JohnnyD

DI Sgt. Kilpatrick I was the best man in his wedding 11 years later.

She moved, then dropped off the face of the earth. Mujie too.

Maybe its just me, but I found that to be hilarious.

Read here: http://www.irs.gov/individuals/military/index.html You still have some time before you have to file/pay. If you have already filed, you can file an ammended return if you find some reason for doing so. I really hope you can find something of use. Its ridiculous that you get a tax bill.

If she doesn't know that you know, don't tell her. Call a lawyer. Good luck.

If they would just get around to doing it, I don't think many people would have a problem with it.

I'm NOT saying that, nor do I interpret Bush's statements to mean that. Where are you getting this? A guest worker program that does NOT grant permanent residency is what I'd like to see. That's the point. Tighten up the borders as best we can. Make TEMPORARY work visas easier to get for people who have family or a reason to go back (This is kinda how getting a visa works now, btw). Let them work, pay taxes, and go home till next time. Now we have more control over who's coming in and out. Combine that with more effective controls over people hiring illegals and you have a step towards a workable, realistic solution. I suppose you'd just have ALL immigration shut down? Sure... that's realistic. Because it isn't giving them permanent residence just because we can't be bothered to get them out. That's not what anyone is saying... they'd have to COME IN as a guest worker. It makes it better for them? Like they get free education and healthcare while they're here? Wait, that's happening NOW! The guest worker program would at least get some tax dollars from them. Also, many would make their money and go home at some point. Contrary to what we might think as Americans... not EVERYONE would rather live here. But like I said, that can be determined at the application for the guest worker visa. Okay, so if not that, what? We are basically in agreement. The plan the president is supporting will grant legal status (temporarily) to people who are already here illegally. I disagree completely with that idea. It is amnesty. People who are already here illegally are not going to just leave if we make them temporarily legal. Other than that, I am agreeing with you. I think your ideas are solid, common sense ideas that should work. IMO - I think we should start a clock and say: if you are here illegally, you will not get amnesty, but we will give you 30 days (or however long is a resonable time frame) to get legal. After that, we will find you and it will be nearly impossible for you to come back after we throw you out.

Ok, I believe you. Its not a crime. Going to an event you don't have a ticket for seems like a good analogy to me. You get turned away. I guess my point is this: there is an illegal immigration problem in the US. The manifestations of this problem cover a wide range from national security to socio-economic. I think national security should have a priority over the other areas. Yes, undocumented workers are a very cheap source of labor. IMO, cheap labor should not trump national security. The president is supporting an amnesty program that I believe will not only help our current problems, but make them worse. Regardless of what he choses to call the program, it is amnesty.

____________________________________ Illegally entering the U.S. for the purpose of living and/or working here is not a felony or a mis-demeanor. It is a violation of the Immigration and Nationality laws of this country. There is no jail or prison sentence involved. Illegals are 'detained' until transportation returns them to their native country. After 3-apprehensions, deportation procedings are started. They are not arrested, they are 'apprehended'. The job of the Border Patrol is to 'stop' them from going any further. In essence, they really have not comitted a 'crime'. Chuck I believe it is a crime, punishable by removal from the country. I'll agree that it is not part of our penal code, but it is part of our legal structure and breaking laws involve consequences (or should). Not enforcing the consequences will not ensure that the law will not be broken. In fact, I believe it invites the law to be broken.

Doesn't matter and I'll tell you why. 1. This is not breaking news. We have known for years - even prior to the invasion of Iraq that there was contact but not collaboration between SH and OBL. 2. This is really shitty reporting. Again, we've known of the contact for a long time. There is no "pact" and after this article says there is, it goes on to detail: nothing at all we don't already know. I'm sure people with limited reading comprehension skills will insist there is some sort of pact. The wording is obviously slanted to have the reader believe there is a lot more there than there is. I hadn't made a judgement on news max before, but this certainly sways my opinion. 3. Any magic documents that are uncovered now are irrelevent - even if they are genuine (which this is not). We needed to have these documents BEFORE we invaded. After doesn't even come close. 4. No WMDs. That is what sold the American public on this war and there are none. Anything less than WMDs is spin and damage control and they are not there and never were. Finally, I think Americans are growing weary of hearing nothing but spin and outright bullshit about this war.

If those children were born before they came into the US with their illegally-immigrating parents, then they're illegal, too. If you mean children born in the US to illegal immigrant parents, well, the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution conveys citizenship upon them automatically upon birth. The only way to change that would be to amend the Constitution. It cannot be done by a mere act of Congress. Interesting point. Maybe one of the shysters will have some knowledge of this, but it begs the question: If your citizenship was resultant of the comission of a crime, is the citizenship valid? I assume there is already a legal precedent to answer the question. Anyone?

Then you post: It IS hard to enter the US legally if they think looking for a job and looking to stay. Ask some folks that are trying to do things the right way now and see if it's a walk in the park. A lot of illegals cross the border several times a year to go home to their families. Guest worker programs would make that legal for them to do, provide us with labor that we need, and make sure that these guys are paying taxes for the services they get while here. If employers were punished for hiring illegally, a guest worker program could prevent people from being hired once their work visa is expired. They'd have to go home to renew. It could work. What would possibly lead you to believe that all the people who have come here illegally will magically stop breaking immigration laws if we give them a free pass for past transgressions? That is, at best, beautifully naive. The people who broke the law, risked their lives, and invested their life savings to get into america are not just going to pack up and leave because some politician in Washington DC who has never even been to the border thinks it would be just swell if we could suspend reality and make that happen. We can not say its ok to break the law and then hope that people will just stop doing it out of the sheer goodness of their hearts. Also, how is this guest worker program not amnesty? If we say: yes, you are all here illegally and its ok this time, that _is_ amnesty. What it also does is grant legal status, which makes it even better here for those people. IMO that is taking a situation that is borderline out of control and making it even worse. The proper resopnse to a clearly identified problem is not to turn away from it and just hope it gets better.

Not 100% really, but I DO oppose the amnesty programs. Guest worker programs, if managed properly, are the way to go... and the president is for that. Then he also said this though.... We'll see if he REALLY does oppose amnesty or not. ??? He is clearly supporting amnesty. Here is the quote: "Bush wants Congress to create a program to allow foreigners to gain legal status for a set amount of time to do specific jobs. When the time is up, they would be required to return home without an automatic path to citizenship. "As we debate the immigration issue, we must remember there are hardworking individuals, doing jobs that Americans will not do, who are contributing to the economic vitality of our country," he said. I understand the popular thing to do is say "I do not support amnesty", however, if the president is supporting the granting of legal status to illegal immigrants, that is EXACTLY what he is doing. Where I grew up, we call that pissing down someone's back and telling them its raining. I also oppose amnesty. It isn't that hard to enter the us of a legally. The proposal to grant legal status to illegal immigrants for a period of time and then expect them to just leave on their own is flat out stupid.

Not sure I understand your query...do you mean to say that someone who holds some of the same beliefs as the president and/or republican party can't disagree on others? For example, I'm pro gun and pro woman's choice (to me, they are nearly identical issues; it's about personal responsibility and choices without government interference, but that seems to get lost on people sometimes...), so does that make me a republican or a democrat? IOW, can't someone agree with part of a platform and disagree with others, and not have that be a problem? Absolutely. In fact, most people with a little bit of brain matter that is functional are not totally in agreement with any political party. In SC, that is usually not the case. I'm shocked there have been this many posts without a degradation into pure right/left crap flinging. As someone who has been across the border many times illegally (used to live in SD), I wish it would be easier to get someone who lives in Indiana, for example, to understand that our borders are unbelievably porous.

You realize you are in direct opposition to the president, yes? The pres is currently supporting proposed legislation in the Senate that would grant illegals a free pass to stay in America because, as the president says, "As we debate the immigration issue, we must remember there are hardworking individuals, doing jobs that Americans will not do, who are contributing to the economic vitality of our country." No way you could make that up and have it sound believable. Wait - there's more. Just when you thought it couldn't get any better. The legislation the president is supporting was sponsored, in part, by Ted Kennedy.

I believe that was Ben Franklin's second cousin, Lester.

Check your state's laws, I'm willing to bet there are similar laws on the books in your state. Remember, this isn't about trying to prevent a crime. If folks actually followed the links I posted and read the text, then they would know that. Obviously people are more willing to complain then actually understand what is going on. Dave, you are absolutely right! When you think about the good police work you are doing, you must be welling up with pride. All the years of school, the academy, the studying, training, pt, countless rounds down range, cqb, learning to drive police cars at triple digit speeds while weaving through traffic. I know, you're thinking the guys who live a few streets over may be in homicide, ia, vice, or undercover. Weak shit. Not you though. You're putting your training and commitment to its fullest use - protecting bar patrons from drunks. No telling where those people might fall down. Seriously. Not to mention the small business owner of the bar. Start busting his patrons and that menace to society will be missing his mortgage payments in no time. Personally, I can't think of a better use of our tax dollars. btw - I'm just hacking on you. In all seriousness, no cop I know (more than just a couple) would feel good about doing shit work like this, but every one would walk the line.

NICE GOING TEXAS! Do people there realize their tax dollars are being spent on cops going into bars and arresting people for .... being drunk? Not to mention, those people have to be taken to jail and then go to court - all on the taxpayers dime. God forbid the cops would go out and try to catch actual criminals. Nope, not in Texas. They just roll into a bar and start arresting people. I guess the new "shooting fish in a barrel" is now "arresting drunks in bars". Chalk this up as reason # 897 why we should trade Texas back to Mexico for oil.

Totally agree. The leadership is the real problem. What truly sickens me is the way they are treating the soldiers.

No but breaking the law as set out in the UCMJ by being a sadistic fuck..... sounds like he needs to be right where he is at.. on the other side of the bars. This poor bastard - like the rest of the poor bastards we have put in prison - are not rogue soldiers taking it upon themselves to torture prisoners (or enemy combatants or whatever we're calling them today). The problem is much more profound and is at a much higher level than some reservists. The Gonzales Record Thursday, January 6, 2005; Page A18 THE SENATE JUDICIARY Committee begins confirmation hearings today for Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush's choice to head the Justice Department. Mr. Gonzales is in some respects an attractive nominee: His life story is compelling, his views on some issues are comparatively moderate and his calm demeanor would be a reassuring change from that of his predecessor, John D. Ashcroft. Yet senators must scrutinize Mr. Gonzales's record. The man who has served as White House counsel these past four years must not become attorney general without clarifying his role in decisions that helped lead to the prisoner abuse scandal and to restrictions of civil liberties. More broadly, the Senate should ask whether Mr. Gonzales is capable of giving Mr. Bush dispassionate legal advice, rather than -- as he seems to have done so often in the past -- telling the president what he wants to hear. The concerns about Mr. Gonzales begin with his having urged Mr. Bush to deny that the Geneva Conventions apply in Afghanistan. The "new paradigm" of the war on terrorism, reads a January 2002 draft memorandum written in his name, "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners." Mr. Gonzales's aggressive advice was directly counter to that of both the State Department and the military brass. And while Mr. Bush eventually declared that the conventions did apply, he followed Mr. Gonzales's advice not to fully comply with them. Rather, he took the unnecessary step of declaring all detainees "unlawful combatants," and therefore beyond the conventions' protection, without complying with the process international law contemplates for that judgment. This move proved fateful when the headquarters of Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, citing the president's position on "unlawful combatants," approved such interrogation techniques in Iraq as hooding, forcing prisoners into "stress positions" and menacing detainees with dogs. Mr. Gonzales commissioned the now-infamous torture memorandum from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. The memo followed a meeting in his office regarding the interrogation of a key al Qaeda detainee, in which participants discussed such methods as "waterboarding," mock burial and slapping. Mr. Gonzales played a key role in the formation of military commissions, a system that, three years after detainees began arriving at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has yet to produce a single trial. The military commissions are now the subject of litigation, with one judge having already declared them illegal. Last year the Supreme Court rejected other Bush administration policies in the war on terrorism as well: its contention that American citizens like Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi could be indefinitely detained without access to attorneys and the notion that Guantanamo could operate without judicial supervision. Across a range of areas, in short, Mr. Gonzales appears to have given the president legal advice that may have empowered him in the short term -- to lock up people he deemed dangerous, to try detainees using a system untested for decades, even to torture -- but that have a great disservice to the president and the country in the long run. Positions he has advocated have damaged U.S. prestige, courted judicial rebuke and greatly complicated the long-term goal of establishing legal regimes that will stand over the course of a long war. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Gonzales as his chief counsel gave him only the most cursory briefings on upcoming executions, omitting important facts and mitigating circumstances, according to a 2003 article in the Atlantic Monthly. Perhaps this was what Mr. Bush wanted. But the attorney general's job is not to give the president what he wants. Senators should with great care ask Mr. Gonzales to fill in the aspects of his record that are not known and to explain how he justifies those decisions that appear to have harmed the nation. The country needs an attorney general capable and confident enough to stand up for the law and deliver arm's-length legal advice. Before voting to confirm, senators need to satisfy themselves that -- notwithstanding his history -- Mr. Gonzales can and will deliver such advice.

http://www.ellsworthbikes.com/./bikes/index.cfm

During his administration, Clinton was attacked for trying to get OBL. After he was out of office, he was attacked for not getting him, but he would have also blown up members of the UAE royal family who were at the terrorist training camp with him - the same guys GWB wanted to give control of our ports to.

If you think its that important, why don't you do it? I think there could be a number of reasons: 1. You're a coward and can't do it. 2. You don't -really- think she deserves to be shot and you're just a blowhard with a keyboard. Nothing else coming off the top of my head. Guess this is just my day to be sick of people who are all talk and no action. Reminds me of the Democratic party - all talk and no action. Just a bunch of windbags talking out their collective asses. Problem is they all have shit breath. Exhale Better now. Thanks.

This is nothing more than a totally false urban legend. Strangely enough, it is a person such as Jane Fonda that makes me grateful to be American, where I can have free thoughts and opinions. People, such as some in this thread who advocate the execution of people for thoughts and actions which never even happened are true disappointments. They scream the loudest about American values and freedom, but possess neither.

Are you honestly suggesting that Jane Fonda killed American troops? Really?? Seriously???