I did it again.
That should have read, "and she joined the conservatives on the MEDICAID portion of ACA (that states may opt out) a couple of weeks ago."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Thank you for replying. I respect your doing that.
May I ask you just what it is that you're not buying? What, specifically, do you believe is a scam?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
ElenaKagan is the GoldmanSacks seat, not to mention that she was the 5th vote in rolling back Miranda a few weeks ago, and she joined the conservatives on the Medicare portion of ACA (that states may opt out) a couple of weeks ago.
Obama's spin when trying to get both Kagan and Sotomayor (a lackluster intellect if ever there was one) confirmed was that they'd be effective at countering the conservatives arguments when it came to trying to pull Kennedy over. It hasn't happened; Roberts, Alito, and Scalia wield far greater political warfare skills. And it was Kennedy who worked on Roberts for weeks, to bring Roberts over to the conservative side on ACA??
In claims against big business, Sotomayor (herself a former corporate lawyer) wrote the dissent in a 2-1 decision that ultimately favored victims' families. This was concerning the 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 off of LongIsland. Sotomayor wrote, "The crash hadn't occurred in US territorial waters, therefore victims' families shouldn't have had the right to sue for extra damages." She wrote that the judges who disagreed with her were ignoring legislative history and earlier case law," saying "their decision was a legislative policy choice which shouldn't be made by the courts".
That's conservative talk.
In 2002, on the issue of abortion, Sotomayor upheld Bush's 'Global Gag Rule' (the policy of withholding funds for international groups that offer family planning information and services, including abortion).
On the issue of discrimination, she frequently rules against plaintiffs. For example, in 2004, she ruled against African-American corrections' officers who said they were retaliated against for filing discrimination complaints.
Sotomayor certainly doesn't look at the law through the prism of how it serves the interests of the People.
And Sotomayor was with the Scalia-Thomas-Alito faction that boycotted the SOTU - Sotomayor was in Guam, addressing a group of students and swearing in new members of the Guam Bar Association, a first for a US Supreme Court Justice (are you kidding, Sonia, missing the most public showing of US democracy and the 3 branches of government by leaving the US for a 5 day trip to Guam?).
We need more Earl Warrens. What we don't need are politicians looking to avoid a fight, and want to work "in a bipartisan manner". Republicans declared war on Democrats years and years ago, while Democrats keep trying to "make nice". Democratic politicians have gotten fat and lazy, feathering their own nests while Republicans have made long inroads into furthering corporate interests.
Whether Democrats are inept or corrupt, the result is the same: They have failed to protect the interests of the 99%. And all that they're putting out this campaign season is warmed-over Republican-like policies when drastic populist steps need to be taken.
About Video
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
This goes to show that Justices should be term limited.
The real answer to the Scott Browns really should be, "Ok, whatever. So what?"
It's dispiriting to see that Americans, of all people in the world, we with a statue at our gates welcoming people from everywhere in the world, are even engaging in defending against Obama being a Muslim because it makes it that there's something wrong if he were, that there's something wrong with 1.5 people in the world (Islam is the 2nd largest religion in the world).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
It's not that there aren't deniers - It's that the deniers aren't controlling the policy or paralyzing the governments' response.
Other nations are working on the problem of carbon and alternative, clean and sustainable energy; we're not, or not in any serious or significant way. And we're the main polluters causing the problem.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Not really, but I can appreciate your confusion over my comment.
Only here in the US are climate change deniers taken seriously by the media and given any semblance of consideration in the national discussion of the issue. They've been afforded such consideration that they've successfully paralyzed the government from going with solutions.
The poll that you're talking about supported that 90% of people in the UK still believe in global warming. Their belief as to the degree and severity of global warming was what had been worked on for weeks and months with misleading articles about the hacking of climate scientists' email that, if you look at the link I provided, you see just how many articles were published, over weeks and months, in an effort to chip away at people's confidence in their belief about the fact of climate change - Despite the fact that what the email revealed really didn't affect the fact of climate change or the cause.
I'd love to see a poll about how many of those people who were polled actually read past the headlines of those articles.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
You lost them at "meditate".
;-)
About Climate Change
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The ONLY people who are still debating the reality of climate change (much less the cause of it) are in the US.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
For a compelling and very sobering discussion of climate change and what we're facing:
Gwynne Dyer, "The Geopolitics of Climate Change".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Please tell us something about yourself, your life, how you've come to form your belief that global warming is fiction, etc. Seriously.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
What leeskyblue said.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
At a time when the government can take out 2nd Amendment rights' people with drones, you'd think they'd become 4th, 5th 6th, 7th and 8th Amendment rights' people.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
James Burke of "Connections"-fame produced an excellent program about 30 years ago called "After The Warming" that you can see online. It's done as if it's 2050 with Burke looking back over the history of the world's climate changes and the effect that cyclical warming and cooling has had on the development of animal, vegetation, and civilization. Up until the industrial revolution, and how what's happening is man-made, how we know that it's man-made, and how fast it's happening. In less than one generation, human civilization on the planet is going to irrevocably break down. Mass die-off of species, specifically humans, from a whole host of assaults (famine, drought, disease, pandemics, wars, etc.).
If every Fox viewer saw it, they might be convinced, but it wouldn't matter; it's too late.
What's happening politically now is that the world leaders are arranging for the time when chaos will be the order of the day. The loss of civil liberties, setting up for martial law, endless wars, etc. I think they're giving the 'haves' one last bite at the apple, to amass as much wealth as they can, to move their families to high ground for the coming bad times. The US is positioning itself much like the Roman Empire did, and will take what it wants through military might - Not for we ordinary mortals, mind you, but for the survival of the elites.
I think it's obvious that the decision was made some time ago, like several decades ago, that the US wasn't going to respond and try to avert the catastrophe. Too many people to get on board, too much work, and altruistic work at that. It was a cynical and corrupt decision, with greed controlling it, with the likes of Jim Baker and the Bushes making fortunes by the decision (in oil). War industries were another venue for amassing great wealth, and that's the path that Cheney took.
In the late 1990s, when the bubbles were taking shape, I estimated that those who didn't have a net worth of, at least, $250,000 wouldn't stand a chance, but I'm revising that upwards to $5 million. That's just bare bones, to keep from dying from an inability to purchase food and water, and keep a roof over your head that you don't have to trade watch duty with family and friends to keep marauders out.
Bleak? You bet. But we have to start talking about it and demanding politicians address it.
Watch "After The Warming" with your families and friends. It's somewhere to begin.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Mitt Romney: Iran Strike 'On The Table' If I Were President
Thanks for the info. Now I'm wondering if the calorie count is accurate, and if it isn't, have they just bought themselves some grief with the government for failing to comply with regulations. Now that would be an interesting follow-up article.
Back in the day where I live (university town), supermarkets' cookie aisles looked like war zones late on Saturday nights.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Calls to Loud Mouth to confirm this strategy went unanswered, and its website makes no references to weed. But the answer is easy to find if you know where to look.=====================================
In fact, it's right there on the back of the burrito: 420 calories.
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
