Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: Stories: News+Opinion: Rock Bottom

Re: “Lawyer: Investigation will show that Husk let Burnell drink for free after closing

SC needs to change their laws about bartenders and employees drinking on the job! It is ridiculous to think that it is legal for this to happen. It is not like this in other states. It's sloppy and the customers get treated badly because of it.

1 of 2 people like this.
Posted by jane mallard on March 1, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Re: “Lawyer: Investigation will show that Husk let Burnell drink for free after closing

Who allows anyone to drink to roughly 25% blood alcohol content in their place of employment? And what kind of idiot decides it's a good idea to drive while basically less capable than mentally handicapped? The apparent answer is Husk management. Is this not the definition of negligence?

Burninhell deserves his felony DUI and the subsequent manslaughter and murder charges. Enjoy your decade in prison moron... the cuisine is a far cry from that of your beloved Husk. The saddest part of this is the man who needed to die as a result of your reckless disregard for the well being of others while being spared of your own life.

10 of 16 people like this.
Posted by What's REALLY wrong with America on February 29, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Re: “Lawyer: Investigation will show that Husk let Burnell drink for free after closing

If it's not about the money, then why sue for it? Believe me, if my wife or daughter were killed by a drunk driver, I would be pissed, but why are you not suing the man that caused the accident, could it be because he has no money?
I may seem like I'm being an a-hole, but the article stated that is wasn't about the money when it obviously is.

9 of 16 people like this.
Posted by Out of Control America on February 29, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Re: “Lawyer: Investigation will show that Husk let Burnell drink for free after closing

Bullshit, Clarkie. Tobacco kills more than all other drugs combined.

4 of 5 people like this.
Posted by TROLLSLAYER on February 29, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Re: “Lawyer: Investigation will show that Husk let Burnell drink for free after closing

Wonder what was the blood alcohol level of Miller at the time of the accident? Could it have contributed to the accident? Was he doing the same thing after work?

6 of 14 people like this.
Posted by Curiously Charleston on February 29, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Re: “Lawyer: Investigation will show that Husk let Burnell drink for free after closing

The CDC has the figures on the deaths from drinking alcohol and it will surprise you , the CDC says that alcohol kills more people in america than all the drug use by those who take drugs for their high. why isn't the main Stream media reporting this on a daily basis . ?

6 of 9 people like this.
Posted by Clarkie on February 29, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Re: “Officer arrested on DUI charge

I'm guessing he needs Alcoholics Anonymous as well as Douchebags Anonymous meetings. Dumbass.

1 of 2 people like this.
Posted by SwdsWmn on February 29, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Re: “Lindsey Graham loves port deepening funds, hates budget

Our posts are not in conflict. IP pointed out the actual constitution and I pointed out the modern requirements. Your just spinning it so hard ...now you might be on Harry Reid's staff.
For all intents and purposes this is what has occured:
By never submitting a budget,(against the law) enacting a few discretionary spending caps as a part of the Budget Control Act (a.k.a. the debt ceiling deal) and punting to the Super Committee that also punted on entitlement reform, Democrats avoid any difficult discussion of how to ensure the solvency of our entitlement programs.

With no plan of their own on the table, they’re free to shoot down anything Republicans propose.

There will be no budget again because the President really doesn't want to be held accountable in an election year. He is just kicking it down the road til he is firmly entrenched in office for another 4 years.

Posted by artrogue on February 29, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Re: “Lindsey Graham loves port deepening funds, hates budget

Clearly the Budget Control Act signed in August and Continuing Resolution signed in December fulfill the Congress' Constitutional requirements for appropriations. But IP and artrogue are arguing opposite sides of the Congressional Budget Act. IP points out that the Constitution says nothing about the Executive defining the spending priorities while artrogue says the CBA requires the Executive to define the spending priorities and requires the House and Senate to come to agreement about them. Obviously you can't dictate a timetable for agreement, so historically Congress has missed the deadline and used CRs to fund the government as they did last year. Once the money is appropriated there is no more need for a budget.

The reason so many Republicans are upset about it this year is that mandatory spending requirements remain untouched and they wish to dismantle SS and medicare. They wish to characterize the federal debt as the result of these programs overspending despite the dedicated taxes and the large trust funds which pay for these programs and will not be exhausted for a decade at the earliest. Entitlement must be reformed in order to prevent deficits in the future but they have very little to do with the present.

The reason for our national debt is our ridiculous spending on defense. This spending is discretionary and could easily be reduced. We now spend more money on defense than the next 17 largest military powers combined. How many bars do we need on the windows? How many locks on the door? When the Republicans propose drastic reductions in military spending, then we'll know they are serious about debt reform. Today they not only refuse needed cuts to the military but continue to push for yet another war in the middle east.

The budget will not be balanced with cuts to foreign aid or scientific research. It will not be balanced with cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting or the State department. It won't be balanced by eliminating the Depts of Education and Energy. We can only balance the budget by raising revenue and decreasing our spending on defense.

Posted by Fish Pimp on February 29, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Re: “Lindsey Graham loves port deepening funds, hates budget

The Repubicans are to blame for the spending increases in the first place, and bankrupting us by funding a war with tax cuts.
Why? Because if they increased taxes to pay for their useless war they would have been voted out of office.
The Democrats are to blame for not repealing these massive spending increases, and not ending the useless wars immediately upon taking over the government.
But let's not forget that the Republicans inherited a booming economy and a large surplus.
By the time the Democrats took over they inherited a dead economy, worst since the great depression, a massive deficit, and no revenues to balance out the spending that they inherited.
So as Art says, plenty of blame to go around.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/spending-bu…

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by TROLLSLAYER on February 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Re: “Lindsey Graham loves port deepening funds, hates budget

Right on, artrogue!

Fish Pimp asks, "Please cite the law that allows the House to dictate the budget to the Senate and White House..."

I would look at the US Constitution. Specifically, Article one, Section seven, which clearly states "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;".

Or, one might look at Article one, Section eight which states, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

And Article one, Section nine, clearly states that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

Article two, which delineates the powers of the executive branch, makes no mention of budget processes, taxation or spending. Why would the people want an omnipotent executive deciding who pays how much and where it will be spent? Investing that much power in a single person sounds like a bad idea, don't you think?








Posted by I P Yuengling on February 28, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Re: “Lindsey Graham loves port deepening funds, hates budget

Isn't it our precious budget? Don't you want our country to be ruled by the laws that are in place? The House did pass a budget. It went to the Senate.
Senator Harry Reid By never submitting a budget, enacting a few discretionary spending caps as a part of the Budget Control Act (a.k.a. the debt ceiling deal) and punting to the Super Committee that also punted on entitlement reform, Democrats avoid any difficult discussion of how to ensure the solvency of our entitlement programs.
With no plan of their own on the table, they’re free to shoot down anything Republicans propose.
Your spinning it to fit your Democratic party views and making the Republicans out to be the only villians here. There is mutual blame !
The President continues to add to it by submitting his most recent budget he knows no one will support and he will come out looking like the abused executive. Oh poor me...vote for me again in 2012 so i can rid us of these evil doers.


Posted by artrogue on February 28, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Re: “Officer arrested on DUI charge

You left out the part were he demanded to be let off because he is part of the privileged police class to whom the laws don't apply.
When the Mount P. officer declined he then threatened him should he set foot in The City Of Charleston.
I really hope this jerk gets locked up for a long time.
He also stated that City of Charleston Police routinely let other officers off if they get caught committing crimes.
A sled or federal investigation of City of Charleston police would seem to be badly needed.

9 of 13 people like this.
Posted by TROLLSLAYER on February 28, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Re: “Lindsey Graham loves port deepening funds, hates budget

artrogue, how many votes needed in the House? How many Democrats? Why do you keep leaving this branch out? Please cite the law that allows the House to dictate the budget to the Senate and White House? The House is the body obstructing passage of your precious budget.

Posted by Fish Pimp on February 28, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Re: “Lindsey Graham loves port deepening funds, hates budget

I suggest we pay Slartibartfast. He probably didn't receive an honorarium for the fjords.

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by mat catastrophe on February 27, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Re: “Lindsey Graham loves port deepening funds, hates budget

Both sides keep spinning this but the fact remains:
• Number Of Votes Needed To Pass A Budget Through The Senate – 51
• Number Of Democrats In The Senate – 53
A budget resolution is one of the few things that are not subject to a filibuster. In fact, that is one reason why a bill based on reconciliation instructions cannot be filibustered.
It’s Been Over 1020 Days Since Senate Democrats Passed A Budget and They Have No Intention Of Doing So This Year Either.
Senator Harry Reid and Schumer are arguing that the Senate doesn’t need to pass a formal budget resolution to enable the government to spend taxpayer money irresponsibly, then they’re right. For the past couple years, while the Senate Budget Democrats have sat on their hands, failing to submit a budget resolution to the full Senate, the Senate Appropriations Committee has still authorized ungodly amounts of discretionary spending.
But if what Reid and Schumer are saying is that they’ve followed the law and submitted a budget resolution, then they’re flat-out wrong!
The Congressional Budget Act requires the president to submit a budget to Congress by Feb. 1 every year. The Senate Budget Committee is to report a budget resolution to the full Senate by April 1. The House and Senate are to reach agreement on a concurrent budget resolution by April 15. Senate Budget Democrats haven’t submitted a budget since 2009.
By never submitting a budget, enacting a few discretionary spending caps as a part of the Budget Control Act (a.k.a. the debt ceiling deal) and punting to the Super Committee that also punted on entitlement reform, Democrats avoid any difficult discussion of how to ensure the solvency of our entitlement programs.
With no plan of their own on the table, they’re free to shoot down anything Republicans propose.

Posted by artrogue on February 27, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Re: “Officer arrested on DUI charge

Time to buy a liquor-cycle ...burp.

Charleston tries to hard to look like it is not just a bunch of drunks. Even the cops are drunks. Fail.

3 of 10 people like this.
Posted by PigsFlyWhenTheyDrunk on February 27, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Re: “Lindsey Graham loves port deepening funds, hates budget

Here is my research: Its not deep enough. That will be 3.5 million dollars please.

Posted by Slartibartfast on February 26, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Re: “Lindsey Graham loves port deepening funds, hates budget

You Republicans make me sick. The Republican Party is the party of huge government expansion (Dept of Veteran Affairs, Dept of Homeland Security, Medicare part D) and huge revenue cuts (Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act). The gigantic federal debt is entirely due to Republican mismanagement.

Not a single Republican voted for the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. Today they refuse to accept 4 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases. Only a moron would think they have any interest in fiscal responsibility.

Do your research. You will find that the past 4 Republican administrations (Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush) have all increased public debt as a percentage of GDP while the past 5 Democratic administrations (Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton) all reduced public debt as a percentage of GDP.

In 2011 we spent more money on the military (when veterans benefits and interest payments from debt on the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are included) than we collected in income tax revenue. If Lindsey Graham were serious about cutting spending he would start with cuts in defense spending. Since he throws a hissy fit anytime cuts in defense are mentioned, it's obvious that he's simply playing politics with the debt.

2 of 2 people like this.
Posted by Fish Pimp on February 25, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Re: “Bless Their Hearts: Ryan Gosling's Doppelganger

Well, you did just read it. SUCCESS!

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by Landon Phillips on February 21, 2012 at 10:42 AM
Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2016, Charleston City Paper   RSS