Chile Forum

eeuunikkeiexpat wrote:CHANGE

These three might form a "special" counsel to the President for alternative solutions:

Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney and then

Jim Rogers, Peter Schiff on economic matters would be a start.

Add this to my earlier list of real proof of change list.

Some good names there. When you see people from different political perspectives (especially Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich) that agree on some issues, you know there's a good reason and it would be wise to pay attention.

RWS wrote:

admin wrote:Get out of here. Obama's criminal relations? How many people do you know, or more exactly do not know that you know, that have criminal records? . . . .

Few; and most of those, simply because I've occasionally undertaken criminal defense pro bono (I don't enjoy the practice, as criminal law is too simple to be intellectually challenging and the actions themselves are generally distasteful, but the quality of public defense that most accused receive is pretty low). I suppose my own family to be typical of the American population as a whole -- no criminals in my natal household nor within at least four degrees of kinship -- and still am surprised and saddened when new posters here ask for advice on how to smuggle merchandise into Chile or to defraud the Chilean government through scammed subsidy of real-estate purchases.

How absolutely fortunate for you RWS that criminal law is too simple to be intellectually challenging. Criminal law is a dirty deed best left to the strong and principled. I won't beat a dead horse with you on that subject, only to say you should know better to say something so pointed...I mean, as a student and scholar of law, and history and all your expertise. I was very offended with your puffy statement about criminal law being simple, and insinuating that it is not challenging. It is the foundation of the United States. Argue, as you may, how, and why the United States of America came to be, but it was a sincere distrust and desires to have a different way of life from mother England and her draconian laws. Here is something I wrote on my blog about Greg. Who was a Criminal Defense Attorney. Sometimes, RWS, the laws that make us criminals are wrong, and the people who enforce the laws are criminals. That's why you are misguided in your view of the practice of criminal law.

From my blog....

"I want to talk about brain injury, epilepsy, and patience, and relationships, and love. And wanderlust. I have two lifetimes ago to keep straight. The first lifetime ago began when Greg and I met and married. When he was a attorney to be reckoned with in criminal court, or in cases where he represented mentally ill people locked up in awful institutions for doing nothing more than going to a 7-11 in pajamas to buy an airplane ticket. He represented little, old black women arrested for raiding a recycle bin in a town where they "shouldn't have been". He did conspiracy trials, and drug cases, and divorces, and tackled a restoration of civil rights case for an incredible guy who had turned his life around but wasn't able to get a State business license because of his conviction 30-years ago (then). We live in a little leaning beach shack with our melded family, snorkeled on the weekends with the kids, went fishing, and enjoyed remodeling our slanty shack. That is my first lifetime ago."

And I will add that his fees for representation were often smoked mullet. Or a box of shrimp. Or a humble thank you. This, RWS, might be simple, but not intellectually simplistic, and certainly honorable. And as an edit addition (is that a "gramatical error? mispelling?) I would like to add that you are a pompous ....

On the Obama administration...I hope that this administration finds time between the wars, and the economy, to focus on the fundamental elements of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and restoring what has been lost. FYJH!

I'm irritated enough by your posting, Vicki, to respond bluntly.

I work about sixty or sixty-five hours a week. Most of that time, on average about forty hours, I work pro-bono (that is, I do not charge my clients for my time; and, no, I'm not employed by government or charity: I donate my time directly to my clients). The bulk of that pro-bono time is spent on criminal matters (the rest is scattered among tenancy, immigration, and other problems). So, after twenty years of practice, I know what I write about.

Greg may have found the practice of criminal law intellectually challenging. I do not; there is room in my universe for varieties of experience and perception, Vicki. I continue to handle criminal matters not for the intellectual challenge but because I wish to help others, especially those -- yes, the emotionally and intellectually impaired, the wayfarer, the frightened -- who without some such help could be submersed or lost forever.

I could go on but will not, save to caution all not to accuse without just cause.

Different though related subject: the United States did not come into existence through an attempt to institute different laws from the English but, quite the converse, to preserve the natural rights of free-born Englishmen, which (for the colonists) were threatened by the actions of Parliament and king.

Don't believe me? Read contemporaneous literature. You might begin with Letters from an American Farmer. Or consider why English law can still be good precedent in American courts.

RWS wrote:I'm irritated enough by your posting, Vicki, to respond bluntly.

Irritated? Quite the converse you say? Irregardless of your most illustrious verbal/grammatical/communication skills, and anticipating your response I shant spare time, and will be brief in my own humble, yet pointed (as I can be quite pointed in my irritating posts) response. I've been watching you pack your books and pontificate and contemplate for about 1700 posts.

Obama's tears can cure cancer!

Vicki and Greg Lansen wrote:

RWS wrote:I'm irritated enough by your posting, Vicki, to respond bluntly.

Irritated? Quite the converse you say? Irregardless of your most illustrious verbal/grammatical/communication skills, and anticipating your response I shant spare time, and will be brief in my own humble, yet pointed (as I can be quite pointed in my irritating posts) response. I've been watching you pack your books and pontificate and contemplate for about 1700 posts.

Indeed: there have been times when rambling through AllChile has been my chief recreation. And I still have thousands of books to go.

My point, Vicki, is tolerance: my response to the poor and needy is different from yours: I sacrifice time, money, health, and future through direct aid. Does that make my response superior to yours? I can't answer with surety; and neither can you. But I'm willing to believe that behind ill-considered words there's a caring heart; I'd urge you to do the same.

Edited to add: No pontification; regrettable if you perceive it so, but the cause of that is not within me.

Careful Chuck, one little criticism of Omama and people can get quite pissed off.

Cult of personality and all the MSM stuff ... beginning to remind of the true believers of the neocons they changed chairs with ...

Of course all this discourse is pointless as both sides in power ultimately serve the same Masters (unless POTUS wants to pull a JFK vs. the Federal Reserve again). First step would be the shitcan his "handler" Biden ... remember Cheney was the handler of brain damaged Bush junior.

JHyre wrote:BTW, great way to annoy libs:

John Hyre, stirring the pot, but not adding any ingredients.

And you say

I am happy to argue politely

Really, you consider yourself "polite" ? Who told you annoying particular people was polite?

His Holiness, Obama the Redeemer

I have never said anything like that but purposely said to annoy people like me. I contend President Obama is soooo much better than what we had.

And

A Note to Democrats: Pay Your Freaking Taxes! What Happened & Why:

is not contending

that Republicans do not have tax problems.Given that there are millions of Republicans, such a statement would be absurd. You have tried to attribute such an argument to me precisely because it would be absurd and, therefore, easy for you refute.

?

You followed by this by a new challenge since the other was absurd

What I do contend is that the Democrat leadership does have a significantly greater problem with taxes than the Republican leadership.

How many Republicans are currently being vetted by the current administration? Two chosen by bush the first term, didn't pay attention the 2nd.

Geithner, plucked from his job as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to serve as Obama's treasury secretary, told transition officials and senators that he didn't know he owed self-employment taxes when he worked for the International Monetary Fund.

So much of what you say is just incorrect. You said

Tim Geithner: Just in case you missed it, he is in charge of Treasury, which runs the IRS. If there is one guy in the country for whom “ignorance of the tax law” is no excuse, Tim is that guy. Tim did not pay his social security/self-employment taxes for several years even though his employer explicitly reimbursed him for those exact taxes.

Well, no, they didn't.

Geithner failed to pay self-employment taxes for money he earned 2001 to 2004 while working for the IMF, according to materials released by the Senate committee. In 2006, the IRS notified him that he owed $14,847 in self-employment taxes and $1,885 in interest from 2003 and 2004, which he paid after an audit. The IRS waived penalties for those tax years. Geithner and his supporters have said his mistake was a common one for people hired by international organizations that don't pay the employer share of Social Security taxes. The IRS estimated in 2007 that as many as half those employees had made tax-filing mistakes, and offered a group settlement to let them correct the errors.

There are those of us on the left that are thrilled it's not GW and that Obama has done some things correctly. And I may have some problems with Geithner but his taxes are the least of them. We'll be paying attention. I don't think republicans paid attention to anything GW did other than "Whee, we got another tax cut" and "sex is bad". The deficit doubled, wall street went crazy under new de-regulation, the US Constitution was ignored, government grew at a pace unparalleled and when Eliot Spitzer tried to go after these criminals, they got him for sex with a prostitute. I figure the guy that wrote this article didn't last long.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... _mz007.htm

In December 2005, John Whitehead, a former top Wall Street executive, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Spitzer threatened him in a telephone conversation earlier that year, saying, "I will be coming after you. You will pay the price," for publicly criticizing Spitzer's investigation of an ally, AIG insurance magnate Maurice Greenberg.

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stor ... t-spitzer/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=8376

They got him. He was paying a prostitute. I just don't care. Wall street, I care. Wall street cheered when they caught by way of the Anti money Laundering portion of the Patriot Act. And we know how the AIG thing worked out. Moral, my ass. The immorality on Wall street has nothing to with sex. They are corrupt and immoral to the core. You don't have to lie and cheat to make a good living. But no one is ever rich enough.

On February 14, Spitzer published a signed article in the influential Washington Post titled, "Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers." That article, laying clear blame on the Administration for the development of the sub-prime crisis, appeared the day after his ill-fated tryst with the prostitute at the Mayflower Hotel. Just a coincidence?

"A useful rule of thumb in evaluating spectacular scandals around prominent public figures is to ask what and who might want to eliminate that person. In the case of Governor Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat, it is clear that the spectacular "leak" of government FBI wiretap records showing that Spitzer paid a high-cost prostitute $4,300 for what amounted to about an hour’s personal entertainment, was politically motivated. The press has almost solely focused on the salacious aspects of the affair, not least the hefty fee Spitzer apparently paid. Why the scandal breaks now is the more interesting question."

Larry Craig(R) voted against the Patriot Act and they got him too. Nobody noticed because he might be one of those homosexuals.

The Bush Administration determined that you had better be in lock step and so they are to this day. And now they have a new black head of the party, Michael Steele. "Steele defended former Gov. Bob Ehrlich's decision to hold a $100,000 fundraiser at a country club that did not allow non-white members, saying that the club's membership's policies were "not an issue" because "I don't play golf." But you've heard of Tiger Woods, right?

What matters more, sex, homosexuals or stealing money?

I won't bother with any more silliness, rant all you like. Mostly I do let this stuff go. I've wasted quite enough time here.

eeuunikkeiexpat wrote:Careful Chuck, one little criticism of Omama and people can get quite pissed off.

Cult of personality and all the MSM stuff ... beginning to remind of the true believers of the neocons they changed chairs with ...

Of course all this discourse is pointless as both sides in power ultimately serve the same Masters (unless POTUS wants to pull a JFK vs. the Federal Reserve again)....

I know. I can't say anything about the Sainted One or mention his sacred name, p.u.b.h. (peace be unto him) or I may be up on charges. Double-bad thought crime which is a class 2 felony.

I'm getting the feeling that the Sainted One thinks he's 'in charge.' I doubt he will do anything that directly contravenes the parasites, such as abolish the FED. RESV. I.M.O. the Sainted One is not smart enough to think of that. That's partly why he was selected and groomed for all these years, he's pliable and not too smart. But I think he will annoy his owners quite a bit with various "pet issues" that are not part of the greater agenda. It will be instructive to watch this comedy as it plays out.

Chuck J 3.0 wrote:

eeuunikkeiexpat wrote:Careful Chuck, one little criticism of Omama and people can get quite pissed off.

Cult of personality and all the MSM stuff ... beginning to remind of the true believers of the neocons they changed chairs with ...

Of course all this discourse is pointless as both sides in power ultimately serve the same Masters (unless POTUS wants to pull a JFK vs. the Federal Reserve again)....

I know. I can't say anything about the Sainted One or mention his sacred name, p.u.b.h. (peace be unto him) or I may be up on charges. Double-bad thought crime which is a class 2 felony.

I'm getting the feeling that the Sainted One thinks he's 'in charge.' I doubt he will do anything that directly contravenes the parasites, such as abolish the FED. RESV. I.M.O. the Sainted One is not smart enough to think of that. That's partly why he was selected and groomed for all these years, he's pliable and not too smart. But I think he will annoy his owners quite a bit with various "pet issues" that are not part of the greater agenda. It will be instructive to watch this comedy as it plays out.

Hi Chuck, Sorry for hijacking the thread but can I ask you about your time in Arica? I've seen you mention that you lived a bare bones existence for about $800 a month. About what was the exchange rate at that time? Did you eat at home all the time? Have good internet? Overall did you enjoy living there on that much or was it a grind? I'm considering Arequipa, Peru too due to bigger place with more going on. Overall, outside of Lima, Peru looks more affordable than Chile although Arica appears comparable. Any opinions appreciated!

Wade

PM me vanman.