MySpace


MySpace.com | rss | sign in
The Curmudgeon

Charles Riley


Last Updated: 9/8/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: Married
Age: 62
Sign: Aquarius

City: Jacksonville
State: Florida
Country: US
Signup Date: 10/18/2005

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
Sunday, November 01, 2009 


Photobucket

The whole family has been captured by Madison.

8:20 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Thursday, October 15, 2009 
Showtime! The Insurance Companies last minute attacks on the Baucus Bill. The Great Scam.



I believe that the American Health Insurance Companies false report and attack on the Baucus Bill is show and tell giving cover to Democrats who vote on a bill without a public option.

Making themselves the "bad guys" gives those Democrats who are owned by them the ability to vote for the Baucus Bill while saying that they are fighting the "mean ole Insurance Companies". The Baucus Bill without a real public option is a gift to insurance companies. The Insurance industry will make billions from tax supported subsidies and monies from young people who will now become mandatory customers. I am not opposed to mandatory customers to spread the cost of covering all citizens; but without a real public option open to everyone this is financial padding to Insurance executives.

I predict that the final bill will be mostly the Baucus Bill with triggers. A trigger is the creation of a public option when the Insurance companies do not reign in prices. A trigger was created for the medicare drug program which was never pulled resulting in billions to Insurance companies. Triggers have never been effective. Usually they are set so high that they are never reached or by the time they are reached, they are ignored by Congress because the political issue has been forgotten by the public. When Congress votes for a trigger that means that they really intend to do nothing. All the attention to Olympia Snowe is a sign that is what the administration intends to settle on.

In summary, the dance continues. Democrats will claim kudos for bringing "reform" by voting for so called health insurance for all and standing up to the Insurance companies. Republicans will say later that the reform didn't work because it was too expensive which it will become. The Insurance Companies while pretending to be villains will act contrite before the trigger all the while laughing all the way to the bank.
If the left is able to get further reform when these measures fail, the Insurance companies will have made billions,possibly trillions. If Republicans can get people to believe that the "so called reforms" were too expensive, the Insurance companies will collect exorbitant premiums decades longer with less real coverage for all. Heads, Ins. executives and wall street wins, tails the public loses.

Medicare for all is the only real health care reform. It may come years down the road; but only after Insurance companies have profited more from feeding off the taxpayers and the premiums of the insured.

I really hope that I am wrong. I will be happy to be in error on this..

Charlie
12:27 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Tuesday, August 18, 2009 
Best sign seen at an anti-health care protest. Absolutely on the mark. - Charlie


Photobucket
12:52 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Saturday, August 08, 2009 
This was made in 2006. Simplistic, but prophetic. - Charlie


12:18 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Friday, August 07, 2009 
Just discovered- Orly Taitz's birth certificate. Orly Taitz Birth Certificate
11:07 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Tuesday, August 04, 2009 

11:23 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Monday, July 27, 2009 
Quittin Time? You Betcha!

To the youth of America. When the going gets tough, quit.

Photobucket Picture from: Mudflats
10:44 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Friday, July 24, 2009 
I love this.  The couple was on the Today Show this morning. 


8:48 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Friday, July 24, 2009 
"Cambridge Police Act Stupidly"

Have been watching this controversy with interest. Was the policeman a racist? " Was Henry Gates belligerent?

One question bothers me. How can one be considered for a charge of "disorderly conduct" in their own home.

From Criminal law resource

"Disorderly conduct is one of the most common offenses in the United States, and is often the result of unreasonable police officers giving someone a hard time until they lose their cool.

Disorderly conduct generally includes most kinds of unruly or disturbing behaviors, which acts to provoke a disturbance.

Disorderly conduct laws exist in every state, and are often used as a “catch-all” charge for minor offenses. It is important to note that disorderly conduct is a prosecutable offense, which can lead to fines, jail time, and other punishments upon conviction.

Examples of Disorderly Conduct

Disorderly conduct offenses vary widely by state. Here are some of the most common acts that are considered disorderly conduct offenses:

* Public drunkenness
* Inciting a riot
* disturbance of the peace
* loitering in certain areas
* fighting / physical altercations
* obstructing traffic
* use of extremely obscene or abusive language
* loud or unreasonable noise

Given the wide range of behaviors that could constitute disorderly conduct, a person may be arrested for this crime without proper cause. Virtually any socially offensive or disruptive conduct may be prosecuted as disorderly conduct."


Web site with police officer's report

http://www.thesmokinggun.c..om/archive/years/2009/0723..092gates1.html

I have read the complete report.

The officer, James Crowley, states that the arrest was not racially based. Yet, he does not report that Mr. Gates cursed or physically threatened him. He does report that Mr. Gates threatened him with retribution politically. Many prominent citizens who are stopped for tickets make similar threats to police. They are often issued the ticket and that's that.

The officer reported that Mr. Gates kept calling him a racist and was shouting at him inside. After identifying that Mr. Gates was the homeowner, the officer said that he left the house because he could not hear or communicate over his radio with gates shouting. He also told Gates to come out on the porch.

In the report, the officer justifies the arrest because Gates continued to yell at him in public on the porch. The problem. The officer knew Mr. Gates was angry; but invited him outside and arrested him.

Although not in the report, the officer has stated that he asked Mr. Gates to come outside because he was concerned that there was a perp inside. However, prior to this public statement, the officer admitted that he thought Mr. Gates was the homeowner.

After identifying that Mr. Gates was the homeowner why didn't the officer simply leave knowing that there was no break in? Or he could have just patiently listened to Gates on the porch while the other officers cleared the house making sure that there were no perps there.

There is no indication in the report that the officer had the other policemen search the house belying the officer's stated concern about perps.

I suspect that the officer did not see himself as being racist. It sure looks like he got angry at being yelled at and being called a racist.

My Belief is that the officer should have simply left after identifying that Mr. Gates was the home owner regardless of the fact that he was showing anger at the officer. The public is often difficult to deal with. The record shows that the officer has actually taught racial sensitivity to other officers. Deescalating a situation is part of such training. Sometime the best deescalation to such a situation is to simply walk away and write your report showing that you were threatened with political reprisal so that one's superiors are notified of a possible impending political situation.

After reading the report, I think that Officer Crowley acted "stupidly' particularly since he was an instructor on racial sensitivity.
5:01 PM 
3 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Wednesday, July 22, 2009 
I am a very liberal Democrat. I am for Universal Health Care., voter's rights, alternative energy, including Nuclear, once the fusion problem is resolved, Gay marriage, etc.

I am somewhat stupid about why the left is getting their knickers in a twist about the Federal amendment to have concealed carry in all states that have laws for concealed carry. In short, the law calls for the right of a person to have his concealed carry recognized by other states that have a concealed carry law.

I think this amendment is designed to distract from the agenda for public option on health care. Why do I think this?

Simply put. Just about every state that has a concealed carry law also has a reciprocity clause that already recognizes the concealed carry license of an individual from any other state that has a concealed carry law. I think there are some states that do not recognize other states because of some differentiation in the laws. Most are those with very limited concealed carry for business purposes. Those who offer it to their citizens usually have reciprocity.

Those states that have limited concealed carry should be allowed to remain that way. Conservative constitutionalists. Where are you on states rights? Are you out there? Only to be honored for the things that you want? Funny, how the political right mouths states rights unless some of those laws go against their wishes.

To solve this the Federal law could stipulate that it will recognize concealed carry permits from other states that have the same clauses as their own state. In other words, a state with limited concealed carry would only recognize concealed carry that was obtained for a business purpose not a citizen concealed carry. Other states would have to give a similar permit for such carry. Guess they would have to rework their laws to have separate laws for those that purchase them for business purposes ie. proving they have to protect themselves for handling large sums of money. What could be fairer?

I do have a concealed carry license in Florida.

Charlie
2:00 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate