317
* Undetermined $92,496
* Organized Labor $0
* Total $14,551,912
:drummer: I do not want that kind of money, and I have even turned down Maryland matching funds of some 100,000+$ and that kind of money does have strings on it that I do not want on me.

I spent virtually nothing running for the US Congress and got 19,000 votes so I did well, and I expect to well in this campaign too.

There will be some thing else needed for me to make a win happen and I am not certain if I can make it happen but I do believe that I will seize the opportunity when it does appear.

:duel:

There will be some thing else needed for me to make a win happen and I am not certain if I can make it happen but I do believe that I will seize the opportunity when it does appear.

:duel:

Oh! Let me guess...:clap:

True, Vrail. They actually are making JP look good. I think JP knows this, too.
:blahblah: Shhhhh, that is a secret.

The Internet is a peculiar thing and a person really needs a deviant mind to play its strings.

Other Politicians stay far away from any direct communications with the public like as here on this Forum - and the reason that others stay away is rather obvious too.

I do it because I am not afraid of the truth and not afraid of conflicts, and even the ignorant jerks like bcp are my brethren.

USA. :patriot:

Oh! Let me guess...:clap:

:yay:

:yay:
:whistle: I really have no idea of what that means, and I do want to respond to people and so I think you are asking some thing while missing the point of the "Hell-frozen-over" so I will reply as I perceive your meaning - if there is a meaning to it?

So - I do not know what might be needed to break through and defeat the incumbent, but I feel confident that some thing will turn up, and it is my intention to recognize it and to seize it.

So there is no direct answer as it is only an expectation of some thing yet unknown. :nomoney:

:whistle: I really have no idea of what that means, and I do want to respond to people and so I think you are asking some thing while missing the point of the "Hell-frozen-over" so I will reply as I perceive your meaning - if there is a meaning to it?

So - I do not know what might be needed to break through and defeat the incumbent, but I feel confident that some thing will turn up, and it is my intention to recognize it and to seize it.

So there is no direct answer as it is only an expectation of some thing yet unknown. :nomoney:

Okay, lets hear some more of you ideas, you should have a list of them now, and not just make them up as you go along.

even the ignorant jerks like bcp are my brethren.


No, not your brethren.
anybody that could be considered my brethren would not abandon their family, then suggest others do it too.

However, if you in your diminished mental capacity think that my opinions are ignorant, then I take that with great pride.

True, Vrail. They actually are making JP look good. I think JP knows this, too.
You cant polish a turd. you can try, but in the end the turd is still not going to shine, and your hands will be dirty.

there is no way to make him look good. unless people are too lazy to check his colorful (pun intended) background.

Okay, lets hear some more of you ideas, you should have a list of them now, and not just make them up as you go along.
:buddies: Consider the first post in this thread - to let the Bars stay open 24 hours every day would mean a BIG improvement to our every day lives.

That has huge implications, and the Governor we have now is worthless.

:otter:

:buddies: Consider the first post in this thread - to let the Bars stay open 24 hours every day would mean a BIG improvement to our every day lives.
That has huge implications, and the Governor we have now is worthless.

:otter:

Yes it would, we would have largely improved driving skills from dodging all the drunks on the road as we make our way into work.

:buddies: Consider the first post in this thread - to let the Bars stay open 24 hours every day would mean a BIG improvement to our every day lives.

That has huge implications, and the Governor we have now is worthless.

:otter:

Wow, I think that is the first statment you made that I agree with.:buddies:

:buddies: Consider the first post in this thread - to let the Bars stay open 24 hours every day would mean a BIG improvement to our every day lives.

That has huge implications, and the Governor we have now is worthless.

:otter:

So what are some other ideas? You've already touched on the bars staying open and since you titled this thread "big improvements" can't you just put your other ideas here? Or are they not improvements either?

So what are some other ideas? You've already touched on the bars staying open and since you titled this thread "big improvements" can't you just put your other ideas here? Or are they not improvements either?
:popcorn: Okay, I have this other plan that we could make so the minimum wage applies to all employees including waiters and waitresses.

And we could make so that "tips" can not be counted as a waiter's or waitress salary and make it non taxable and Employers must not be able to take the tips from employees.

The complications would probably need to be worked out but the idea seems sound.

:drummer:

I th
there is no way to make him look good. unless people are too lazy to check his colorful (pun intended) background.

I think JPC's posts speak for themselves and there is no need for name-calling and ugly juvenile behavior. Plus, it's extremely unlikely that JPC will unseat MOM, so you all are just venting your spleen on a handy target.

Which is unattractive and stupid.

:popcorn: Okay, I have this other plan that we could make so the minimum wage applies to all employees including waiters and waitresses.

And we could make so that "tips" can not be counted as a waiter's or waitress salary and make it non taxable and Employers must not be able to take the tips from employees.

The complications would probably need to be worked out but the idea seems sound.

:drummer:

Obviously you have never been a waiter. If you pay waitstaff minimum wage, #1, the price of meals will go up. #2, people won't tip anymore. #3, the waitperson will make less money than they did before.

Any waiter or waitress worth their salt should be making well above minimum wage. At the pizza joint 20 years ago, I was averaging about $15 an hour.

Rethink this one, please.

I don't have a spleen.

I lost it in an explosion back in 81 :bawl:

But I still get your point.
on the other hand, it is kinda fun poking at him... must think on this.

a dilemma for certain

Everything you have proposed are legislative items and not something the executive has power to change. Are you sure you are running for the right job?

Obviously you have never been a waiter. If you pay waitstaff minimum wage, #1, the price of meals will go up. #2, people won't tip anymore. #3, the waitperson will make less money than they did before.

Any waiter or waitress worth their salt should be making well above minimum wage. At the pizza joint 20 years ago, I was averaging about $15 an hour.

Rethink this one, please.
:popcorn: Well it is just a thought and my main issue is only c/s reform.

And it is now being said that we are to start tipping at 50% which will drive more patron's away than raising the basis cost of the meal.

I remember when people joked about giving a 10% tip because God's tithing is 10% too, then 15% then 20% now 50% as a tip and that makes so the cost of the meal is deceptive and the tip is nothing to do with any gratuity because it is excessive.

The tipping is the thing that is running customers off, so by including waiters in the minimum wage then we could start tipping gratefully again.

:drummer:

Obviously you have never been a waiter. If you pay waitstaff minimum wage, #1, the price of meals will go up. #2, people won't tip anymore. #3, the waitperson will make less money than they did before.

Any waiter or waitress worth their salt should be making well above minimum wage. At the pizza joint 20 years ago, I was averaging about $15 an hour.

Rethink this one, please.

Bambino's rocked! I hope I tipped well! :blushing:

Everything you have proposed are legislative items and not something the executive has power to change. Are you sure you are running for the right job?
Dut dut dut :nono:

Of course the executive has the power to influence legislation. Where've you been? They're a bunch of crazy liberals in the HoD and SS, so there's no reason to believe they wouldn't go for the child support thing if the Governor submitted it.

Bambino's rocked! I hope I tipped well! :blushing:

I always got great tips. Waitress extraordinaire :diva:

Everything you have proposed are legislative items and not something the executive has power to change. Are you sure you are running for the right job?
:whistle: I do know that the Legislature must make or change any law and so I can only plan and apply and try to do improvements in most areas.

But as Governor I would be able to fire State employees like C/S agents and I could stop the enforcement of certain laws, and I could grant pardons and other such stuff.

:drummer:

:whistle: I do know that the Legislature must make or change any law and so I can only plan and apply and try to do improvements in most areas.

But as Governor I would be able to fire State employees like C/S agents and I could stop the enforcement of certain laws, and I could grant pardons and other such stuff.

:drummer:So we'll be allowed to spray paint unihibited?

Obviously you have never been a waiter. If you pay waitstaff minimum wage, #1, the price of meals will go up. #2, people won't tip anymore. #3, the waitperson will make less money than they did before.

Any waiter or waitress worth their salt should be making well above minimum wage. At the pizza joint 20 years ago, I was averaging about $15 an hour.

Rethink this one, please.

You sound like a crazed angry mob and it speaks of your character much more than it does JPC's.

:whistle: I do know that the Legislature must make or change any law and so I can only plan and apply and try to do improvements in most areas.

But as Governor I would be able to fire State employees like C/S agents and I could stop the enforcement of certain laws, and I could grant pardons and other such stuff.

:drummer:

and there you have it, he finally came right out and said it.
Ive been waiting. I imagine there is a judge or two that would suddenly be retired too.
this is a vengeance run.

Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord.

You sound like a crazed angry mob and it speaks of your character much more than it does JPC's.

You should consider seeing someone about your disorder. :huggy:

You should consider seeing someone about your disorder. :huggy:

There is no need for name-calling and ugly juvenile behavior. You are just venting your spleen on a handy target.

Which is unattractive and stupid.

There is no need for name-calling and ugly juvenile behavior. You are just venting your spleen on a handy target.

Which is unattractive and stupid.

Feeling defensive, are we?

Why must everyone keep rubbing their spleen in my face?

Feeling defensive, are we?

Obviously you have never been defensive.


Rethink this one, please.

and there you have it, he finally came right out and said it.

Who cares? I mean, do you seriously think there is any chance of him becoming the governor of MD? (Sorry, JPC)

Obviously you have never been defensive.


Rethink this one, please.

If I had behaved as you've behaved, I would probably feel defensive as well. So I feel your pain. :huggy:

:popcorn: Well it is just a thought and my main issue is only c/s reform.

And it is now being said that we are to start tipping at 50% which will drive more patron's away than raising the basis cost of the meal.

I remember when people joked about giving a 10% tip because God's tithing is 10% too, then 15% then 20% now 50% as a tip and that makes so the cost of the meal is deceptive and the tip is nothing to do with any gratuity because it is excessive.

The tipping is the thing that is running customers off, so by including waiters in the minimum wage then we could start tipping gratefully again.

:drummer:


Jimmy, who did your running mate assault? Did you meet him in jail?

Who cares? I mean, do you seriously think there is any chance of him becoming the governor of MD? (Sorry, JPC)
we are talking about Maryland.
so, yes, there is always a slim chance that he could win. Historically, Maryland voters have mostly chosen the biggest idiot in the pack.

If I had behaved as you've behaved, I would probably feel defensive as well. So I feel your pain. :huggy:

:roflmao: Embracing your Clintonian roots now?

:roflmao: Embracing your Clintonian roots now?
:cds: OMG, you said some thing REALLY funny. :cds:

:popcorn: Well it is just a thought and my main issue is only c/s reform.

And it is now being said that we are to start tipping at 50% which will drive more patron's away than raising the basis cost of the meal.

I remember when people joked about giving a 10% tip because God's tithing is 10% too, then 15% then 20% now 50% as a tip and that makes so the cost of the meal is deceptive and the tip is nothing to do with any gratuity because it is excessive.

The tipping is the thing that is running customers off, so by including waiters in the minimum wage then we could start tipping gratefully again.

:drummer:
See, you're off in left field again. Do you want to be governor or not?

Most people are happy to tip a waitperson who they've enjoyed and has taken good care of them. I don't know where you get that 50% business, but the standard is 15-20%.

That said, Larry and I have many times tipped around 50% just because our waitperson really stepped up and made our evening more enjoyable. A tip is a reward for a job well done, not a given.

And about that C/S thing:

You have a few points that the libs will buy into, but you need to tweak the delivery. You do okay by saying that parents really don't want to abandon their children, yet are forced to by the law. (This isn't true, but since when has that been a factor in politics?) You need a sympathetic spokesperson - like Al Gore's medication lady. Some nice looking guy who can't hold a job for whatever reason, yet desperately wants to be involved with his child.

Jimmy, who did your running mate assault? Did you meet him in jail?

You're starting to go FredFlash on us.

Historically, Maryland voters have mostly chosen the biggest idiot in the pack.

So you're saying that John Bohanan and Steny Hoyer are bigger idiots than JPC?

Jimmy, who did your running mate assault? Did you meet him in jail?
:buddies: I do not know if he assaulted anyone and if he did then I figure they asked for it.

I did meet Mr Lang in jail and he is a trusted friend of mine.

I do know he had a "Destruction of Property" conviction based on him puncturing the tires on the Sheriff cruisers in the Sheriff parking lot, and Michael came to my house afterward and then he went down to the Sheriff Office and confessed to it.

He does not have any felonies so he is eligible to be Governor in this election.

Mr Lang is my kind of Lieutenant. :whistle:

You're starting to go FredFlash on us.

Isn't that actually a valid question? Shouldn't we want to know about the qualifications of our next Lt. Governor?

Come on now. Don't trivialize JPC by debating things like tipping wait staff. If you really respected him, you'd ask him the same questions that you would ask a mentally stable candidate.

:buddies: I do not know if he assaulted anyone and if he did then I figure they asked for it.

I did meet Mr Lang in jail and he is a trusted friend of mine.

I do know he had a "Destruction of Property" conviction based on him puncturing the tires on the Sheriff cruisers in the Sheriff parking lot, and Michael came to my house afterward and then he went down to the Sheriff Office and confessed to it.

He does not have any felonies so he is eligible to be Governor in this election.

Mr Lang is my kind of Lieutenant. :whistle:

Thanks for answering.

He did assault someone - he got 18 months in jail for it.

:buddies: I do not know if he assaulted anyone and if he did then I figure they asked for it.

I did meet Mr Lang in jail and he is a trusted friend of mine.

I do know he had a "Destruction of Property" conviction based on him puncturing the tires on the Sheriff cruisers in the Sheriff parking lot, and Michael came to my house afterward and then he went down to the Sheriff Office and confessed to it.

He does not have any felonies so he is eligible to be Governor in this election.

Mr Lang is my kind of Lieutenant. :whistle:

You are never going to be governor with this sort of candor.

Isn't that actually a valid question? Shouldn't we want to know about the qualifications of our next Lt. Governor?

Come on now. Don't trivialize JPC by debating things like tipping wait staff. If you really respected him, you'd ask him the same questions that you would ask a mentally stable candidate.

Get out of your head and tell the truth:

Wouldn't it just make your day if JPC beat out MOM for the governor primary?

So why are you trying to sabotage him?

So you're saying that John Bohanan and Steny Hoyer are bigger idiots than JPC?
well, Ill give you John Bohanan, but Im still torn between JPC and Hoyer.

You are never going to be governor with this sort of candor.
here is the biggest problem, well, maybe not the biggest but still pretty big.

You can not lead if you can not follow.
JPC has proven in many ways over the years that he has a very serious problem following authority.

You can not lead if you can not follow.

Name one "leader" in the past 20 years who was also a follower. State or federal, any of them.

Get out of your head and tell the truth:

Wouldn't it just make your day if JPC beat out MOM for the governor primary?

So why are you trying to sabotage him?

Wow, since I already posted that I will vote for him and hope he wins, you must be a real sleuth!

How is asking about the criminal record of his running mate "sabotage?"

Name one "leader" in the past 20 years who was also a follower. State or federal, any of them.

Bill did exactly what Hillary told him to do. Except that pesky getting caught thing.

Bush did exactly what Cheney told him to do. At least according to the Nonno crowd.

See, you're off in left field again. Do you want to be governor or not?
:popcorn: Tips are just a side issue and if people really do object then I will just stick more to the c/s reform.

But I have no real reason to want the job of Governor as it will surely be a pain and strain for me but I see it as my duty to try.

Most people are happy to tip a waitperson who they've enjoyed and has taken good care of them. I don't know where you get that 50% business, but the standard is 15-20%.
:whistle: The standard tip is changing right on up to 50% and I see that as no longer a true tip - or certainly not a gratuity.

But the idea is to protect and provide for those waitresses that do not get the tips or the salary.

That said, Larry and I have many times tipped around 50% just because our waitperson really stepped up and made our evening more enjoyable. A tip is a reward for a job well done, not a given.
:howdy: That is probably why the tip standard is going way up because people like you and Larry are rocking the boat with your big tips.

And about that C/S thing:
:yahoo: ...... :getdown:

You have a few points that the libs will buy into, but you need to tweak the delivery. You do okay by saying that parents really don't want to abandon their children, yet are forced to by the law. (This isn't true, but since when has that been a factor in politics?) You need a sympathetic spokesperson - like Al Gore's medication lady. Some nice looking guy who can't hold a job for whatever reason, yet desperately wants to be involved with his child.
:popcorn: That is possible?


:drummer:

Wow, since I already posted that I will vote for him and hope he wins, you must be a real sleuth!

You only think I hang on your every word - I don't really.

:popcorn: Tips are just a side issue and if people really do object then I will just stick more to the c/s reform.

Tips are something you do once you get in office, not what you campaign on.

Stick with C/S, since you're passionate about it. But really, you need to refine your delivery and message.

Thanks for answering.

He did assault someone - he got 18 months in jail for it.
:whistle: Well I am the nice guy, he is a meat eater and a fighter, and an all around tough Man. :getdown:

But I have no real reason to want the job of Governor as it will surely be a pain and strain for me

Not really - it's pretty cushy, actually. There are a lot of public appearance and social things you'll have to do, but if it doesn't sound like fun you can just send your Lt. in your place.

I figure we lived through KKT - how bad can Mr. Lang be?

I would think that the waitress might need big tips so she can raise her child without the deadbeat dads help.
at least in some cases

You are never going to be governor with this sort of candor.
:nerd: Direct open candor is some thing I really believe in. :wah:

Bill did exactly what Hillary told him to do.

You know, I always thought that until recently. It's become clear that she's the beech, not him. She's nobody without him - just another durhard lawyer in a mid-level firm. He's the playah, not her.

:nerd: Direct open candor is some thing I really believe in. :wah:

Learn to spin or forget politics.

I would think that the waitress might need big tips so she can raise her child without the deadbeat dads help.
at least in some cases
:whistle: So I guess you are at least on a better track here - like if the waitress is going to take the child away from their father then she would be better off to be paid minimum wage (plus tips) in her job.

:getdown:

You cant polish a turd. you can try, but in the end the turd is still not going to shine, and your hands will be dirty.

Actually, you can. They did it on Myth Busters. :killingme Lion dung polished the best.

Now, polishing JPC; I think you have a much better chance with polishing dung.

:popcorn: Okay, I have this other plan that we could make so the minimum wage applies to all employees including waiters and waitresses.

And we could make so that "tips" can not be counted as a waiter's or waitress salary and make it non taxable and Employers must not be able to take the tips from employees.

The complications would probably need to be worked out but the idea seems sound.

:drummer:

The minimum wage never works and is a "drug" for the uninformed. The guy on the bottom is always the guy on the bottom no matter how much they make.

How about letting people keep what they earn by doing away with the income tax?

The minimum wage never works and is a "drug" for the uninformed. The guy on the bottom is always the guy on the bottom no matter how much they make.
:howdy: Hello 2A,

I can understand the guy on the bottom staying on the bottom, but giving them the minimum wage seems like the minimum we can do for the bottom.


How about letting people keep what they earn by doing away with the income tax?
:buddies: I really actually like this idea, and big States like Texas and Florida do not have State income tax and most of their taxes are gained by property tax and sales tax.

But even as Governor I do not believe I could do that great of a task.

Reforming or even destroying child support would be easy as a picnic compared to stopping the State income tax.

Maryland is one of the richest States with a long history of well ingrained selfishness and greed and I would not have the slightest idea of how to confront the abolition of our State income tax.

But I would be open to ideas of how to abolish the income tax so long as I can fight the child support foremost.

:drummer:

Okay, lets hear some more of you ideas, you should have a list of them now, and not just make them up as you go along.
:popcorn: Another idea that I like is the idea of finally bringing a better version of "No-Fault" auto insurance to our Maryland.

In its broadest sense;
No-fault insurance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_insurance)

I would want the law to be the full "No-Fault" where one's own insurance pays for their own medical and their own auto damage no matter who is at fault, and if one is uninsured then they get nothing from the other person's Insurance.

Now such an improvement would need to be debated and formulated in the MD Legislature and they are not likely to do it best or probably not at all so it is just an idea that I would support considering, but my platform remains ONLY the reform of the thieving child support system.


:duel:

:popcorn: Another idea that I like is the idea of finally bringing a better version of "No-Fault" auto insurance to our Maryland.

In its broadest sense;
No-fault insurance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_insurance)

I would want the law to be the full "No-Fault" where one's own insurance pays for their own medical and their own auto damage no matter who is at fault, and if one is uninsured then they get nothing from the other person's Insurance.

Now such an improvement would need to be debated and formulated in the MD Legislature and they are not likely to do it best or probably not at all so it is just an idea that I would support considering, but my platform remains ONLY the reform of the thieving child support system.


:duel:

:rolleyes: This coming from a guy driving a vehicle ILLEGALLY tagged as historic.

Just another way for miscreants to shirk responsibility for their actions.

:popcorn: Another idea that I like is the idea of finally bringing a better version of "No-Fault" auto insurance to our Maryland.

In its broadest sense;
No-fault insurance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_insurance)

I would want the law to be the full "No-Fault" where one's own insurance pays for their own medical and their own auto damage no matter who is at fault, and if one is uninsured then they get nothing from the other person's Insurance.

Now such an improvement would need to be debated and formulated in the MD Legislature and they are not likely to do it best or probably not at all so it is just an idea that I would support considering, but my platform remains ONLY the reform of the thieving child support system.


:duel:

So if some jackass plows into my car and its his fault, my insurance should pay for it? God you fit right in with all the other idiots running our state.

And then you get higher insurance! How perfect is this solution?:sarcasm:

:rolleyes: This coming from a guy driving a vehicle ILLEGALLY tagged as historic.

Just another way for miscreants to shirk responsibility for their actions.
:pete: I am shocked that one might think that my wonderful old ugly truck would be "illegal" when it is not.

The "Historic" tags and registration is all done up right and legal.
So if some jackass plows into my car and its his fault, my insurance should pay for it? God you fit right in with all the other idiots running our state.
:getdown: When our own Insurance pays for our self then we do not have to chase down some other Insurance company and some other person's policy, and when the other car is uninsured or under-insured then they only screw them self.

And many people have the full coverage Insurance and most people have the uninsured motorist coverage so the need for "liability" coverage is an antiquated and expensive criteria.


:duel:

:pete: I am shocked that one might think that my wonderful old ugly truck would be "illegal" when it is not.

The "Historic" tags and registration is all done up right and legal.So you only drive it in accordance with the laws of "historic" tags?When our own Insurance pays for our self then we do not have to chase down some other Insurance company and some other person's policy, and when the other car is uninsured or under-insured then they only screw them self.

And many people have the full coverage Insurance and most people have the uninsured motorist coverage so the need for "liability" coverage is an antiquated and expensive criteriaKeeps with you "no responsibility to others for my actions" theme. :yay:

JP, are there any actions that an adult human can take, that you believe said adult human should be responsible and/or accountable for?

If so, could you list some of them? Say, the first 10 that come to mind.

So you only drive it in accordance with the laws of "historic" tags?Keeps with you "no responsibility to others for my actions" theme. :yay:

I know this is a rhetorical question, but the :dork: may not. He drives it like it was legally tagged.

And then you get higher insurance! How perfect is this solution?:sarcasm:
:popcorn: There is no reason to say the price of Insurance would increase under "No-Fault" because liability is the big cost and once the liability is removed then people can pick and choose lower insurance to suit one self instead of trying to suit some other person.

Particularly when people have their own health care insurance to cover then self and their family then they would not need high medical coverage in their auto insurance.

There is every reason to believe that "No-Fault" would very much lower the auto Insurance cost.

As it is now many people get very high liability coverage because if the person is even accidentally liable then they could lose their home and property and everything based on the liability demands of other people in a petty auto accident.

There is really a lot to be gained by creating a healthy No Fault insurance plan.


:duel:

JP, are there any actions that an adult human can take, that you believe said adult human should be responsible and/or accountable for?

If so, could you list some of them? Say, the first 10 that come to mind.
:whistle: I have no objection to being personally responsible and accountable for virtually every thing on the planet earth.

Like I am personally responsible for the damage to the ozone layer because I help harm it by driving my vehicle, and I am accountable to that in that I must breath the unclean air and I get the extra radiation and etc.

I am responsible for my son, and accountable to my son.

My problem is when other people mis-claim that I am responsible and accountable for stuff that is none of their business.

Other people claim that my responsibility is to pay some dirty thieves, and other people claim that I am accountable to those same dirty thieves, and I say "not" to both of those, and I say "no" to any other such immoral claims to responsibility or accountability.


:duel:

:whistle: I have no objection to being personally responsible and accountable for virtually every thing on the planet earth.

Like I am personally responsible for the damage to the ozone layer because I help harm it by driving my vehicle, and I am accountable to that in that I must breath the unclean air and I get the extra radiation and etc.

I am responsible for my son, and accountable to my son.

My problem is when other people mis-claim that I am responsible and accountable for stuff that is none of their business.

Other people claim that my responsibility is to pay some dirty thieves, and other people claim that I am accountable to those same dirty thieves, and I say "not" to both of those, and I say "no" to any other such immoral claims to responsibility or accountability.


:duel:

:killingme :roflmao: :killingme :sniff: :killingme :roflmao: :killingme

Other people claim that my responsibility is to pay some dirty thieves, and other people claim that I am accountable to those same dirty thieves, and I say "not" to both of those, and I say "no" to any other such immoral claims to responsibility or accountability.

Psssst, the money doesn't go to dirty thieves, it goes to the custodial parent of the child that it's meant for so that said child can be provided for. Have you been thinking all along that DSS takes your money and keeps it? I wouldn't put it past you to think like that.

All these ideas, are these things you are just blurting out because they sound good to you and would make illegal things you do legal? You really ought to think them through before posting them.:killingme

:killingme :roflmao: :killingme :sniff: :killingme :roflmao: :killingme

:high5: He's responsible and accountable to his son, provided he doesn't actually have to do anything for his son or actually be there for his son :killingme

Psssst, the money doesn't go to dirty thieves, it goes to the custodial parent of the child that it's meant for so that said child can be provided for. Have you been thinking all along that DSS takes your money and keeps it? I wouldn't put it past you to think like that.
:popcorn: I have been repeatedly saying that the law and the enforcers are the thieves and the custodial is only receiving the stolen money.

Some people might think they are playing some "Robin Hood" by taking from the rich and giving to the poor but they are just thieves and people that receive the stolen money.

And the child support provides absolutely nothing necessary for the child as the stolen money is only being mis-used by the custodials.

And for the poorest of the poor families on welfare then the State does keep the stolen child support loot and does not even give it to the custodial.

All these ideas, are these things you are just blurting out because they sound good to you and would make illegal things you do legal? You really ought to think them through before posting them.
:howdy: Everything I said and posted are still accurate and true.

I always stand by my words and I write what I mean.


:shortbus:

:whistle: I have no objection to being personally responsible and accountable for virtually every thing on the planet earth.

Like I am personally responsible for the damage to the ozone layer because I help harm it by driving my vehicle, and I am accountable to that in that I must breath the unclean air and I get the extra radiation and etc.

I am responsible for my son, and accountable to my son.

My problem is when other people mis-claim that I am responsible and accountable for stuff that is none of their business.

Other people claim that my responsibility is to pay some dirty thieves, and other people claim that I am accountable to those same dirty thieves, and I say "not" to both of those, and I say "no" to any other such immoral claims to responsibility or accountability.


:duel:

Okay, then - let's say someone is at fault in an auto accident which results in damage being done to someone else's vehicle (someone whom, as a matter of fact, shares no fault for the accident). Do you think the person at fault for the accident should be legally responsible for the cost of the damage (usually this would mean through an insurer whom they had paid to insure against such a possibility), or do you think the person who had damage done to their vehicle should be legally responsible for the cost of the damage (usually this would mean through an insurer whom they had paid to insure against such a possibility)?

See, what I'm getting at is this - do you think people should be responsible for what they do, or do you think people should be responsible for what is done to them? If you answer the first question one way then you think the former, if you answer it the other way, then you think the latter. I'd just like to know what you mean by being 'responsible' or 'accountable' for something.

Oh, and if you think that people should only be responsible for what happens to them, and not for what they actually do, then - do you have any idea what effect such a dynamic would have on the quality of the things that people actually do?

Okay, then - let's say someone is at fault in an auto accident which results in damage being done to someone else's vehicle (someone whom, as a matter of fact, shares no fault for the accident). Do you think the person at fault for the accident should be legally responsible for the cost of the damage (usually this would mean through an insurer whom they had paid to insure against such a possibility), or do you think the person who had damage done to their vehicle should be legally responsible for the cost of the damage (usually this would mean through an insurer whom they had paid to insure against such a possibility)?

See, what I'm getting at is this - do you think people should be responsible for what they do, or do you think people should be responsible for what is done to them? If you answer the first question one way then you think the former, if you answer it the other way, then you think the latter. I'd just like to know what you mean by being 'responsible' or 'accountable' for something.

Oh, and if you think that people should only be responsible for what happens to them, and not for what they actually do, then - do you have any idea what effect such a dynamic would have on the quality of the things that people actually do?You're goihg to confuse him. He only believes "responsible" means "who gets blamed", not "who has to do something".


BTW, I also want to thank you for the posts on the SCOTUS in the News threads. Much appreciated. :high5:

:popcorn: There is no reason to say the price of Insurance would increase under "No-Fault" because liability is the big cost and once the liability is removed then people can pick and choose lower insurance to suit one self instead of trying to suit some other person.

Particularly when people have their own health care insurance to cover then self and their family then they would not need high medical coverage in their auto insurance.

There is every reason to believe that "No-Fault" would very much lower the auto Insurance cost.

As it is now many people get very high liability coverage because if the person is even accidentally liable then they could lose their home and property and everything based on the liability demands of other people in a petty auto accident.

There is really a lot to be gained by creating a healthy No Fault insurance plan.


:duel:

Speaking as an Insurance Agent - this is not feasible and you are giving me a serious headache with these notions!

You're goihg to confuse him. He only believes "responsible" means "who gets blamed", not "who has to do something". I'm stubborn sometimes and try not to give up on someone too quickly. :lol:


BTW, I also want to thank you for the posts on the SCOTUS in the News threads. Much appreciated. :high5:

You're most welcome. :buddies:

:howdy: Everything I said and posted are still accurate and true.

I always stand by my words and I write what I mean.


:shortbus:

Then you are as big an idiot as I've always thought. I still think this is a joke, you can't possibly think you have a chance, there is just no way.

:pete: I am shocked that one might think that my wonderful old ugly truck would be "illegal" when it is not.

The "Historic" tags and registration is all done up right and legal.






Historic:

To qualify as a historic vehicle, your vehicle must not have been substantially altered, remodeled, or remanufactured from its original construction, and must be 20 model years or older.
A historic vehicle 60 years or older may obtain a one-time, permanent, non-transferable registration. This vehicle registration does not qualify for specialty plates.
Vehicles classified as historic certifies the vehicle will be maintained for use in exhibitions, club activities, parades, tours, occasional transportation and similar uses. The vehicle owner further certifies the vehicle will not be used for general daily transportation or primarily for the transportation of passenngers or property on highways. You will need to fill out the Application for Historic or Street Rod Registration (form # VR-096) (http://www.mva.maryland.gov/OnlineServices/Docs/default.htm#VR_096).

when are you going to the next car show?

Because, I know you wouldnt dream of getting the historic tags to save money, then drive just like it had regular tags. That would be illegal and subject to lawful intervention.

I wonder if any law enforcement officers on this forum would stop you for it.

I know I would

How can you honestly think that you would be acceptable as Marylands top official when you are nothing more than a low life POS bum?

Speaking as an Insurance Agent - this is not feasible and you are giving me a serious headache with these notions!
:buddies:
And then you get higher insurance! How perfect is this solution?:sarcasm:
:howdy: Under full no-fault coverage there is a huge reduction in the amount of Insurance needed, like no liablity and less or even none for self medical, so where is the higher cost?



:pete:

:buddies:

:howdy: Under full no-fault coverage there is a huge reduction in the amount of Insurance needed, like no liablity and less or even none for self medical, so where is the higher cost?



:pete:

You honestly think that Insurance Company's would not keep increasing the cost as people have accidents? Wrongo! The more of a risk you are (as evidenced by charges, accidents and claims) the higher amount you will be required to pay.

The vehicle owner further certifies the vehicle will not be used for general daily transportation


when are you going to the next car show?

Because, I know you wouldnt dream of getting the historic tags to save money, then drive just like it had regular tags. That would be illegal and subject to lawful intervention.

I wonder if any law enforcement officers on this forum would stop you for it.

I know I would

How can you honestly think that you would be acceptable as Marylands top official when you are nothing more than a low life POS bum?

You honestly think that Insurance Company's would not keep increasing the cost as people have accidents? Wrongo! The more of a risk you are (as evidenced by charges, accidents and claims) the higher amount you will be required to pay.
:whistle: Well that is the way it is now.

That would not be some thing new.

And with no-fault if the person has low coverage with no medical and no liability then even if they get into a crash then the Insurance Company would only pay out a relatively small amount in auto repair or replacement.

The high cost associated in accidents is medical and liability.



:duel:

:buddies:

:howdy: Under full no-fault coverage there is a huge reduction in the amount of Insurance needed, like no liablity and less or even none for self medical, so where is the higher cost?



:pete:

JP, I usually refrain from saying things that might come across as mean spirited. In fact, sometimes I don't even respond to things that people say, because i can't figure out a way to say what needs to be said without it sounding mean spirited. But, I'm gonna have to make an exception here.

Are you kidding about what you just said? I mean, please tell me that you understand the physical universe around you a little better than that comment, taken as serious, would necessarily lead someone to believe.

Somewhere in Annapolis, at this very moment, someone in Governor O'Malley's office is drafting an email, that will be circulated through every government office in the state, that reads simply:

Is this guy serious? LOL He's running for governor?

And, they're including a link to this forum, and this thread (and probably the 'JP for governor' thread).

If only you were a serious threat in the race - I can see it now, there would be 'O'Malley 2010 www.somd.com (http://www.somd.com)' bumper stickers all over the state.

Seriously, I kinda like your spunk, and I'm really not trying to be mean - but your logic processor is malfunctioning severely.

:blahblah: ... truck ... historic ... driving ... :blahblah:


:howdy: My dear brother, do feel free to report me and my historic Bronco to the local police at your own convenience.

No one is stopping you, and both the State Police and the Sheriff Office are familiar with your next Governor of the State of Maryland.

I do see that you want some one else to do it, but you are the one that has seen this crime so it is up to you to officially report it.

And tell them that JP sent you.


:duel:

:howdy: My dear brother, do feel free to report me and my historic Bronco to the local police at your own convenience.

No one is stopping you, and both the State Police and the Sheriff Office are familiar with your next Governor of the State of Maryland.

I do see that you want some one else to do it, but you are the one that has seen this crime so it is up to you to officially report it.

And tell them that JP sent you.


:duel:
You got it.
Ill call and make the complaint tomorrow.

what you fail to understand, and there are some on here that can verify this, is that I also have a historic vehicle, of course, I dont drive it on any type of a regular basis, but, I do belong to several of the clubs in maryland that deal with this.

you certainly will not be the first turned in and fined.

then you can pay the full 90 per year to register the truck.

:howdy: My dear brother, do feel free to report me and my historic Bronco to the local police at your own convenience.

No one is stopping you, and both the State Police and the Sheriff Office are familiar with your next Governor of the State of Maryland.

I do see that you want some one else to do it, but you are the one that has seen this crime so it is up to you to officially report it.

And tell them that JP sent you.


:duel:

I'm sure they are familiar, but it has nothing to do with governor.

I'm sure they are familiar, but it has nothing to do with governor.
Im just wondering what their being familiar with O'Malley is going to do for JPC?

Too Funny! I just found the other forum he is running his mouth in. They aren't quite as nice to him as we are. :killingme:killingme:killingme

This is interesting, I really love the little smilie with a halo at the end. Nice touch JP, if you were governor (yea right) are you going to put smilies and "rock and roll" on everything you sign?

Official 2008 Campaign Website provided by Bravenet.com (http://www.votecusick.bravehost.com/biopage.html)

I'm sure they are familiar, but it has nothing to do with governor.
:getdown: Yes, they know me in other ways, but I put that pun in there just to pick at bcp.

I do have a big sense of humor and I find many of the comments on these Boards to be funny in many cases.

This is interesting, I really love the little smilie with a halo at the end. Nice touch JP, if you were governor (yea right) are you going to put smilies and "rock and roll" on everything you sign?

Official 2008 Campaign Website provided by Bravenet.com (http://www.votecusick.bravehost.com/biopage.html)
:howdy: The smilies and the sayings are all meant to show a little humor or to not-to-be soooo serious when it is just a discussion.

I see no reason not to try to lighten things up where ever I go.

Imagine this;
1) Some guy spray paints the State House with "Child support thieves" (funny)

2) then get 3 full years in State prison for that misdemeanor (funny)
3) then the same guy runs for Governor = :killingme

So I say if one can not laugh at that then they have no sense of humor.




:shortbus:

Imagine this;
1) Some guy spray paints the State House with "Child support thieves" (stupid and shows that you truly are mentally challenged)

2) then get 3 full years in State prison for that misdemeanor (not enough time if you ask me)

3) then the same guy runs for Governor = will be laughed at, not laughed with.

So I say if one can not laugh at that then they have no sense of humor.



All this just shows that you should seriously be committed.

And then you get higher insurance! How perfect is this solution?:sarcasm:
:popcorn: Okay, I believe I do get your point now - that if there is "no fault" then one would have their Insurance increased for any accident even if is was not their own fault.

And that is not the way I understand it because the Insurance being "no fault" does not mean that the accident itself is "no fault" because the police will establish the fault in many if not most cases.

Like if it is a drunken driver and the Police arrest the drunk and clearly the drunk was at-fault, but then our own Insurance will pay for our self regardless of whom is at fault.

Our own Insurance would pay for our own losses while the drunk would have to seek any compensation from their own Insurance and since the law would declare the drunk to be "at-fault" then the drunk's Insurance would increase or might even be dropped.

And if the drunk (or who ever) has no Insurance then we our self would still be covered by our own "no fault" Insurance because it does not matter who is at fault in the Insurance payments while it does matter who is at fault in the Police report.


:duel:

:popcorn: Okay, I believe I do get your point now - that if there is "no fault" then one would have their Insurance increased for any accident even if is was not their own fault.

And that is not the way I understand it because the Insurance being "no fault" does not mean that the accident itself is "no fault" because the police will establish the fault in many if not most cases.

Like if it is a drunken driver and the Police arrest the drunk and clearly the drunk was at-fault, but then our own Insurance will pay for our self regardless of whom is at fault.

Our own Insurance would pay for our own losses while the drunk would have to seek any compensation from their own Insurance and since the law would declare the drunk to be "at-fault" then the drunk's Insurance would increase or might even be dropped.

And if the drunk (or who ever) has no Insurance then we our self would still be covered by our own "no fault" Insurance because it does not matter who is at fault in the Insurance payments while it does matter who is at fault in the Police report.


:duel:

I think we all pay enough for our insurance without your idiocy that you think will get you out of having to purchase insurance.

You should really just not speak, every time you do, you prove that you are totally clueless how things work in the world.

Okay, lets hear some more of you ideas, you should have a list of them now, and not just make them up as you go along.
:hot: Another interesting idea would be to change the Maryland Lottery so that instead of one BIG winner we change it so that many people win in every game.

Like a hundred million dollar ($100,000,000.) jackpot could have ten (10) sets of winning numbers so each set would be eligible to win ten million ($10,000,000.) each, and so it is like ten separate games in-one every week.

It just makes so there would be many more big winners.



:cartwheel

:hot: Another interesting idea would be to change the Maryland Lottery so that instead of one BIG winner we change it so that many people win in every game.

Like a hundred million dollar ($100,000,000.) jackpot could have ten (10) sets of winning numbers so each set would be eligible to win ten million ($10,000,000.) each, and so it is like ten separate games in-one every week.

It just makes so there would be many more big winners.



:cartwheel
They already do that.
if more than one picks the number, then the money is split.

They already do that.
if more than one picks the number, then the money is split.

:nomoney: Well duh!!!!


:eyebrow: I though it was clear but I am referring to the State splitting the Jackpot before anyone wins it, and not the winners slitting the loot after winning the jackpot when there is more than one winner.


:drummer:

:nomoney: Well duh!!!!


:eyebrow: I though it was clear but I am referring to the State splitting the Jackpot before anyone wins it, and not the winners slitting the loot after winning the jackpot when there is more than one winner.


:drummer:
so are you saying more than one drawing per night?

Im not following exactly.

so are you saying more than one drawing per night?

Im not following exactly.
:hot: Okay, I had not figured out the mechanics of it.


So yes that sounds right - maybe at least 10 or even 20 drawings per game night which I believe is twice (2 nights) per week.

If the jackpot were $200,000,000. then have 20 drawings with $10,000,000. for each drawing and spread the money around to many more winners every time.

And even if the jackpot were lower like 10,000,000 then do ten (10) drawings with at least ten winners of 1,000,000 each.

That would make the lottery more pro-player, IMO.




:drummer:

:hot: Okay, I had not figured out the mechanics of it.


So yes that sounds right - maybe at least 10 or even 20 drawings per game night which I believe is twice (2 nights) per week.

If the jackpot were $200,000,000. then have 20 drawings with $10,000,000. for each drawing and spread the money around to many more winners every time.

And even if the jackpot were lower like 10,000,000 then do ten (10) drawings with at least ten winners of 1,000,000 each.

That would make the lottery more pro-player, IMO.




:drummer:
They could always divide it up by the number of people playing, and give everybody their money back. Then they'd ALL be "winners".

They could always divide it up by the number of people playing, and give everybody their money back. Then they'd ALL be "winners".

:lmao: That is really funny.


Well done T_p.


And I must submit that I never did like the idea of the State having and profiting from a lottery.

Some aspects of Socialism does have merit, but the Lottery is the worst aspect of Socialism in the State having control of an industry that feeds off of the population while providing nothing of value in return.

So T_p is so funny because of that ironic truth in his comment.



:larry:

:lmao: That is really funny.


Well done T_p.


And I must submit that I never did like the idea of the State having and profiting from a lottery.

Some aspects of Socialism does have merit, but the Lottery is the worst aspect of Socialism in the State having control of an industry that feeds off of the population while providing nothing of value in return.

So T_p is so funny because of that ironic truth in his comment.



:larry:At the risk of engaging you directly in conversation.........

The lottery is actually the only fair tax - it taxes people based on their willingness to give up their money voluntarily. It may be a tax against stupidity, but there's no law against stupidity, so it's okay.

The lottery is actually the only fair tax - it taxes people based on their willingness to give up their money voluntarily. It may be a tax against stupidity, but there's no law against stupidity, so it's okay.
:elaine: That might be okay for some, but I object to the State feeding off of the stupidity of the population.

It is different when there is a Gambling Casino ripping off the public - then the State will tax the winners and tax the Casino, and then the State can intervene when the Casino goes too far or to give some rehab or welfare to the families that lose to the gambling.

This goes back to the ignorance of child support where it is the State that promotes divorce and empowers adultery and breaks up families, instead of helping the population to improve.


:patriot:

Happy Mental Illness Week... have you hugged a delusional today...:patriot:

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

Happy Mental Illness Week... have you hugged a delusional today...:patriot:

(((((Kwillia))))) Yes, I have.

Happy Mental Illness Week... have you hugged a delusional today...:patriot:
:jameo: I would hug one if one would let me.




:snacks:

:jameo: I would hug one if one would let me.




:snacks:

:lmao: Not even your fellow inmates will have you? Priceless!

:jameo: I would hug one if one would let me.




:snacks:

Perv

:hot: Change the Maryland Lottery so that instead of one BIG winner we change it so that many people win in every game.

Like a hundred million dollar ($100,000,000.) jackpot could have ten (10) sets of winning numbers so each set would be eligible to win ten million ($10,000,000.) each, and so it is like ten separate games in-one every week.

It just makes so there would be many more big winners.

Maybe have at least 10 or even 20 drawings per game night which I believe is twice (2 nights) per week.

If the jackpot were $200,000,000. then have 20 drawings with $10,000,000. for each drawing and spread the money around to many more winners every time.

And even if the jackpot were lower like 10,000,000 then do ten (10) drawings with at least ten winners of 1,000,000 each.

That would make the lottery more pro-player, IMO.


:dye:

:hot: Change the Maryland Lottery so that instead of one BIG winner we change it so that many people win in every game.

Like a hundred million dollar ($100,000,000.) jackpot could have ten (10) sets of winning numbers so each set would be eligible to win ten million ($10,000,000.) each, and so it is like ten separate games in-one every week.

It just makes so there would be many more big winners.

Maybe have at least 10 or even 20 drawings per game night which I believe is twice (2 nights) per week.

If the jackpot were $200,000,000. then have 20 drawings with $10,000,000. for each drawing and spread the money around to many more winners every time.

And even if the jackpot were lower like 10,000,000 then do ten (10) drawings with at least ten winners of 1,000,000 each.

That would make the lottery more pro-player, IMO.


:dye:

Must be the Alzheimers, but I think you already said that and it's just as stupid this time.

Must be the Alzheimers, but I think you already said that and it's just as stupid this time.
:popcorn: I am beginning to see that calling-names and criticizing might be your one dominant characteristic.

So are you related to T_p?




:drummer:

Pssst... Casinos and the govts that run the lottery don't want more payouts. That defeats the whole purpose.

When you become governor, you will have to change your way of thinking so that you could afford to pay for all the children that aren't going to be getting child support from their deadbeat parents because of your new laws letting them off the hook.

I am beginning to see that calling-names and criticizing might be your one dominant characteristic.

So are you related to T_p?I call you names? Huh, didn't realize. Sorry if I did. Not sorry if they were accurate.

Criticizing, I do that a lot to you. It's sad you ask for it, and then can't take honest criticism.

Pssst... Casinos and the govts that run the lottery don't want more payouts. That defeats the whole purpose.

When you become governor, you will have to change your way of thinking ...
:popcorn: I am not going there as a subordinate - no, I am going as Governor to take command and "defeat" their purposes.

It is my intention to change their way of thinking and not my own.

I am not campaigning nor running as a sheep but as the new leader.




:drummer:

:popcorn: I am not going there as a subordinate - no, I am going as Governor to take command and "defeat" their purposes.

It is my intention to change their way of thinking and not my own.

I am not campaigning nor running as a sheep but as the new leader.




:drummer:
Indeed... but you will have to have disposable income for the state in order to put your new laws into effect. Since you will be bankrupting the lottery and will no longer be getting money from the parents that are currently paying child support for their children, you not only have to overcome our current state deficit but overcome these deficits you've created as well.

Do you plan to raise my taxes even more, cut even more state run programs and lay off even more state employees or do you have another plan?

and they got a really cool library up there in Annapolis.

Indeed... but you will have to have disposable income for the state in order to put your new laws into effect. Since you will be bankrupting the lottery and will no longer be getting money from the parents that are currently paying child support for their children, you not only have to overcome our current state deficit but overcome these deficits you've created as well.

Do you plan to raise my taxes even more, cut even more state run programs and lay off even more state employees or do you have another plan?
:coffee: I would believe that the lottery would make much more money when citizens see they get a far better chance at winning and a better chance at winning big.

And the State has no business getting any money from child support, and after I fire all the thieves from the entire Child Support operations then that will save some tax money there.

Getting rid of those State employees would be a blessing.



:drummer:

.

And the State has no business getting any money from child support, and after I fire all the thieves from the entire Child Support operations then that will save some tax money there.

Getting rid of those State employees would be a blessing.



:drummer:
but then wouldnt the state be required to make payments to those children that are being neglected by their POS sperm donors?
Seems that might cost even more than trying to enforce payments from these scum.

:coffee: I would believe that the lottery would make much more money when citizens see they get a far better chance at winning and a better chance at winning big.

And the State has no business getting any money from child support, and after I fire all the thieves from the entire Child Support operations then that will save some tax money there.

Getting rid of those State employees would be a blessing.



:drummer:

I've come to the conclusion that this is truly a joke. There is no way that someone who is already talking about firing people from government jobs could every become governor. Good one JP, now go back to your cell.

but then wouldnt the state be required to make payments to those children that are being neglected by their POS sperm donors?
Seems that might cost even more than trying to enforce payments from these scum.
:popcorn: Child support is a huge problem as it is said to directly affect at least half of the entire USA population, and surely it indirectly affects the other half too.

Virtually every person (300 million) in America has some close family member that is either not receiving the Child Support or one that is not paying the Child Support, and if not than their neighbors and associates are negatively affected by the Child support laws. Link (http://childsupport-aces.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7&Itemid=30).

In Child Support enforcement there is nothing wrong being done by the parents except being unable to comply with the ignorant c/s laws, and yet many parents are turned into criminal-parents based on those laws.

The fact is that even if the custodial has a large income and assets even if in the millions or a Billion dollars while the separated parent can be dirt poor working a poor job with no assets and living on skid-row, then the child support laws still require the poor parents to pay the wealthy custodial, and that is because the Child Support is NOT about supporting children. Link (http://www.dhr.state.md.us/csea/mission.htm).

And as a corroborating point, the poorest of the poor families on Welfare do not get their child support because the States (including MD) keeps the Child Support cash and adds the loot into the State treasury. Link see Q7 (http://www.dhr.state.md.us/csea/faq.htm). So again this demonstrates that the child support has nothing to do with supporting the children.

This equation shows that the richer custodials do not need the Child Support and the poorest custodials are denied the Child Support even when the separated parents do pay it in full.

So we can see that the big huge problem with Child Support is that it is fundamentally based entirely on a pack of lies, and the entire Child Support system is a complete fraud.

What the Child Support laws really are is a form of parenting police, in that the parents are being slandered and prosecuted for being parents and not for any real crime at all, and that means the Child Support laws are just a pack of lies.

And a very important aspect of this is that this "Parenting Police" is NOT a "marriage police", it is not marriage protecting, it is not husband police or wife police, and it is NOT to protect or serve the family police - oh no, it is just a set of laws directly against parenting and nothing else.

The Child Support does not support children, and instead it alienates the parents from their children, those ignorant laws break-up the family unit, and it empowers divorces and subsidizes adultery, and it is all based on a full pack of ignorant lies.

So getting this truth out is the first step in stopping the abusive process.


:drummer:

I think I also will run for governor-- My plan is to reform social security disability eligibility.

All the people who have never worked and who have not met the quarter requirement in time worked and social security paid in get NOTHING!!!!!

those THIEVES who can work but are too lazy will be out looking for work, those who have worked hard their entire life and are DISABLED will continue to get help.

Those who could do SOME TYPE of work will be given help to find new jobs so they can continue paying into the system OR BE REQUIRED TO PERFORM A SET NUMBER of hours of community service.

I think I also will run for governor-- My plan is to reform social security disability eligibility.

All the people who have never worked and who have not met the quarter requirement in time worked and social security paid in get NOTHING!!!!!

those THIEVES who can work but are too lazy will be out looking for work, those who have worked hard their entire life and are DISABLED will continue to get help.

Those who could do SOME TYPE of work will be given help to find new jobs so they can continue paying into the system OR BE REQUIRED TO PERFORM A SET NUMBER of hours of community service.
hey, Im already running on the platform of laying off welfare recepients before productive people.

Dont get in my way.

I think I also will run for governor-- My plan is to reform social security disability eligibility.

All the people who have never worked and who have not met the quarter requirement in time worked and social security paid in get NOTHING!!!!!

those THIEVES who can work but are too lazy will be out looking for work, those who have worked hard their entire life and are DISABLED will continue to get help.

Those who could do SOME TYPE of work will be given help to find new jobs so they can continue paying into the system OR BE REQUIRED TO PERFORM A SET NUMBER of hours of community service.
:popcorn: The procedure already does all of that.

It is very difficult to qualify for disability unless one is really crippled and or disabled severely.

Another interesting aspect is that the MD Legislature has now included "disabilities" under the hate-crime jurisdiction, so now anyone committing a crime against a disabled person because of the disability or concerning the disability then that person will be subject to the hate-crime prosecution.


:drummer:

:popcorn: The procedure already does all of that.

It is very difficult to qualify for disability unless one is really crippled and or disabled severely.

Another interesting aspect is that the MD Legislature has now included "disabilities" under the hate-crime jurisdiction, so now anyone committing a crime against a disabled person because of the disability or concerning the disability then that person will be subject to the hate-crime prosecution.


:drummer:

I really don't think stupidity is a disability, try again.

hey, Im already running on the platform of laying off welfare recepients before productive people.

Dont get in my way.
:whistle: Now I hope that you do know that the US Constitution declares that the US gov was created to provide for the "welfare" of the entire US population, and so that is the basis of the gov and therefore the basis of the law.



:drummer:

:whistle: Now I hope that you do know that the US Constitution declares that the US gov was created to provide for the "welfare" of the entire US population, and so that is the basis of the gov and therefore the basis of the law.



:drummer:

and I guess what you're planning to do with the child support laws will be doing just that, you're such a joke :killingme

hey, Im already running on the platform of laying off welfare recepients before productive people.

Dont get in my way.

oh ok, I throw all my votes your way then...

ya know I really tried hard not to read anymore of his drivel.. but you are right, its like passing a train wreck.. impossible not to look!

:whistle: Now I hope that you do know that the US Constitution declares that the US gov was created to provide for the "welfare" of the entire US population, and so that is the basis of the gov and therefore the basis of the law.



:drummer:
only an idiot would try to suggest that welfare as written in the constitution meant welfare as is common today. Do you think there was a reason that it could have been called welfare in the first place? do you think the reason would be to confuse the idiots like yourself?

promote the general welfare


explain it as you understand it.

only an idiot would try to suggest that welfare as written in the constitution meant welfare as is common today. Do you think there was a reason that it could have been called welfare in the first place? do you think the reason would be to confuse the idiots like yourself?
:howdy: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Link: Constitution Preamble. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html)



:drummer:

:howdy: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Link: Constitution Preamble. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html)



:drummer:

:lol:

I'll be your huckleberry.

What is the difference by definition between "promote" and "provide"?

:howdy: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Although the preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments.
- US Supreme Court, Jacobson v. Mass, 1905

The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution.
- US SUpreme Court, United States v. Boyer, 1898

Try looking to Article One, Section 8 to get a Constitutional source that actually says what you want it to say.

Then, read up on what "general" means in that phrase.

YWIA

:lol:

I'll be your huckleberry.

What is the difference by definition between "promote" and "provide"?
:howdy: I do accept the challenge Pete, a.k.a. Doc Holiday.

The thing about Welfare (or any gov charity) is that the poor people never marched or organized or even asked for the Welfare promotions as all of those Welfare laws come from our great Political leaders - like Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and from many Senators, Governors and high standing persons.

I personally find the only true demonstration by poor civilians demanding some gov Welfare was during the French revolution (1789-99) as the people cut off the King's head. Otherwise the promotion of Welfare has come from the top of gov down to the poor in the population.

So it is not the poor people demanding any "right" to Welfare - no, it is the powerful political leaders that do the demanding that Welfare programs and Social Services be provided to the poor, and that high perspective is seen in the preamble of the US Constitution.

So the direct answer to your question concerning the Constitution is that the different definitions of "provide" is something that the people demand of our gov, while to "promote" is something the leaders are to demand of our US gov.



:drummer:

:howdy: I do accept the challenge Pete, a.k.a. Doc Holiday.

The thing about Welfare (or any gov charity) is that the poor people never marched or organized or even asked for the Welfare promotions as all of those Welfare laws come from our great Political leaders - like Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and from many Senators, Governors and high standing persons.

I personally find the only true demonstration by poor civilians demanding some gov Welfare was during the French revolution (1789-99) as the people cut off the King's head. Otherwise the promotion of Welfare has come from the top of gov down to the poor in the population.

So it is not the poor people demanding any "right" to Welfare - no, it is the powerful political leaders that do the demanding that Welfare programs and Social Services be provided to the poor, and that high perspective is seen in the preamble of the US Constitution.

So the direct answer to your question concerning the Constitution is that the different definitions of "provide" is something that the people demand of our gov, while to "promote" is something the leaders are to demand of our US gov.



:drummer:

So it would be OK by you if we stop "providing" what wasn't even "asked for""?

Oh anf by the way, you are incorrect that the term "welfare" in the preamble" and the "welfare" programs are completely different things.

So it would be OK by you if we stop "providing" what wasn't even "asked for""?
:howdy: No, hell no.

The US gov must provide for the welfare of the entire population.


Oh anf by the way, you are incorrect that the term "welfare" in the preamble" and the "welfare" programs are completely different things.
:popcorn: Yes, I do know they are different, but the latter term did come from the former, and the two feed off of each other.


:drummer:

:howdy: No, hell no.

The US gov must provide for the welfare of the entire population.


:popcorn: Yes, I do know they are different, but the latter term did come from the former, and the two feed off of each other.


:drummer:

No, no, no, no Mr JPC, it must "promote" the general welfare not "provide". You can attempt to mince one word and not the other in the same passage of the preamble. Misleading the people as to the meaning of "Welfare" is one thing but "Promote" and "provide" have completely different meanings and that is indesputable.

The government "promotes" the general welfare by ensuring justice, regulation, equal rights, protection, clean water and air, safe streets, police, and infrastructure unrivaled in the world. It is NOT obligated to "provide" general welfare.

The only thing you have partially correct in your post is that when it comes to welfare, one most certainly does feed off the other.

Actually welfare was UNCONSTITUTIONAL until FDR enacted laws to provide welfare for US citizens.

No, no, no, no Mr JPC, it must "promote" the general welfare not "provide". You can attempt to mince one word and not the other in the same passage of the preamble. Misleading the people as to the meaning of "Welfare" is one thing but "Promote" and "provide" have completely different meanings and that is indesputable.

The government "promotes" the general welfare by ensuring justice, regulation, equal rights, protection, clean water and air, safe streets, police, and infrastructure unrivaled in the world. It is NOT obligated to "provide" general welfare.
:buddies: Look Doc, you caught me in that I did mean to write "promote" and I did mistakenly write "provide" but now I say my mistake in that last posting of mine was a fortunate mistake because it is NOW now correct.

Your interpretation would be correct in 1785 but now in 2009 the poor people that do qualify can demand their "right" to have the Welfare provided / PROVIDED by the gov because now in 2009 the Welfare is both promoted and provided by law.

The original meaning of the Constitution must now be viewed under its modern day applications.



:duel:

Actually welfare was UNCONSTITUTIONAL until FDR enacted laws to provide welfare for US citizens.
:howdy: If we study our history correctly then we find that the US gov and FDR were not all-of-a-sudden turned into charitable people - no, it was because the US population becoming impoverished and excited posed a huge threat to the then US gov and FDR did not want the people to come and cut off his head as was done to the King of France during the French revolution.

Considering the preamble of the US Constitution then the founding members of the USA did understand that particular principle that if the gov does not promote the general welfare then the poor citizens will turn to extreme violence and rebel against any foolish gov that fails to provide for its needy citizens.



:duel:

:howdy: If we study our history correctly then we find that the US gov and FDR were not all-of-a-sudden turned into charitable people - no, it was because the US population becoming impoverished and excited posed a huge threat to the then US gov and FDR did not want the people to come and cut off his head as was done to the King of France during the French revolution.

Considering the preamble of the US Constitution then the founding members of the USA did understand that particular principle that if the gov does not promote the general welfare then the poor citizens will turn to extreme violence and rebel against any foolish gov that fails to provide for its needy citizens.



:duel:

If I can find you a job you can perform without irritating your hemorrhoids or your curled up fingers will you take it and refuse disability?

If I can find you a job you can perform without irritating your hemorrhoids or your curled up fingers will you take it and refuse disability?
:howdy: I would not want you or anyone to do such a thing, so it would be wrong of me to cooperate if you did.

If you really want me to get a real job and to get completely off of disability then you can help me to get elected as the next Governor for the State of Maryland.

This job will satisfy all my needs and it will fulfill your stated desires too.



:duel:

:howdy: I would not want you or anyone to do such a thing, so it would be wrong of me to cooperate if you did.

If you really want me to get a real job and to get completely off of disability then you can help me to get elected as the next Governor for the State of Maryland.

This job will satisfy all my needs and it will fulfill your stated desires too.



:duel:
I knew the answer to my question before I asked it. You have been exposed for the parasite you really are many times before, but it is refreshing to see it again. :lol:

I would rather have my testicles swatted with a 2X2 pine board than to assist you in your pointless endeavour to be in charge of anything more taxing and complicated than stocking toilet paper at the Food Lion.

:howdy: I would not want you or anyone to do such a thing, so it would be wrong of me to cooperate if you did.

If you really want me to get a real job and to get completely off of disability then you can help me to get elected as the next Governor for the State of Maryland.

This job will satisfy all my needs and it will fulfill your stated desires too.



:duel:

I sure hope you get caught, if you are capable of doing the job as governor, you can do other jobs too, then there is no reason for you to need disability, therefore you are getting it fraudulently. Don't give that BS story of having assistants and secretaries doing most of your job for you, that would be stupid, they aren't the ones running for governor.

I knew the answer to my question before I asked it. You have been exposed for the parasite you really are many times before, but it is refreshing to see it again. :lol:

I would rather have my testicles swatted with a 2X2 pine board than to assist you in your pointless endeavour to be in charge of anything more taxing and complicated than paper at the stocking toilet Food Lion.

according to him, his gnarly old hands couldn't even handle that job.

I think most of you people sound like a crazed angry mob and it speaks of your character much more than it does JPC's.
:getdown: I do believe the Lady quoted above has it quite right again.




:duel:

:getdown: I do believe the Lady quoted above has it quite right again.




:duel:

You have my vote JP.:buddies:

I would rather have my testicles swatted with a 2X2 pine board than to assist you in your pointless endeavour to be in charge of anything more taxing and complicated than stocking toilet paper at the Food Lion.
:popcorn: I just can not understand anyone using that kind of example.

First is that no one would ever hit you like that with a board, and if I were ever threatened in such a real situation then I would agree to most anything instead of that kind of getting boarded.

Torture would work against me, and I would even surrender if such a dastardly thing was threatened against you and not on me.

You and I surely do come from very different realities because I would never even dream in those kinds of violent terms as you describe.



:duel:

:popcorn: I just can not understand anyone using that kind of example.

First is that no one would ever hit you like that with a board, and if I were ever threatened in such a real situation then I would agree to most anything instead of that kind of getting boarded.

Torture would work against me, and I would even surrender if such a dastardly thing was threatened against you and not on me.

You and I surely do come from very different realities because I would never even dream in those kinds of violent terms as you describe.



:duel:
You truly lead a sheltered life. You should move to Chicago or pay better attention to the news.

:popcorn: I just can not understand anyone using that kind of example.

First is that no one would ever hit you like that with a board, and if I were ever threatened in such a real situation then I would agree to most anything instead of that kind of getting boarded.

Torture would work against me, and I would even surrender if such a dastardly thing was threatened against you and not on me.

You and I surely do come from very different realities because I would never even dream in those kinds of violent terms as you describe.



:duel:

Well to understand the gravity of such an act one would have to have testicles. I understand completely your inability to relate.

Well to understand the gravity of such an act one would have to have testicles. I understand completely your inability to relate.

:killingme

You truly lead a sheltered life. You should move to Chicago or pay better attention to the news.
:popcorn: The TV News does not ever show a person being cruelly struck with a board.

And it is true that there are some nasty TV shows that show trash and cruel violence and I do not watch any of that.

And our friend Pete/Doc is not in Chicago.



:duel:

:popcorn: The TV News does not ever show a person being cruelly struck with a board.

And it is true that there are some nasty TV shows that show trash and cruel violence and I do not watch any of that.

And our friend Pete/Doc is not in Chicago.



:duel:

Therefore you should move there, I'm sure they will welcome your child support plan with open arms. :killingme

The TV News does not ever show a person being cruelly struck with a board.



Make sure you let the family of Derrion Albert know that. They'll be so relieved.

Make sure you let the family of Derrion Albert know that. They'll be so relieved.
:howdy: D A R N, you are correct, and I never equated that High School beating with the mental image given by Pete.

He was talking about testicles getting boarded and the Derrion Albert video was not that vivid.

So do we figure that some one is threatening our Pete with a board?



:drummer:

He was talking about testicles getting boarded and the Derrion Albert video was not that vivid.



Not that vivid? You say that being murdered isn't as vivid as getting hit in the nuts?

Personally, I prefer not to be hit in the nuts. But given a choice between that and being murdered, I think I'd have to go with still being alive at the end of the day.

Well to understand the gravity of such an act one would have to have testicles. I understand completely your inability to relate.
What I cant understand is why he hasn't been fitted with the prosthetics for this condition.

I'm pretty sure it is covered under most insurance plans.

69434

Not that vivid? You say that being murdered isn't as vivid as getting hit in the nuts?

Personally, I prefer not to be hit in the nuts. But given a choice between that and being murdered, I think I'd have to go with still being alive at the end of the day.
:getdown: Given the scenario with the "board" then you might go on living with no testicles, but I would have to be killed instead.

And even more-so improper is that Pete says he would not support my campaign as opposed to being ball boarded and that implies voter intimidation based on threats of violence.



:duel: