wwest5829

Arrived late last night after flights from U.S. via Inchon. Coming down the escalator to the Immigration lines, things were very backed up. Too many flights, not enough stations open. I noted that several people during my wait we're going directly to baggage claim avoiding Immigration altogether. This was possible due to an opening immediately right at the bottom of the escalator.

My question. I assume these folks will be in for a rude awakening upon trying to exit Thailand as they did not legally enter Thailand. Just curious as to thoughts on the various possibilities. Immigration officers, steadily processing those in line, noted the run around but I did not see anyone call for security to block the breach while I was there (substantial line).

Why not a ship convoy?, US, P.I. VN, Malay, Taiwan... send a unified message.

Excellent. If 30% of world trade passes through the South China Sea carriers of all nations cuducting the trade should challenge this unilateral China action.

Why not a ship convoy?, US, P.I. VN, Malay, Taiwan... send a unified message.

Taiwan backs China on this and Malaysia and Vietnam have no interest in upsetting the Chinese. Its all about the US and the Philippines. The US has really nothing to do in those waters but my guess the Chinese will show up soon 12 miles away from US waters.

If that is already the international law, they have been able to do this at any time. However, China is unilaterally pushing its claims to 80-90% of the South China Sea not in accord with international law.

Another big disappointment for the wingnutoshere! The Republicans were trying to force the closure of Planned Parenthood by holding the government hostage. And they had those doctored fake videos to back up their nonsense this time.

The electorate is overwhelmingly positive about Planned Parenthood and the health services they provide women. It doesn't matter. There is no longer any reality for the far right Republican party.

I expect we'll see more efforts to close down the US government. According to Republicans, government doesn't work, so they do their best to prove it by seeing to it the government doesn't work.

The sound and fury around the crazies living in outer wingnuttia can be breathtaking. The lunatic fringe is now the Republican base.

We're going to look back nostalgically on the days when that ineffective, weeping boob Bohner was running the asylum. The new guy will be worse. Not any more effective, mind you, just ineffective at a new level. The Republican lemmings continue their long journey off a cliff.

"The electorate is overwhelmingly positive about Planned Parenthood and the health services they provide women. It doesn't matter. There is no longer any reality for the far right Republican party."

Perhaps the electorate will get somewhat angry when they consider this little bit of data.

The taxpayers are forking over $528 million out of which Planned Parenthood paid their CEO $523,000 last year.

For comparison the President of the US draws down a salary of $400,000.

Ms. Richards first stated she didn't have her records available for her salary but, when pressed, admitted her salary was in the $520,000 range.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Planned Parenthood Got $528M In Tax Dollars, Paid Cecile Richards $523,000

By Melanie Hunter | September 29, 2015 | 2:39 PM EDT

(CNSNews.com) - Planned Parenthood received $528 million in government health services grants and reimbursements or 41 percent of its total revenue for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2014 and gave its president, Cecile Richards, $523,000 in annual compensation.

My annual compensation is $523,000 a year, Richards told House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah).

Planned Parenthoods 2013-2014 annual report shows the organization received $528.4 million in government health services grants & reimbursements.

Your compensation in 2009 was $353,000. Is that correct? Chaffetz asked Richards at a hearing Tuesday on government funding of Planned Parenthood.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/maloney-admonishes-chaffetz-beating-woman-making-good-salary

I am certainly in accord with restricting high executive salaries....just not signaling out one person for ideological, religiously based reasons. The salary was not the issue at the core of the debate, it was used as a distraction.

Hillary Clintons five email lies

Ive never had a subpoenaLets take a deep breath here.

Truth: Confronted by CNNs Brianna Keilar on July 8 about why she had deleted 33,000 e-mails while under investigation, Clinton said it was common practice. Keilar pressed: Even if youre under subpeona?

Clinton was under subpoena when the question was asked.

http://nypost.com/2015/08/16/hillary-clintons-5-e-mail-lies/

"Clinton was under subpoena when the question was asked."

But wouldn't the correct statement be, "Clinton was under subpoena when she wiped the server". Now is that true?

Instead, she contracted an IT company to set up an email server at her house. Which took more thought or effort?

That's extremely presumptuous. Has it yet come to light that the setup was done after she became SoS, or was it an existing setup that she already had and simply decided to continue using? If the latter, then her statement makes complete sense.

Colin Powell did the same, but then he was smarter than to subject himself to running for President. For my money most are carrying too much baggage. It's up to Bernie to loose my casting of my absentee ballot.

people discuss the various problems that result from gay marriage; but what about the problems concerning gay divorce?

what about community property? In the event of a legal dissolution of a gay marriage, who gets the drapes and the color-coded finger stalls?

Within the purview of the American (USA) system of jurisprudence, the highest court-SCOTUS-has shown itself to be an uber-progressive body, that exacerbates the century-long socio-political thrust into Communist control mechanisms..which is the overbearing tyranny coming out of a central government that seeks to control even your bodily functions.. .IMO, those three lesbian members of the court should have recused themselves from the process of determining social policy in this respect...but, my recommendation would be to go ahead and let gays marry; let them suffer for awhile just as the rest of us have done...in any event, best to go for the politically correct premise and say, the less bein' said about that the better..55555.

Why is gay divorce more problematic than straight divorce? Or is this just a vehicle for your stereotyping bon mot? Très amusing.

More seriously though, I am intrigued by your association of Communism with sexual liberalisation. As far as I am aware, Communist societies were traditionally some of the most oppressive and vindictive towards same sex relationships and activities. Perhaps you could provide some evidence of this not being the case?

Agreed, look at Putin's Russia today. Look at the Sochi games debates over this issue.

This is ridiculous and an embarrassment to the USA. If this county clerk feels she can't issue licenses as per the law of the land, fine. That is her choice--as a private citizen, not as a government official. She needs to be impeached immediately so someone who follows the law can fill the position.

I saw her on tv, and she told a couple that they were forcing their beliefs on her. It is more that she is forcing her beliefs on them.

No what is DISGUSTING is the fact that people are NOW FORCED to accept beliefs that are deemed offensive too others but they NOW FORCED to accept it.

For example while I dont care if gay people do their stuff behind closed doors, I do find it EXTREMELY offensive to watch 2 guys kissing an cannoodling in public be it religious belief or not it makes me wanna puke that is just the way it is but of course I am homophobic a bigot and any other names they want to call me but the truth TO ME AND MILLION OF OTHERS the thought of having sex with another man is disgusting but you expect me to be forced to accept that SORRY aint gonna happen.,

Now this lady is being forced against her beliefs to do something she does not believe in, I agree with her she has that right to refuse

Does not matter. American law says you cannot discriminate. I stand shoulder to shoulder with you so that no one forces you to kiss another man, nor marry one. You or I have no right on the basis of our personal religious belief to deny others.

china, russia, naval exercise, show of strength i would say

Perhaps they are hoping that the U.S. would somehow object. My thought here is that the U.S. Would have no reason to react as long as they are in international waters. The same as when we, or other nations sail through the South China Sea, which China is trying to declare as her sovereign territory.

Best assistance you can offer is just to keep your nose out of it.

On the basis of what is written why would you assume they are doing otherwise?

She doesn't want to go to bars and clubs. So just go where you want to go. Or, take her somewhere that a Thai girl really wants to go. MBK springs to mind.

What do you think if he takes her to Asiatique? Could get the free transport at Taksin Pier. Has the Ferriswheel, restaurants, bars with music. Of course it all depends on the girl.

"There is no gun issue in the U.S." ... move along - ala Star Wars Jedi mind trick.

Trump is using the Bible now. Great, of course he is. And maybe he's just as Christian as any American. But everyone I hope will stay off of this sensitive private issue.

Another guy fell into this formula. He needed to gain support of his party's biggest faction, which was also it's most militant. He needed more muscle to win... he had learned the "hard" way. Even though he was merely average in sharing their beliefs.... as his own big beliefs were that of being an ultra nationalist (read: patriot) and ardent (as we say) anti-communist.

So he wrote a book ahead of his campaign.

At that time, writing while in prison, he was probably no more of an anti-Sem.......

Please. I don't want to be reading or hearing Bible versus everyday for the next 9 years.

Your talking about Obama, Dreams of my Fathers- right? He did not write this in prison (a former prisoner wrote it for him in Chicago) but you are correct, he coopted religion which is in fact apparently lacking in his life choices, policies, and actions. Obama did run to the center after the nomination and grasp the semi center American vote by his farce of being called to god. Yes, he is quite militant. Lastly, his beliefs were that of being an ultra leftist, not nationalist, but I can see the confusion- in a circle they both appear at the same place in political action.

Note: He wrote in Chicago, not prison- but I can see the ease where one could confuse the two.

Gott mit uns!!

The U.S., Australia Western Europe and other countries are faced with the immigration dilemma.

Could I ask why people are focusing on border fences, walls, etc.? That will not stop the immigration and history will help you understand this fact.

Now ask yourself why all this immigration pressure currently? What is driving people to seek new homes? Got it? You can only stop the immigration by helping solve the reasons they are leaving their homeland.

If it was you and/or your family in economic destitution. If your home and any security of body and property was continuously under attack, what would you do? Sorry, but for me, I would not sit quietly and suffer. I would fight and if that was shown not to be bringing positive results, I would flee. No wall or fence or threat of more violence would be stopping me. How about yourselves?

It's a constitutional matter. Not a matter of opinion. Of course it's perfectly valid to think the constitution should be amended. Again.

Immigration? But he stated that legal scholars say it is not required to grant citizenship to those born in the U.S. Already. From this, there would be no need to change anything. Revisionist history, methinks.

Yes, pleeeze, Trum/Cruz, OK,OK....Trump/ Palin!?,

If El-Khazzani was indeed desperately broke and had to rob a train, how did he lawyer up so quickly? I hope the anti-terrorism experts trace the money. Some filthy rich Muslims are financing this guy's defense and that should be used as evidence to put holes in his claim that he was intending to rob people and not engage in terrorism.

Just raising the question to your attention. Does France not have a system which appoints a public defender attorney in cases of not having money. I know this would happen in the U.S.

Let me state first, like most of those offering opinions here, that I do not have any studied knowledge of the current political balance in the Koreas. I would venture to surmise that China would still not be too easy with a united democratic Korea on its border. It smacks of adding to the surrounding of China. On the other hand, North Korea has been a real pain in the butt for sometime and appears not to listen to China's advise to not to be so provocative. I would think it would be in neither Chinese or American interests. To have a military conflict in Korea (do keep in mind that this would involve the U.N. As there is no peace treaty ending the U.N. Police action).

I am not sure how the economics of the current corrections might influence political moves if there are some thinking they could have a limited military action to stimulate economic activity. Yeah, I know, does not sound reasonable but ... Well, military spending does seem to stimulate economies, certainly it helps gather political support for the current government's (OK,allowing that many in the U.S. And Europe are growing fatigued by continuous military action in the name of national defense).

This, IMHO, is an excellent example and opportunity for reform. The "gauntlet" has been thrown down. The wrongdoing is researched, vetted by publishers and has been internationally reported. Now, if the junta is indeed recognizing the need for reform, now is the time to set an example for Thailand and the world to see.

A person or company accused, with evidence presented, cannot use the courts to stifle reporting facts. No more, loss of face, even if guilty. If the Thai government is not strong enough to take this route and no longer use the "lese majesty" laws to stifle political opposition ... Well, then, OK continue your empty words but do not expect world citizens to give any credulence. Please understand, I am a hopeful optimist but have seen little to encourage such a view and hope for Thailand.

Remember the Tica Policeman, apologizing for stopping me and asking for my Passport due to the La Penca , San Juan River bombing in 1984. Was not an issue for me but my wife at the time was royally upset at even remotely being considered looking like the female accomplice.

My first and second year U.S. college students were convinced I was the Devil incarnate for requiring them to know where the nations they were studying were located and to correctly spell the names of those countries (Western Civ.). What a burden for students from the strongest military power on the planet. There is a great danger in ignorance and want (poverty) as Charles Dickens warned us in, "A Christmas Carol".

Sorry, but the U"S. constitutional rights are established to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority as has been in evidence many times in U.S. history. These rights are not subject to the popularity among the majority for good reason, as spoken to by John Stuart Mill, if I remember correctly.

Ah, no. The Constitution is for delineating governmental powers. The Bill of Rights limits governmental powers. Later amendments have been a mish-mash.

Tell it to SCOTUS and to the Founders of the Republic....

Reynolds v United States (1878)

Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court....

Can a man excuse his [illegal] practicesbecause of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Evitedently having a problem with the website sdaniel....

The Constitution of the U.S. is one document. All Amendments are part and partial of that one document, they are not separate entities. Thus, the Supreme Court of the U.S. rules on the constitutionality found in the total document. I do not know your background but I find your understanding of the U.S. Constitution curious.

Because I'm explaining an erroneous definition of the Constitution. Geez. I don't believe I had to explain that.
My understanding of the Constitution is not based on popular belief, like some here believe. I read it, not get the information from someone who 'interprets' it for me.
Your idea of the Constitution is also erroneous, as the founding Fathers did not put the Bill of Rights into the body of the Constitution, like they could have. Those are two separate, though not completely independent sections of the Constitution. One delineates power, the other restricts power.
So, to you. How does that Supreme Court ruling have anything to do with what I wrote in response to the other posters' description of the Constitution?

Not sure if you noticed... But she is a Democrat...

Not sure how her Party will feel about this

Davis, elected last November as a Democrat, took over the office from her mother, Jean Bailey, who served as county clerk for 37 years, according to the Morehead News.

Yup, Kentucky politics are complicated. It is a conservative culture, prides itself as part of Southern culture. Still they elected a Democratic Governor, and voted for Clinton. Still, while the majority registers as Democrat, mostly it is to vote in primary elections. Sticky wicket, say wot?!

Sorry, but the U"S. constitutional rights are established to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority as has been in evidence many times in U.S. history. These rights are not subject to the popularity among the majority for good reason, as spoken to by John Stuart Mill, if I remember correctly.

Ah, no. The Constitution is for delineating governmental powers. The Bill of Rights limits governmental powers. Later amendments have been a mish-mash.

Tell it to SCOTUS and to the Founders of the Republic....

Reynolds v United States (1878)

Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court....

Can a man excuse his [illegal] practicesbecause of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Evitedently having a problem with the website sdaniel....

The Constitution of the U.S. is one document. All Amendments are part and partial of that one document, they are not separate entities. Thus, the Supreme Court of the U.S. rules on the constitutionality found in the total document. I do not know your background but I find your understanding of the U.S. Constitution curious.

That horse has already left the barn...sorry, U.S. Southern talk. Those opposed on religious grounds badly mishandled the issue IMHO. Those opposed from the get go should have united in arguing that the institution of marriage was one of the traditional seven sacraments of the Christian Church. Thus government, recognizing the Separation of Church and State, would not be allowed to interfere in purely a religious matter. The government would, in its public interest govern, "civil unions" with all equal rights under law being given.

By demanding government not abide by the Separation of Church and State, the U.S. conservative churches have left the door open for all other religions to demand equal rights. Watch for it as Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist prayers are demanded equally before government meetings, public events. This and the 2016 Presidential Campaigns promise a world of entertainment in the near future!

Are you seriously trying to claim marriage as Christian? Are you totally unaware that religions older than Catholicism were performing marriages long before Christ was born? As for the second paragraph, all other churches already have equal rights... what Constitution have you been reading?

As this issue being discussed deals with the U.S. I was using a U.S. arguement which could have been utilized. I am very well aware of world history and cultures much older than the U.S. but those traditions do not hold sway if you are focusing on a U.S. Issue. As to all other religions having equality, well, let me cite this example. I grew up in an area where alcohol sales is still forbidden, by law, to be sold on Sunday. Why? Because it is the traditional holy day of the majority held Christian belief. OK, if I am Jewish, or Seventh a Day Adventist for that matter, does the law forbidden the same on the Sabbath? If I am Moslem all alcohol is forbidden, somehow I don't see equality as a reality. Traditional allowances have been used, as the U.S. finds itself with more diversity changes will be calling for changes.