My point being that even the earliest laws weren't about preventing women from obtaining abortions - Just from whom women could get abortions from. It's a reach for Scalia to contend that a woman's right to an abortion isn't protected by the Constitution.
About Gay Marriage
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
"The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said at the American Enterprise Institute.
Not that it's relevant (funny how Obama's 'most ardent fans' try to misdirect from the subject at hand), but I'll go one round with you.
I've not heard Charles Pierce "take back" something that he's said, but if he "always" does it as you claim, then you disagree when Pierce says of Obama, "The fact is that the president is a cool and rational man", or that, "Romney got to bull**it his way to the next topic because the president couldn't rein him in, and because moderator Jim Lehrer was in a hurry to get back to that hillside on Easter Island", and expect Pierce will be "taking it back"?
If what Charlie Pierce said is something that you disagree with, then explain why.
As I share the opinion he expressed (and I'm not taking it back), that's the topic up for discussion.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Are you supporting the real Obama, or the idea of Obama?
I’m tired of hearing that “Romney would be a disaster,” or “the SupremeCourt would be more conservative.” Actually, if it were possible for Romney to win this election, it would probably be the best thing for the country in the long run. Why? Obama can get away with doing anything, as far as the left is concerned. After the election, he'll “make a deal” on SocialSecurity, lowering benefits and increasing the retirement age, in fact, he’s already said he supports it. The left will go along because he’ll sell it as the “best deal he could get,” just like he sold the insurance company bonanza Obamacare. The left will go along with his approval of the northern half of the sludgepipe, and probably the bombing of Iran as well. Actually, there’s almost nothing he won’t be able to get away with.
Romney, OTOH, won’t be able to get away with anything. He’ll do the exact same things Obama would've done, but the left won’t stand for it. Not for a moment! Romney doing the same things might even put hundreds-of-thousands of people in the streets, which will be the only way this country might have a chance of surviving.
The system we’re living under is rotten to the core. Our government is a wholly-owned subsidiary of banks and corporations. We’ve run out of time for incremental changes, tweaks to the system - It must be replaced. The effects of climate change: Food and water shortages, relocations, and increasingly violent weather, are going to be combined with another major economic crash, and coming energy shortages due to the effects of peak oil, and upsets in the MiddleEast.
Our government is fully aware of these facts. Why has Homeland Security purchased and distributed millions of rounds of .40 hollow point ammunition, which is illegal under the GenevaConvention? Why have police forces all across the land been equipped to the point where some of them could defeat most countries armies? Why has our society become the most heavily surveiled in the entire world? Do you really think that voting for one candidate or the other is going to change where all this is headed?
The forces governing this country aren’t afraid of elections, speeches, petitions on Facebook, and certainly not the media they control. They’re only afraid of what we could do if enough of us rise up and refuse to work within the system anymore. General strikes, peaceful civil disobedience in large numbers, removal of funds from major banks, filling the streets might get their attention, not voting for a “green” candidate or one of the duopoly.
Are you supporting the real Obama or the idea of Obama?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The Social Security reforms enacted in 1983:
That package implements over many years changes that ultimately cut benefits about 19 percent. The biggest change, by far, is an increase in the age when full benefits are available, from 65 to 67 in 2022. At that point, benefits claimed at ages 65 or 66 will be about 13 percent lower than they would had the retirement age not been boosted.
Here's an example of what happens when the full retirement age rises. If you were born between 1943 and 1954, your full retirement age is 66. "If you decided to take benefits early at 65, you would no longer get a full benefit, but a fraction of a full benefit," explains Virginia Reno, vice president for income security at the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI). "On the other hand, by waiting until 66, you used to get more than a full benefit when the full retirement age was 65--now you don't."
The Obama commission calls for increasing Social Security's full and early retirement ages, "based on increases in life expectancy." The changes would effectively reset full retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075; the early retirement age would rise to 63 and 64 in those same years.
That approach may sound reasonable and gradual, but it's not if you're age 29 or younger. You'll bear the brunt not only of the 1983 cuts, but yet another round of reductions on the order of 20 percent.
About Mitt Romney 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama, DickDurbin, NancyPelosi, all have "embraced" SimpsonBowles.
Obama's DeficitCommission was designed to be as anti-democratic and untransparent as possible. Its work is done in total secrecy. It's filled with behind-the-scenes political and corporate operatives who refused to talk to the public about what they're doing. Its recommendations were released in December2010, right after the election, to ensure that its proposals are shielded from public anger. And the House passed a non-binding resolution calling for an up-or-down/no-amendments vote on the Commission's recommendations, long considered the key tactic to ensuring its enactment.
The whole point of the Commission is that the steps which Washington wants to take -- particularly cuts in popular social programs, such as SocialSecurity -- can occur only if they're removed as far as possible from democratic accountability. As the economist JamesGalbraith put it when testifying before the Commission in July:
Your proceedings are clouded by illegitimacy. . . . First, most of your meetings are secret. There's no justification for secret meetings on deficit reduction. No secrets of any kind are involved. . . .
Second, that some members of the commission are proceeding from fixed, predetermined agendas. Third, that the purpose of the secrecy is to defer public discussion of cuts in SocialSecurity and Medicare until after the 2010 elections. You could easily dispel these suspicions by publishing video transcripts of all of your meetings on the Internet, and by holding all future meetings in public . . .
Conflicts of interest constitute the fourth major problem. The fact that the Commission's accepted support from PetePeterson, a man who has for decades conducted a relentless campaign to cut SocialSecurity and Medicare, raises the most serious questions.
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
