Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
71 % of voters in Missouri reject ObamaCare
Tuesday, August 3, 2010 11:31 PM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 7:18 AM
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 7:56 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:The latest Associated Press-GfK poll shows that support for President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul has risen to its highest point since the survey started asking people about it in September. The results now: 45 percent in favor, 42 percent opposed.
Quote:New Jerseyans support the health care reform law passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama, a new Rutgers-Eagleton Poll shows. While a late February Rutgers-Eagleton Poll found that 48 percent of New Jersey residents now support the law, while 40 percent oppose it, and 12 percent don’t know. Support is slightly lower among registered voters at 47 percent, with 41 percent opposing the bill.
Quote:Over the course of the White House summit on health care reform, Republican members of Congress repeatedly reminded Americans of their opposition to the controversial individual mandate or requirement to purchase insurance. In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. “It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time.”… “We called this responsible national health insurance,” says Pauly. “There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn’t be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens.” The policy was originally included in many Republican proposals including the proposals during the Clinton administration. The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance. Further, this proposal was based off of a 1990 Heritage Foundation proposal outlined a quality health system where “government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.”
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 8:00 AM
RIVERLOVE
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 8:05 AM
KANEMAN
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 8:14 AM
WULFENSTAR
http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 8:18 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote:Originally posted by Wulfenstar: Quote:Not in Missouri. Gayest state in the nation. Outside of CA. Don't forget Virginia! I love my state.
Quote:Not in Missouri. Gayest state in the nation. Outside of CA.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 8:59 AM
MINCINGBEAST
Quote:Originally posted by Wulfenstar: Don't forget Virginia! (AS IN REJECTING OBAMACARE) I love my state.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 9:12 AM
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 9:27 AM
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 9:31 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: (sigh)...oh, Wulf, you are going to be SO disappointed. No matter what happens, the government will never change enough for you. So don't go dreaming of some fantasy government that will fit all your parameters...or go ahead and do so, but it won't happen. The might not have to fire a shot" is getting reeeely old...the revolution you threaten wouldn't make it how you like, either, in fact it would make it FAR worse! Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani, Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”, signing off
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 9:40 AM
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 9:52 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Wulfenstar: Um, Kane? No thanks. But if YOU feel like doing that, go right ahead. Free speech and all.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 9:57 AM
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 10:12 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: If you (Kaneman) and Riverlove wanna sit around all day shitting and vomiting directly into each others' mouths, go for it.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 10:33 AM
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 3:53 PM
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 4:19 PM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance.
Quote:(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT- In the case of a qualified individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for the taxable year an amount equal to the applicable percentage of the sum of-- `(1) 25 percent of the sum of the qualified health insurance premiums and the unreimbursed expenses for medical care paid by such individual during the taxable year which does not exceed 10 percent of the adjusted gross income of such individual for such year, plus `(2) 50 percent of the sum of such premiums and such unreimbursed expenses so paid which exceeds 10 percent but does not exceed 20 percent of such adjusted gross income, plus `(3) 75 percent of the sum of such premiums and such unreimbursed expenses so paid which exceeds 20 percent of such adjusted gross income.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 4:41 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Riverlove: Hey Nikibitch... This is taken from one of your darling genteel and non-offensive pal's newest post today: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: If you (Kaneman) and Riverlove wanna sit around all day shitting and vomiting directly into each others' mouths, go for it. Now isn't that just so nice and perfect! I'm sure you approve.
Thursday, August 5, 2010 1:01 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: If you (Kaneman) and Riverlove wanna sit around all day shitting and vomiting directly into each others' mouths, go for it. You and Kaney are coprophages; you feed on feces, and you both feed directly from the others' rectum. Now why don't you go cry to Haken about it?
Thursday, August 5, 2010 3:55 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Thursday, August 5, 2010 4:03 AM
Thursday, August 5, 2010 4:15 AM
BYTEMITE
Thursday, August 5, 2010 6:01 AM
Thursday, August 5, 2010 6:31 AM
Thursday, August 5, 2010 6:45 AM
Thursday, August 5, 2010 7:11 AM
Quote:It's even easier to get people in Missouri to believe that. Hell, 75% of them no doubt believe that brushing their tooth is evil.
Thursday, August 5, 2010 7:56 AM
Thursday, August 5, 2010 8:24 AM
Thursday, August 5, 2010 8:54 AM
Thursday, August 5, 2010 10:55 AM
Thursday, August 5, 2010 11:10 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Rappy, you've pointed out elsewhere that 95% of the people of this country believe in "God™". As you pointed out, you can get people to believe just about anything - including the idea that health care is evil. It's even easier to get people in Missouri to believe that. Hell, 75% of them no doubt believe that brushing their tooth is evil. AURaptor's Greatest Hits: Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT: Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama: Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit. ... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
Thursday, August 5, 2010 11:36 AM
Thursday, August 5, 2010 12:25 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: you can get people to believe just about anything - including the idea that health care is evil.
Quote: It's even easier to get people in Missouri to believe that. Hell, 75% of them no doubt believe that brushing their tooth is evil.
Friday, August 6, 2010 2:54 AM
JONGSSTRAW
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Guess you'd say the same of all those idiots in California, the 7 million or so who voted for Prop 8, only to have a single judge ( for now ) toss out their wishes.
Friday, August 6, 2010 6:25 AM
Quote:those lawyers opposing gay marraige could not make a compelling legal argument against it
Quote:The question of judicial activism is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and separation of powers. Detractors of judicial activism charge that it usurps the power of the elected branches of government or appointed agencies, damaging the rule of law and democracy.[11] Defenders of judicial activism say that in many cases it is a legitimate form of judicial review, and that the interpretation of the law must change with changing times. A third view is that so-called "objective" interpretation of the law does not exist. According to law professor Brian Z. Tamanaha, "Throughout the so-called formalist age, it turns out, many prominent judges and jurists acknowledged that there were gaps and uncertainties in the law and that judges must sometimes make choices."[12]
Quote:But the current climate of hostility to the judiciary cannot be written off as a product of the lunatic fringe. Attacks on “activist judges”—a phrase that, like “the elites,” has become a code word for liberals—are regularly issued by Republican officeholders from the White House to state legislatures. The assault on an independent judiciary has always been an integral part of the Rovian political strategy that put President George W. Bush in office. The truth is that the real issue is not the activism of judges but the principles upon which they are acting.
Quote:An Activist Judge is an liberal, Communist, freedom-hating, Hate America Firster, Ivy League graduated, member of the Blame America First Crowd who is part of an entire collective of mind-linked activist judges who think that they can undermine the president while menstruating the entire time they're on the bench. The "juristocracy" is out of touch with the mainstream good Americans, and should be burned at the stake for heresy. Activist judges are stripping our nation of its moral fiber. Every American knows the importance of fiber in their diet, well our nation is no different. Our Great country is in need of a morality laxitive. America hasn't had a regular bowel movement in long time. Activist judges would like to keep stripping America of its moral fiber until America's waste comes out the other end. Activist judges keep our nation constipated. Activist judges would want to try and put The Greatest President Ever, George W. Bush in jail if they had a chance. They hate everything that has to do with justice. They are just "acting" is if they are on the side of justice but real patriotic Americans know they are really bears in a robe.
Quote:One of the great successes of the legal wing of the conservative movement is the widespread connection in the mind of many citizens and pundits of "liberal" judicial philosophy with "activism," and "conservatism" with "strict constructionism." They'd have us believe that "liberal activist" and "conservative constructionist" are basically redundancies, and that there simply is no such thing as a conservative activist. This is patently untrue. There is a very simple explanation for why a conservative may be activist and a liberal statist--the state of the law. The Warren Court wanted to overturn precedents, and so it ruled laws passed by Congress and (especially) state legislatures unconstitutional. And as the Court of that era slowly and sometimes not-so-slowly changed the law, the justices by definition needed to be less activist as the state of the law became more amenable to their views--precisely because they had changed the law. But guess what? The Rehnquist Court did the same thing, as Republican-appointed justices found the laws passed by state legislatures and (especially) Congress during the years of the Great Society and thereafter to be out of line with the political and judicial philosophies they brought to the bench. Accordingly, they ruled to change the law too. Or--if we can pause a moment to act like adults and not be cowed by scary phrases devised by Federalist Society types to be used incessantly during hearings like the one presently underway to confirm Sonia Sotomayor--the Rehnquist Court trafficked heavily in "judge-made law."
Quote:While some have decried the actions of conservative judges as "activism," these accusations are largely unwarranted. Typically, rulings by conservative judges simply correct liberal activism. In fact, by definition, a genuinely conservative judge will not engage in activism, as he will have a proper understanding of and respect for the role of the judiciary as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. By definition, then, any consistently activist judge is engaging in a liberal interpretation of this role. While judicial activism is a pervasive problem, certain judges have gone beyond the pale in pushing a liberal agenda on the American public.
Quote:“I define activist as when you make the law rather than interpret the law or apply it,” (Gov. Matt Blunt of Misouri told reporters last week), as he answered questions about his plans to fill a Supreme Court vacancy created by former Chief Justice Ronnie M. White's resignation. Supreme Court Chief Justice Laura Denvir Stith said: “In general, judicial activism has been defined as a court reaching a result based either on the personal views of the members of the court - or on the views of others, such as special interest groups or popular opinion - rather than based on the facts and the law. As a practical matter, though, people do not give the term activist a static, or consistent, definition. “Instead, politicians and others usually use the term activist to describe any particular judicial decision with which they disagree, without regard to the underlying facts and law of the case.” But John Elliott of the Adam Smith Foundation and St. Louis lawyer Bill Placke, president of the St. Louis Federalist Society, both said “Black's Law Dictionary” provides a legal definition all should follow, that judicial activism is “a philosophy of decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decision.” Placke, who emphasized his responses to the News Tribune questionnaire were his own, and not the Federalist Society's opinions. He said "judicial activism is “a term used by political commentators to describe a tendency by judges to consider outcomes, attitudinal preferences, and other public policy issues in interpreting applicable existing law. ... It is also used pejoratively to describe judges who endorse a particular agenda.” Sara Schuett, director of the Missouri Association of Trial Lawyers, noted: “Strictly speaking, an activist judge misinterprets or ignores the law (or legal precedence) due to personal opinion or agenda. Judge Roy Richter of the Eastern District Appeals Court in St. Louis, wrote: “Seemingly, any decision that reverses prior case law (absent some intervening statutory change) would constitute activism.” But Charley German, president of the Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association, said: “The phrase activist judges has ... no definition and doesn't deserve one - it really means only that the person using that invective doesn't like a particular court decision.” Victor Howard, Chief Judge of the Western District Appeals Court in Kansas City, said not all laws are written clearly, and may be “vague, ambiguous or in conflict with other statutes. Consequently interpreting the statute can be difficult. ... But politics or personal interest has no role in our analysis.” Justice Stith said: “The Supreme Court usually hears only the most difficult - and sometimes the most controversial - legal issues. ... Judges must, and do, decide these cases based on the law, even if they do not personally agree with that law.”
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL