LizardKing

Dred Scott, very political. And caused a a huge change in the SCOTUS that lasted 100 years.

We are now more political than ever, without even so much as an attempt to pretend otherwise. Stuff that got a justice thrown off the court 40 years ago is now OK.

So I disagree with the thrust of that opinion article, saying it was always this bad.

The GOP has nothing to offer. They have been asked for input for going on four years now. And, well....

If the SCOTUS invalidates the law, it will be a travesty as big as the stealing of the election in 2000. Of course, since we are ignoring the obvious politicization of the SCOTUS (Alito & Thomas going to Koch-fest, Thomas' wife getting paid by the TeaParty and him not disclosing it, etc,) with no resulting punishment, nothing would surprise me.

Hell, the USA's experiment with democracy ended with the CU ruling anyway. It is just smoke & mirrors now.

A child the age of 2 has no requirement at all to buy car insurance from anyone.

 

A child the age of two has a legal requirement to buy health insurance from a private company.

If a child aged 2 owned a car, then he would have to buy insurance...this isn't hard.

Hey, I don't like it too much either. I'm all for Medicare for Everyone, not this shit. But this is what y'all righties wanted, until now when you don't.

So instead of bitching, what is your proposal? Get care in the emergency room ala the GOP party line? That's so irresponsible, and is the absolute WORST way to use a finite and expensive resource, resulting in higher prices and less access for those who can pay. You are proposing that we the people take care of all the welfare cases out there instead of having them be responsible and getting insurance. Weird ass shit this is, GOPers *in favour* of welfare!

Does he have a problem with states requiring us to buy car insurance? There are a ton of things we have to buy as mandated by the government that would meet the same test as health insurance.

 

 

Actually next to nothing does. As to your example' date=' you have to own or drive a car to "have" to have ins., so there are millions of people that are exempt from it.

 

[b']With the new health care law.... you just have to be alive to have to buy insurance.[/b]

Exactly the same thing. If you have a car, you must buy insurance.

If you get sick, then you must buy insurance. Don't want to? Then prove to me you are not even going to get sick. No, your word is not good enough.

If we had the public option like most of us wanted, we would not be having this discussion. But the righties didn't like that, and wrote this mess instead (reference Heritage, Bob Dole, 1994) which the Dems picked up complete to pacify the GOP.

And there is precedent too: waaaayyyy back in 1798!

Weather does not equal climate.

Wow. That story is as Scotland as it gets! Tho' I suppose the addition of something unusual deep fried would seal it's perfection.

What's classic is that stoopid GOPers are so against a law they themselves wrote!

Refer to Heritage Foundation, Bob Dole, 1994.

No worries. We are actually good friends in real life. We both like to ride the other hard in political debate tho'. Nothing personal. Just entertainment. We each know that, even if it doesn't look like it from the outside looking in. :up:

So you ready to give up the SSI, Medicare & CALPERS pension HH? I didn't think so.

It certainly depends upon what you call welfare. Most normal folks agree with me. You are special. Did you ride the short bus to school?

"Badges? We don't need no steekin' badges!"

nsdZKCh6RsU

Huge Bogie fan here!

Anyway, I just finally watched the animated Megamind. Cool plot line, one I have discussed many times in a drunken haze in an existentialist context: if you are the mega-bad (or mega-good) guy, what happens when you win and there is no more opposition?

Enjoyable flick.

Fine theory, except welfare ended in 1996.

As I said, I know it's tuff, but try to keep up here Grandpa!

If business in the US would pay prevailing wages, then they could get Americans to work there. But for $5/hr? No. And any biz that predicates it's existence on labour costs at that rate needs to have a rethink and frankly get eaten up by the capitalist machine because it is uncompetitive in the real world.

Looks pretty much like where I grew up.

But anyway, that has nothing to do with illegal Mexicans, and everything to do with the sellout of US manufacturing by the GOP. There ain't no illegal Mexicans working for the UAW cuz unions police that shit...but WalMart, and gummint-subsidized farms, and meat packing plants? You betcha .

Try to keep up Grandpa!

At the end of the day we're saying that people who are American are no longer American. If you can remove citizenship, its a slippery slope. Also, its unconstitutional. Not the first time states have stepped on that piece of paper.

 

We're blaming the wrong people. We're blaming an AMERICAN baby for having an illegal parent. I think we're better served blaming the federal government for not doing its job.

 

Also, we're kidding ourselves if the European immigrants a century or so ago wouldn't have streamed across the border i they were as close as the Latinos. We place them upon a pedestal but they came for the same exact reasons a lot of Latinos did. They were told by many people to go back to their countries as well and to improve the condition in Ireland, Sweden, Russia, Germany, etc. as well.

 

I get just as pissed off as any one else but this is NOT the way to address it.

OK, I know we don't agree on much politically Choco, but you know I always respect your opinion (and I know you, mine). That is well said. I agree 1,000%!

America has a history of "fucking with" new immigrants. Witness the NINA caveats in the want ads at the turn of the century for example (maybe not the best example, but since I'm from Irish stock, it appeals to me).

Now is just the Mexican's time to be fucked with in our country and it is up to us to help them get through it, as others did for us.

That said, I still believe in the rule of law, and enforcing it harshly on biz that hire illegals. But rounding up said "illegals" and incarcerating them or deporting them is not practical nor proper. Taking away any incentive for them to be in the US illegally will send them home, because that's where everyone really wants to be, all things considered.

The biggest difference between Keith & Fatso, err Rush is that KO fact checked and told the truth, while Rush just makes shit up as he goes along.

That's a HUGE difference. Of course HH and the rest of the right do not care. They like being lied to, it makes them feel good. Either that or they are just too stupid to care.

I'd assume that this is a fallout from the poorly thought out Comcast-NBC merger. Given Comcast's very rightie politics, I expect Rachel Maddow & Ed Shultz to go next. Then there'll be exactly *zero* shows showing an opposing viewpoint on US teevee.

Seems that there are no such thing as anti-monopoly laws anymore. O & his admin are proving to be just another BushCo but with a slicker style, given this, Gitmo, the tax extension, the healthcare sellout, et al.

Wow! WTF is this about? I think I'm scarred for life, or maybe simply in awe at Teh Stoopid. That and longing for more cowbell. It definitely needs more cowbell to be a hit.

Is this real? This isn't real. Is it really real? Please say it's real! If not, that is the best SNL skit I've ever seen! It is hysterical for its mix of pathos and prideful ignorance.

UhMepzqJvIw

I anxiously await their revised "America the Beautiful"-themed tribute to Snooki...

Quack quack!

Oh, look! Another coincidence.

Authorities have yet to decide whether this was done by a liberal plant or by a crazy person who has never watched Fox News or listened to talk radio.

[color:purple]An incendiary device found along the route of a Martin Luther King Day parade in Spokane, Wash., was “likely capable of inflicting multiple casualties,†the FBI said today.[/color]

Expect more of this. And remember it’s all coincidence that it’s all aimed at black people, Democrats, and people who work in the federal government. The right wingnut noise machine has nothing to do with it.

I endure the show every now and then to see the one secret weapon the US version has - Rainn Wilson aka Dwight Schrute.

 

Agree 100% - he carries that show' date=' but he has some very good 'straight' men and women around him. Not sure how many actors would feel in sequences where some overgrown dufus is throwing front kicks millimetres from their face and they just have to sit there and look stunned.

 

If Carrell is overrated and 'unfunny' (and I think he is both), he is exceeded on both counts by Will Ferrell. I have loathed him in everything except 'Step Brothers' - he is credited with the screenplay, forcing me to concede that he may just have some comedic talent. Getting back to Carrell, I may have been the only male on earth not to find '40 Year Old Virgin' funny but the guy just irritated me from go to whoa. All this from someone who laughs at Jim Carrey movies, even those where he isnt trying to be funny. [/quote']

I'm with you on all three (can't stand Carrell, Ferrell or Carey), but credit where it is due: Will Ferrell and the entire Talladega Nights movie was a brilliant piss take (and the fact it is rumoured to have pissed off mouth-breathing, inbred, red-neck Republicans makes it even better LOL!)...

Taking uninsured cars off the highway...

 

 

Recently, in the City of Dallas, Texas, they passed an ordinance that if you are pulled over by law enforcement and not able to provide proof of insurance, your car will be towed right away.

 

Afterwards, to retrieve your car after being impounded, you must show proof of insurance to have your car released. This has made it easy for the City of Dallas to remove uninsured cars that are typically driven by mostly illegals.

 

Shortly after "No insurance" ordinance was passed, the Dallas impound lots began to fill up quickly and were full after nine days. Most of the impounded cars were driven by illegals.

 

Not only must you provide proof of insurance to have your car released, you have to pay for the cost of the tow, a $350 fine, and charged $20 for every day their car is kept in the lot.

 

I would suggest other cities across the nation to follow what Dallas, Texas is doing. Not only is it getting uninsured drivers off the road, but it is taking away vehicles driven by illegals that have no insurance that might endanger your life.

 

GO Texas !

 

--------------

 

Dallas' Solution?

 

Get them off the road WITHOUT making them show proof of nationality. Wonder how the ACLU or the Justice Department will get around this one.

Of course, I can hear the rightie's screams all the way over here on the other side of the world when they forgot their wallet with all their info in it and the Jag gets towed at $350! "Too much government! It isn't fair!" LOL!

You mean like Bush kissing and holding hands with Al Saud?

Grow up HH. Following your hosts cultural norms are what you do to be polite and get shit done diplomatically.

Still, its not a good thing to do. The word 'special' is only used for England as far as I know.

What a bunch of bullshit! The GOP sound like a bunch of seventh grade schoolgirls with this silly BS. "Ooooo, Sally said you're not her BFF anymore! Now Jane is...nya-nya-nya-nya!"

Really, WTF? Grow up assholes. It is like we don't have a plethora of other problems to address instead of this non-issue.

If you do not know that' date=' then stay away from courtrooms.[/quote']

 

I got a deal for ya LK. We both take the bar exam in CA. I score higher than you, you have to stay with Pelosi for a week and fuck her brains out everynight. You score higher than me, I will do the honors. Deal?

 

HH

Deal. I never take a bet I know I can't win. I am not a gambler. I am a good lawyer tho'.

I guess she didn't have nice tits?

So...he was "not guilty" by reason of ________? Are you sure that a decision on his guilt or innocence is dependent upon one's political tendencies? You must be admitting that conservatives believe in rule of law, whereas libtards do not. I guess you have admitted that you don't let facts get in the way of reaching the right conclusion.

Quite the opposite: progressives follow the law and appreciate the qualities of the USA; righties simply want to be dictators and make statements like the Constitution, the basis of the rule of the land, is just "a goddamn piece of paper."

OJ was not guilty by reason of incompetence. If you cannot see that, then you are a scary individual and seem to support any form of authority feeling that they can do no wrong (pretty much a standard conservative position, nowadays anyway). Especially when it comes to big biz and their own ideologues (including eliminating their own party ethics committee).

He was rightfully found not guilty because the prosecution fucked up; even you admit that. There are reasons there are chains of evidence, prosecutorial rules, etc. That is so innocent people do not go to jail. As some famous jurist once said: better a dozen criminals go free than one innocent man go to jail. That is quite simply the basis of our criminal justice system.

If you do not know that, then stay away from courtrooms.

<< OJ has nuttin' to do with it (and unlike conservatives, I believe that even tho' I think OJ did it, the right decision was reached by that court). >>

 

 

A judge who is a long time family friend told me the judge in OJ's trial was an incompetent. Apparently, he got picked because he was a minority. The prosecution was equally bad - picked a woman and a minority for appearance sake. not for ability. Finally, a former FBI forensic medicine expert told me he'd have been fired if he'd been as sloppy as the LA police with the OJ evidence. OJ was guilty as sin, but it would have been hard to convict him with the boobs conducting the case.

My sentiments exactly. They fucked up. The law is clear and it is better to let a dozen guilty go free than one innocent man get imprisoned. I forget who said that, but still true today.

I know you're familiar with metaphors. She probably could've (and should've) picked a better one, considering today's climate.

See, we agree. That is exactly the point I am making, whereas the wingnuts are repudiating even that thought. Words have consequences. Choose them carefully and if you fuck up, own it, don't hide it. 180 from the wingnut position.

Dershowitz is beautiful because he can't be pigeon holed, the conservatives dislike him as much as the liberals. And please explain to me how you equate being OJ's defense lawyer with being conservative? I like that. That's good. New.

There you go again (hattip Ray-gun). You love playing with strawmen; did you have Barbies growing up too? Where did you equate what I said with that?

Big D is very conservative in my eyes because of his ties to AIPAC (rabidly pro), his stance on torture (OK, if you have a warrant) amongst other things that are pretty key planks in a progressive platform.

OJ has nuttin' to do with it (and unlike conservatives, I believe that even tho' I think OJ did it, the right decision was reached by that court).