beechguy

I am reminded of Occam's razor, or a simplification thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the best...

For 36 years i have been reminded of the need (living in three very different countries) to renew my motor oil at the correct time by way of a sticker on my windscreen placed by the mechanic who last did the job. Seems to me that the good folk at Boeing could pop a wee sticker on the emergency locator beacon when they install it so that future maintenance engineers know when to replace the batteries; particularly given the critical importance of the locator beacons given the multi-million cost of the aircraft and the scores of lives on board.

Placing reliance on a computerised system to manage battery maintenance is a classic example of over complicating a straightforward task...that failed.

And it's unfortunate you do not have a clue as to what you are writing about. Boeing doesn't build the Data Recorders, and beacons, they buy them from vendors. And yes, the ones I've inspected did have a sticker. Inspection is called out on a computerized list on all maintenance items, as well as other inspection forms.

Is it really asking too much, that if you don't know anything about the subject, to keep your fingers off the keyboard?

'... my sole intention in accepting it was to voice Israel's grave concerns about a potential nuclear agreement with Iran that could threaten the survival of my country."' This being from the sole Middle East country with nuclear weapons.

'... to meet with Democrats "at this time could compound the misperception of partisanship ...' Funny interpretation of partisanship. Much more likely he is out to avoid embarrassing questions about his leadership.

More likely, the embarrassing questions would be asked about the Democrat leadership. The two Senators made the invitation for a reason, they don't want to be caught in Obama's BS, and he'll be gone in less than two years.

The two most senior Democratic party Senators invited Netanyahu to speak to all the US Senators of the Democratic party in a Senate caucus room and in private.

It was the in private that Bibi doesn't like or want.

Bibi would have come running out of that meeting butt scorched for the rest of his life, hop on a plane and go home to tend to the wounds.

I think you have it backwards, more likely they would be lined up to kiss his butt, and ask that the Jewish money not dry up from their campaigns, and apologize for Obama for good measure.

For years the USA Republican congress has been the party of "no." Now it has the perfect match with the President of "no." They should be pleased that they taught the POTUS the fine art of negotiations.

It is good. Now everyone can vote, and it will be on record that they can't hide from in 2016, Obama won't be on the ballot, but all of those Democrats will be, and they will try to run from him the same way they tried in 2014, it didn't work.

I am happy it has been vetoed. It reminds me of the Garrison Diversion program which was going to bring water to all kinds of places. The Mandan, Arikara and Hidatsa Indian tribes lost much of their land, a large portion of a lucrative oil field was put under water and the promised irrigation waters were never diverted to anywhere useful.

A hazardous pipeline has been averted.

So we can put you down, as one who prefers the environment to get polluted by train derailment?

The oil is going to flow one way or the other, and it is going to be used one location, or another.

'... my sole intention in accepting it was to voice Israel's grave concerns about a potential nuclear agreement with Iran that could threaten the survival of my country."' This being from the sole Middle East country with nuclear weapons.

'... to meet with Democrats "at this time could compound the misperception of partisanship ...' Funny interpretation of partisanship. Much more likely he is out to avoid embarrassing questions about his leadership.

More likely, the embarrassing questions would be asked about the Democrat leadership. The two Senators made the invitation for a reason, they don't want to be caught in Obama's BS, and he'll be gone in less than two years.

Completely depends where you are located. So, where do you live OP?

Near the end of his post, he says Chiang Mai.

The hits just keep on comin'

Most American conservatives and most in the Republican party and beyond it have completely lost the plot.

For instance, a major reason Prez Obama and his administration do not say "Islamic terrorists" or "Muslim jihadists" and the like is because the US is trying to develop viable working relations with the leaders and the peoples of Sunni majority countries in the ME and in places like Indonesia in SE Asia. Sunnis are the Muslims directly threatened and already being harmed by IS.

Using the name of the religion in a war on terror strongly implies war against all of the religion. Yes, this is what some want, on each side Muslim and Christian.

Most or almost all leaders of Western nations deliberately avoid putting the word Islamic or Muslim in the same breath as terrorist, terrorism, jihad, jihadist and the like. Leaders of Nato governments use these words separately and apart from one another. Leaders of Nato governments say only "terrorism" but normally do not also say with it "Muslim" or "Islamic." There are no crusader prime ministers or other leaders of governments in the Nato member states that I know of.

Anyone who might think the prez does not know who the enemy is, what the enemy is trying to do, and how, would be deaf, dumb, blind due to partisan and other comprehensive biases and prejudices. Many of these people are also those who believe the earth is 6000 years old.

Baracknophobia.

The truth of the matter is that what ever Obama does The Barackophobes would find fault with. It has less to do with the issues and more to do with latent racism. simply , they cant get over the fact that a black man can not only be as good as them, but can even be better.

The likes of Giuliani,Pallin , Tramp . know this very well and they are exploiting it to further their agenda, Barackophobes are being used and as such are tools.

to be fair

conversely there a latent guilt some whites feel towards blacks, this is also exploited by smart African american players

If you are going to be a tool be a hammer don't be a nail, being a nail could give you an awful headache

Geez Doc, I think I would ask for a refund on that Psych Degree.

The hits just keep on comin'

Most American conservatives and most in the Republican party and beyond it have completely lost the plot.

For instance, a major reason Prez Obama and his administration do not say "Islamic terrorists" or "Muslim jihadists" and the like is because the US is trying to develop viable working relations with the leaders and the peoples of Sunni majority countries in the ME and in places like Indonesia in SE Asia. Sunnis are the Muslims directly threatened and already being harmed by IS.

Using the name of the religion in a war on terror strongly implies war against all of the religion. Yes, this is what some want, on each side Muslim and Christian.

Most or almost all leaders of Western nations deliberately avoid putting the word Islamic or Muslim in the same breath as terrorist, terrorism, jihad, jihadist and the like. Leaders of Nato governments use these words separately and apart from one another. Leaders of Nato governments say only "terrorism" but normally do not also say with it "Muslim" or "Islamic." There are no crusader prime ministers or other leaders of governments in the Nato member states that I know of.

Anyone who might think the prez does not know who the enemy is, what the enemy is trying to do, and how, would be deaf, dumb, blind due to partisan and other comprehensive biases and prejudices. Many of these people are also those who believe the earth is 6000 years old.

Baracknophobia.

At least there is one Democrat that ain't buyng the BS. Too bad there aren't more like her.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-democrat-whos-afraid-criticize-president-obama-isis/story?id=29117774

Well, after all of his "Hope and Change" promises in 2008, it looks like Obama is determined to serve Dubya's third and fourth terms in office.

I think he learned his lesson about the Iraq pullout. ISIS has pissed all over his line in the sand.

Why was it constitutional when Reagan And Bush1 did the same thing?

They did NOT do the same thing. They were tweaking existing legislation, which is constitutional. Obama is not. He is claiming "prosecutorial discretion", but granting illegal immigrants work authorization and benefits has never been a matter of prosecutorial discretion, hence the violation of the constitution.

The federal tea party judge in Texas did not rule on the constitutionality of the immigration executive action, nor did he rule on the statutory legality of it because he knows he'd be reversed on appeal.

The activist tea party judge made new law by saying the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 suddenly has a new provision, that policy making is subject to the act. This is a new and radical interpretation of the long standing act.

It will take time for this ruling to make its way to the SCOTUS where one can be reasonably confident this will arrive as shocking news.

Yes, I have every confidence in the SCOTUS, after all Justice Ginsburg is at the top of her game.http://nypost.com/2015/02/13/ginsburg-not-100-percent-sober-at-state-of-the-union/

Actually, I don't blame her at all, I would need to knock back, a couple before going to listen to that.

Maybe he was just angry that Obama was telling blatant falsehoods n order to sell Obamacare. He did did earn Lie of The Year for telling tall tales and it would hard to listen to, if you realized it already. Exposing those lies, would be patriotic in most people's books.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

Until then no member of Congress had shouted at a president in the House chamber during a State of the Union address because he disagreed with the president.

This is radical disrespect of the office and it is out of order which is typical of the infantile and juvenile extreme tea party right.

We didn't have Obama before. Actually, for disliking someone, I dislike Harry Reid and Pelosi far more.

Huh? Where did you get that from - other than from thin air?

You mean the thin hot air?

It must be very confusing, for those reading this thread who aren't mainlining the Fox News koolaid. Where does all this hatred of Obama come from? The United States is doing so well.

Let me try and explain. You see, first of all, Obama is a negro...

On the other hand, some would say racists are how the guy got into office.

I think the real problems were noted before the first election, no foreign policy experience, and very little, real domestic policy experience. I don't have any confidence in the man, about the economy, he never owned or managed a company. Did he ever even hold a real job outside of politics? He certainly isn't alone in D.C. but I don't think he really understands who, or what he is dealing with, especially in the Middle East.

The school was working on me getting a work permit, but I never gave them the photos they required to continue the paperwork. When I went to Laos to obtain the Non-B visa I deffo took some paperwork the school provided me with details of the school and such.

Does this mean in fact that I have a visa extension based on a work permit?

Thank you for the fast reply and sorry for the retarded questions, I am worried and just want a definite answer! Thank you very much.

I hope you have good luck, but if you really plan to stay here, you should read about the visa, and extension process so that you have clue as to what is going on.

I only ask because I want to know how much I should pay employees based on their credentials.

I would look at some of the job sites, like jobsdb.com etc, and see what the other companies are offering. You would at least get an idea, and what you need to compete with.

the presidents actions also violate the 14th Amendment which provides equal protection of the law to all citizens. The president arbitrarily deciding to enforce some laws and not others could put other third parties at risk they would not have if the law had been faithfully applied.

whatever he signed or however he decided to take this action, it is in violation of Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states...he (The President) shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

The new congress was sworn in nearly a month ago, and I was hoping for an update on the impeachment proceedings. The president did, after all, violate not only the 14th amendment but also Article II, Section 3, right? But for some reason I haven't seen anything in the news about it. How can this be? Surely we must be knee-deep in a Constitutional crisis that is tearing away at the very fabric of our revered Republic.

Maybe our resident Constitutional scholars could enlighten us.

It's the same as before the 2014 election, the Republicans don't want to get rid of Obama, he's the best weapon they have.

It looks like the almighty Republican congressional majority was hit by a “can of whoop-ass” by Professor Obama. He got them to amend the bill to state that climate change was real and not a hoax, and oil sands should no longer be exempt from a tax used to cleanup oil spills. If you understand Republican politics, those concessions are hurtful.

Now Republican Sen. Hoeven says, Obama "needs to work with Congress in a bipartisan way and approve the Keystone XL pipeline project for the American people," Please Obama, work with us. This indicates that Obama has enough leverage still to get further concessions on the bill to get his support. Not bad for a lame-duck POTUS.

KeystoneXL.jpg

As Chuckd says, this isn't over yet. One thing I like, is these items are being brought to vote, one way or the other, and it creates a record the Congressional Members can't hide from.

Israel (and in particular Netanyahu) needs to be told in no uncertain terms of its place in this relationship with the US. The US needs to cut Israel loose and let them fend for themselves in the next two years. From the $3 billion in annual handouts to hiding behind our skirt at the UN, they're now on their own. Come January 2017 and there's a new president, then we'll see if they have a better understanding of whether or not the tail wags the dog.

I think that is a great idea, then let's watch all of the money get sucked out of the Democrat Party between now and 2016. And when we do get a new President, either party, aid will not only be reinstated, but probably be increased.

One problem though, Obama doesn't have the guts to do it.

I hate to say it, but this is yet another "win" that Republicans have handed to President Obama. You know he's smiling every time he opens a newspaper or turns on the TV because it's all about Netanyahu and Speaker Boehner and whether or not what they're doing is acceptable. I wouldn't be surprised at all if his poll numbers go higher in the days and weeks to come. And now that Netanyahu has seen the writing on the wall and decided to throw the Speaker under the bus, the President is probably holding his sides from laughing so hard.

When are Republicans going to learn that they need to focus on jobs, trade deals and genuine infrastructure projects if they want the American public to support them?. This whole thing reeks of "politics as usual", and in my opinion, the American people are more than tired of that.

And by the way, I have to admit that I am surprised at how many American posters on this thread have revealed themselves to be "Israel-firsters".

It may be the other way around. If the Democrats are this concerned about a speech, how worried would they be, if Obama took some meaningful action, such as reducing or removing aid from Israel? Obama's got nothing.