MANNING, S.C. - Amber Renee Helton was trying to avoid legal problems by paying a traffic ticket. She ended up behind bars when authorities found out she drove a stolen car to the courthouse to pay it, police said.
Clarendon County deputies received a tip that Helton was going to be in a stolen car when she paid the ticket, Chief Deputy Joe Bradham said.
So officers arrested Helton as she opened the door of the 2001 Dodge Intrepid at the courthouse Tuesday morning, authorities said.
See link - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20748136/?gt1=10357
Question - What are your thoughts ?
2007-09-14 10:29:12 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics
The church is going to have a dance. The nun’s have a special group of people who kiss there *** if you know what I mean. My 16 year old sister is having problems with one of the girls and the nun’s told that girl to tell every one if my sister show up, they are not going to let her in, only her family but no her. If that happened what do I need to do that is call discrimination is in. Can we sue them for this. We all have the same right to get in if we pay, they can’t chose who they like better and who they like less.
2007-09-14 10:28:30 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics
I say no to both. If the Dream Act in passed it would not only try up the limited fund for financial aid, but even if it is a one time deal, just look to the amnesty of 1986 that was also supposed to be a one time deal. It would only encourage more to not only bring their own children but those of their families and friends
2007-09-14 10:28:18 · 5 answers · asked by jean 7 in Immigration
I can't wait till the day there are parades for Bush in the streets of Iraq, how long will it take till then?
2007-09-14 10:25:27 · 13 answers · asked by Edge Caliber 6 in Politics
ok under army regulation code 608-99 the spouse is entitled to a certain amount of money depending on the rank of the solider which has to be paid at the end of evry month until the divorce goes through. question is .. what if it was a seperation for other reasons then to divorce?? (i have to go home and take care of my grandma also im three months preg...) would that money stillm be in affect? i just dont want to leave with no way to pay for a place to stay..
2007-09-14 10:24:25 · 9 answers · asked by LiL Mama14 2 in Military
Dubai, LSE Thomas H Lee Partners Fosazione Cassa do Risparmio di Torino, China International Capitol, Deutsche Bank, Blackstone Group, Alstom, Western Digital......?????
2007-09-14 10:23:15 · 4 answers · asked by nsprdwmn 3 in International Organizations
My fiance has smoked weed for a long time now, and at times hes mentioned quitting but he jus keeps smoking everyday. h is originally from Bosnia and went through Bosnian/Serbian War back in '93 with his parents and 3 other brothers. Being with him for so long, Ive come to understand that his family is always real high-drama [more than the average american family anyway]. Im not too sure if they all suffer from P.T.S.S or what, but I understand his excuse for smoking. However, I feel I would be of more help if I could give him some thorough reasons why it's only doing bad things to him, other than polluting his lungs, or losing memory...Can anyone out there help me, in explanation to what else its doing/can do to him over time? I want explain things to him that hes probably never heard about Marijuana...PLZ help quick!
2007-09-14 10:21:53 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law Enforcement & Police
do you think the jury gave the correct verdict, considering she had smoked 10 cannabis joints and 2 bottles of wine.
i am reffering too the grandmother who let the pitball into the home, and it then attacked and killed her granddaughter
2007-09-14 10:20:47 · 20 answers · asked by louise d 6 in Law & Ethics
please just yes or no answers
2007-09-14 10:17:17 · 3 answers · asked by MoeJoe 2 in Government
The anti-Iraq-war crowd is always quick to say they “support the troops.” But it’s not an expression of support when you accuse the top “troop” of lying, cherry-picking facts, and serving as a uniformed mouthpiece for the president, especially when all evidence is to the contrary.
That’s exactly what MoveOn.org has done with its full-page ad in the New York Times, accusing the top “troop” — four-star Gen. David Petraeus — of “betraying” the nation he has sworn to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. Many top Democrats — accepting backing from MoveOn and refusing to take a public stance against the organization’s very public condemnation of the general — are also guilty by association.
Worse, during this week’s Iraq-report hearings, many of those same Democrats lied on the record by expressing “respect” for the “distinguished” and “honorable” service of both Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker on the one hand, then accusing both men of presenting a report that required — in the words of Sen. Hillary Clinton — “the willing suspension of disbelief.”
They can’t have it both ways. Petraeus cannot be an honorable man (honorable men only tell the truth), and at the same time a liar who would betray his country. He’s one or the other.
The problem for the Dems is that they — and most of the country — know he’s the former. The Dems also know that he is the ranking American soldier in Iraq, and whether or not they support the war, they’ve all been proclaiming support for the troops despite how hollow that support may ring.
Petraeus’s truth is a serious problem for the Dems, and one that was foretold by one of their own, Congressman Jim Clyburn, a few months ago.
When asked what the Democrats would do if Petraeus returned in September with good news about real progress in Iraq, Clyburn — who I’m ashamed to admit hails from my own state of South Carolina — said, “Well, that would be a real grave problem for us, no question about it.” Why? Because politics and power are far more important to the Dems than an American victory in Iraq.
They know it. They dare not for political reasons admit it: just like they dare not admit their contempt for Petraeus because he is the starched, polished, and bemedaled symbol of what they all along have claimed to support: which is “the troops” in Iraq.
As Congressman Roy Blunt said:
It’s not every day that sees a four-star general, a Princeton Ph.D., a recipient of the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, and the chief author of the Army’s definitive counterinsurgency manual testify before Congress. But in Gen. Petraeus, my colleagues were presented with every bit of that assembled expertise in the form of a single man.
Again, this is part of the problem for the Democrats, because as they well-know, Petraeus is simply too distinguished, too educated, too decorated, too experienced, and too believable to the American people to suit the Dems.
Simply put, Petraeus entered the halls of Congress this week, a strong man armed with the truth. And it was not the truth they wanted to hear. Nor was it the truth some of their supporters, like MoveOn.org, wanted to hear. The MoveOn crowd knew the honorable and believable general was coming, so they preempted the truth with their $65,000 smear (The Times cut them a very big break on a $181,000 ad), and it backfired on all of them.
Sure, the Dems say they support the troops, but only because they see the rank-and-file troops as being too young, dumb, and inexperienced to know what’s best for them. The Dems will publicly proclaim that the troops have performed magnificently, yet they say their efforts have failed.
Sen. Joe Biden loves to publicly refer to soldiers as “kids.” And they — the big congressmen and senators on Capitol Hill — are best suited to make wartime strategic and tactical decisions for those “kids.”
In other words, the Dems want to keep the troops in their places. The Dems want to appear to the rest of America that they have the troops best interests at heart. The Dems want the troops’ votes, and they are stymied by the fact that in an unpopular war, the military enlistment and reenlistment rates continue to meet or exceed goal, and the troops — by and large — don’t vote for Democrats.
So the Left in this country actually has two problems when it comes to Iraq: First, we’re making solid gains in a very tough counterinsurgency. Petraeus and Crocker have reported the situation as they know it to be, and as Clyburn says, that’s “a real grave problem” for the Dems.
Second, the Left simply doesn’t understand the modern American military. These aren’t “kids.” These are professionals. And serving among these professionals are literally thousands of potential Petraeuses. Of course, they won’t all wear stars, because the competition for such lofty rank is so keen, their peers and competitors so sharp. But what the Left doesn’t understand — and what was so obvious to me in Iraq, and now watching the hearings here this week — is that the troops are reflected in Petraeus, and Petraeus can be seen in them.
2007-09-14 10:12:44 · 11 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2 in Politics
Just to let you know I emailed our senators about the new hate crime law being considered. (Gay protection. ) Prior says he hasn't decided, Lincoln is for it.
2007-09-14 10:10:36 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics
If you didnt know already he was sentenced to 10 months today for 15 counts of downloading child pornography watching videos of children being tortued and abused, who agrees that the sentence is far to short. People who download this stuff should be punished as if they had done the act themselves.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070914/tuk-uk-britain-langham-fa6b408_3.html
2007-09-14 10:10:13 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law Enforcement & Police
I suspect few readers will disagree when I say that not one of the presidential candidates, Republican or Democratic, has yet articulated a compelling campaign theme. All favor security. Not one opposes prosperity. Each promises to protect Social Security and improve health care. Voters can be forgiven if they are not overwhelmed.
Let me offer a different approach on the off-chance that some candidate might find it useful: Tell voters the hard truth — and challenge them.
In particular, tell them we are at a critical moment in our nation’s history: A dangerous enemy is waging an unconventional war against us. We are just beginning to learn how to defend ourselves. Remind them that this enemy has been underestimated by presidents and lawmakers of both parties many times, over many years.
Tell them, too, that fighting this enemy is a burden that history is asking the current generation of Americans to bear. We must do this for future generations — as past generations fought for us.
Say frankly that if we don’t have the stomach for a long and difficult war, we will be defeated by movements that are more determined than we are — and more ruthless than we can ever imagine becoming.
It is rare for politicians to talk this way. But it is not unprecedented. In 1940, Hitler’s armies were wiping off the map one European nation after another. In Britain, many people believed the wisest course was not to fight the Nazis but to negotiate a diplomatic settlement, to address the legitimate grievances of the German people.
On May 13, 1940 Winston Churchill entered the House of Commons for the first time as British Prime Minister. Next to him was Neville Chamberlain, the outgoing PM. Chamberlain was greeted with cheers. Churchill was not.
Churchill didn’t tell the officials and the public what they wanted to hear. He told them what they needed to hear: that it would be both wrong and unproductive to attempt to appease tyrants.
He famously said: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering.”
It is possible the current conflict will be less lethal than World War II. But it will last longer — it already has. What policy would a Churchillian presidential candidate adopt? Churchill said: “You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.”
Any candidate supporting this approach would have only disdain for such groups as MoveOn.org which this week accused General David Petraeus of “betrayal” for refusing to accept defeat in the Battle of Iraq
After Gen. Petraeus’s initial testimony, both the Washington Post and the Washington Times headlined his support for troop reductions next year. But, by definition, a “surge” subsides. Petraeus has always intended to transfer responsibility for security to Iraqis — he just wants to decide when and where, based on conditions on the ground, not legislation passed in Washington.
The New York Times, whose editorial page views are hardly distinguishable from those of MoveOn.org, was closer to identifying the news in Petraeus’ report. Its top story: “Petraeus Warns Against Quick Pullback in Iraq.” It should not require a Churchill to see that if American forces leave Iraq precipitously, America’s enemies will fill the vacuum. And Iraqis who have been fighting with us will be slaughtered. People around the world will get the joke: To be America’s friend is more perilous than to be America’s enemy.
The real news in Petraeus’s testimony: Americans troops have been beating al-Qaeda in Iraq and, as that job gets done, it is Iranian-backed militias that are becoming the main problem that needs to be eliminated. The regime in Tehran wants Iraq as its colony. It doesn’t want Iraq to be an America ally in the war with Militant Islamism.
On several occasions over the past three decades, Tehran has sent murderers to kill Americans. On none of those occasion has the United States responded forcefully. The mullahs are betting there will be no break with that precedent — not by the current occupant of the Oval Office and not by whoever replaces him in 2009.
I suspect more than a few Americans would vote for a candidate who tells us the mullahs are dead wrong.
2007-09-14 10:08:55 · 11 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2 in Politics
how four years ago everyone thought Howard Dean was a shoe-in for the next president? So don't jump to conclusions about the current race, yet. The primaries are still months away, and those will determine the election.
2007-09-14 10:05:58 · 9 answers · asked by MrPotatoHead 4 in Elections
I know it is against most mexicans religion but if they cannot afford the children they have then why dont they use it?
2007-09-14 10:03:09 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Immigration
You can log on to www.dnc.org and email whatever nasty thing pops into your head, but I guess most people don't have anything nasty to say to the democrats, or maybe those that do have nasty things to say don't have computers or are illiterate.
ON THE OTHER HAND, Republican-sponsored websites like www.dontmarkwarner.com or www.nrsc.org won't allow viewers to send email, though they will allow viewers to send money. Addmittedly, www.rnc.org has an email contact (info@gop.com), but who wants to bet that these messages don't go straight into the circular file?
I bet a lot of people have a lot of nasty things to say about the GOP. So, are we going to put these people in jail in 2009 or what?
2007-09-14 10:01:50 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Government
2007-09-14 10:01:33 · 3 answers · asked by Alejandra M 1 in Immigration
I just heard a member if "Moveon.org" say on the radio that Conservatism is not allowed by the constitution and she has the right do anything she wanted to silence conservatives.
I darn near ran off the road in shock. Where do people get these ideas?????
2007-09-14 10:01:01 · 13 answers · asked by Coasty 7 in Law & Ethics
2007-09-14 09:59:07 · 7 answers · asked by nice too meet you. 4 in Civic Participation
The prowar crowd says that if we leave Iraq, there will be a catastrophe in Iraq. We went to war against Iraq! We sure didn't go to war so that we could save the Iraqis from each other. We went over there to kick the dog mess out of them. That's what war is supposed to be. Frankly I'm tired of Iraq distracting everyone's attention while our own country is being stolen from under our feet by the globalist.
I'm an American and I think it's time that we start worrying about America and doing what is best for America.
It's time to get our military out of Iraq, secure our borders and prevent the oncoming catastrophe here at home.
"Tis our true purpose to steer clear of foreign entanglements."
George Washington
2007-09-14 09:59:07 · 18 answers · asked by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 in Other - Politics & Government
I was watching a forum for the Heritage Foundation that was on C-Span from yesterday, and during the middle, these protestors got on the stage and just started talking about whatever when they weren't invited to speak, they want everyone to respect their time to protest.
So why do they feel they don't have to let anyone else explain their views?
Isn't this hypocritical?
are some of these people mentally ill? The one just started singingout of no were.
2007-09-14 09:58:47 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics
the reason i ask is in the spring i will be getting my ged well actualy the college im going to be attending has a program that i take a test if a pass i get well its better then a ged but not as good as a high school diploma, but anyways if i pass i will be attending the college for 2 yrs and i will earn about 689 acriedted semester hours
2007-09-14 09:58:40 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government
Hi there, i am 20 and my boyfriend is 36, with three kids aged 10, 12 and 14.
I stay home and work part-time with him,and he works full time as a journeyman- installing floors.
We recently took a vacation to six flags, which is in Valencia, California and we fell in love with the area and are thinking of moving there.
He is canadian, as am i, but i have dual citizenship within the U.S
What would we have to do to be able to move there legally?
2007-09-14 09:56:24 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Immigration
I was driving home when i saw a school bus ahead but not too far away.As i got closer the driver put on the yellow flashing lights but he kept on coming closer.I started to slow down but i couldn't stop in time before i got to about 15-20 feet from the bus so i didn't want to stop right next to the bus which i knew was illegal so i sped up a tiny bit to pass the bus before he came to a full stop and the sign came out. I'm pretty sure that he didn't turn on his red lights before I got next to him but as i was passing, the driver blew his horn at me for a whole second and now Im afraid that he is going to report my plate and I'll get a fine or worse, points on my liscense and insurance rate increases.I know for a fact the bus wasn't completely stopped and the stop sign wasn't out but im not sure whether the lights turned red or not cus i was kinda panicking that I was getting too close to the bus. Are bus drivers in New York allowed to report my plate?How long before i recieve a ticket?
2007-09-14 09:56:17 · 9 answers · asked by Me 2 in Law & Ethics
The Federal Office of Monetary Control finally admitted there was a gorilla in the room as far as the economy is concerned. In their recent release they concluded the economy was more of a concern than inflation. To combat recession, the FOMC will likely start dropping interest rates.
Economic data released for August indicates a falling economy. This will not bode well for the Republicans during the upcoming elections. With deficit spending still high and the dollars still losing value on the currency market, the last thing we need is a recession.
With a huge federal deficit, an endless war in Iraq, and a possible recession, what exactly can a Republican presidential candidate offer America?
2007-09-14 09:56:09 · 24 answers · asked by Overt Operative 6 in Politics
2007-09-14 09:55:05 · 14 answers · asked by Monk 4 in Other - Politics & Government
Think about the petty millions she is raising for her campaign and she couldn't find a felon donating peanuts in comparison to the U.S. Gov budget ? How can you trust her to be on the straights with some of her old cronies from Rose Law firm that are convicted felons if she makes it to the W.H.?
Before anyone slams GW and his cronies, please cite donor name and felony convictions.
2007-09-14 09:54:38 · 15 answers · asked by labdoctor 5 in Politics
2007-09-14 09:54:23 · 12 answers · asked by muslim_pork_king 2 in Other - Politics & Government
Does anyone here think it is ethical to sue MCdonalds for making you fat? IF so, then why do you believe you , or people have the right to sue them when they make the choice to eat the food and everyone knows it is fattening. I am sure that some people would have no problem sueing Mcdonald's just to make a quick buck but does anyone here really believe it is ethical to sue mcdonald' for making people fat, instead of the people being forced to take responsiblity for their actions? If so please explain your reasoning
2007-09-14 09:53:34 · 7 answers · asked by Brent 4 in Law & Ethics
2007-09-14 09:53:04 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Elections
Questions asked on 14 September 2007:
Showing 301 to 330 of 705 questions
Questions asked on other days: