muff528

Well, it was just your standard Middle East protest movement and uprising until we (+NATO) started with the close air support and other military assistance. Then they got bold and started a full-scale revolution thinking they had their asses covered ..and then we pulled out. Likewise, we didn't start the counter-revolution in Cuba. There were still resistance fighters there. We trained some exiles here and planned an invasion in concert with the existing counter-revolutionaries.

So given that subtle difference, with which scenario do we have the moral high ground? @wayneflorida ..."Bay of Goats"!

Celebrating by juicing up the rebels in Libya just enough to get them to fully commit and then bail on 'em. At least our foreign policy is consistent.

I doubt it would improve my qualify of life if I had to step over rotting maggot-infested bodies on the sidewalk. I'd prefer that taxpayers like me funded help for the indigent. But then I'm not a Tea Bagger. I'm not one of those "no tax money for government programs" guys. Neither am I one of those "all government programs are created equal" when it comes to funding priorities. ...but, I'm just curious, ...would the citizens of Chicago just leave a body laying on a sidewalk long enough for it to start rotting and become maggot-infested while waiting for the "government" to pick it up?

I dunno, but maybe that can be decided by a WWE Diva Steel-Cage Strip Match.

Yes, I agree completely ...just as there were "issues" with the murderous fundamentalists in Afghanistan before Terry Jones arrived.

Just wondering. http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/lady-gaga-costume-20110415-ncx

No political points to be scored there just now. Give it time.

Vector W8 Renault Dauphine (OK, this one's a stretch) Studebaker Hawk Hudson Hornet Studebaker Commander Studebaker Excalibur Maruti (Suzuki) Swift Chrysler Cirrus Custoka Strato Ariel Atom Ariel Atom

Mercury Monarch

Texas did get one.... Columbia.. is all over Texas NY got the fake one.

That had to be one helluva e-ticket ride in the cockpit of the Comair.

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410,0,4567867.story Bad policy. Parents have the right to serve their kids the lunch they want them to have, and the principal has no business overriding that. The principal should stick to education, and not take the kid's chosen lunch food away from them. By taking away their home lunches, instead of the kids having a lunch they like and will eat every day, they'll be stuck with a cafeteria meal that they may or may not like, and will end up going hungry some days. It's about the money ----> .

To paraphrase one of the "commenters" below the article: This places the responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws squarely with the administration. It doesn't "place" anything. It's a federal responsibility, and always has been. Well, of course that. I meant it in the sense that, IMO, the judges should have dropped the other shoe and instructed the administration to get busy enforcing. Maybe some convoluted legal reason they couldn't do that ...Maybe some political reason they wouldn't. The reason is neither convoluted nor political. It's because, simply, that that was not one of the issues formally presented to them for ruling on appeal. Appellate judges occasionally stick their extra 2 cents' worth in like you suggest, but usually they don't, especially in the federal judicial system, where that kind of self-discipline is usually adhered to. Yeah, I thought it might be a strictly legal reason. I'll admit that I used the word "convoluted" editorially. Actually, I now agree with the ruling. A state shouldn't be forced to take what seems to be "extra-constitutional" measures to try to make up for the fed's dereliction. (By "extra-constitutional" I'm not referring to the alleged possible civil rights violations, which I don't think would be the case. I mean the perception of a state overstepping it's jurisdictional boundaries with respect to law enforcement.) What is the difference between a state or county agency enforcing existing federal immigration law and enforcing some other federal law ...for example arresting someone for killing a bald eagle or for pointing a laser at an aircraft? I doubt that the local sheriff would look the other way in either of those cases.

To paraphrase one of the "commenters" below the article: This places the responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws squarely with the administration. It doesn't "place" anything. It's a federal responsibility, and always has been. Well, of course that. I meant it in the sense that, IMO, the judges should have dropped the other shoe and instructed the administration to get busy enforcing. Maybe some convoluted legal reason they couldn't do that ...Maybe some political reason they wouldn't.

To paraphrase one of the "commenters" below the article: This places the responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws squarely with the administration.

I was only commenting on Mark's post that these things are illegal in most western countries. I know that that stuff sometimes goes on with the blessing of the local cops ....so what do we do about it? Torches and pitchforks? Assign a US Marshall to oversee their community (sort of a anti-religious police) to ensure that these illegal practices are stopped or prosecuted. Ban religion? Ban religions that do not respect the laws of the land (Is it the religion or some misguided adherents)? Vigorously prosecute these abusers as they are discovered? Just some suggestions. Why would they start to enforce laws now..???? Never happened before when it comes to this kind of crap.... what makes you think it will change anytime soon. These people are VERY insular not to mention paranoid.. and many times apocalyptic in nature... think Koresh. Sooo ...we just do nothing until some politician decides to send in some tanks and SF guys to burn 'em out.

I was only commenting on Mark's post that these things are illegal in most western countries. I know that that stuff sometimes goes on with the blessing of the local cops ....so what do we do about it? Torches and pitchforks? Assign a US Marshall to oversee their community (sort of a anti-religious police) to ensure that these illegal practices are stopped or prosecuted. Ban religion? Ban religions that do not respect the laws of the land (Is it the religion or some misguided adherents)? Vigorously prosecute these abusers as they are discovered? Just some suggestions.

I suppose those communities in Utah that like to give the 13 or 14 year old daughters to the creepy old church elders as "wives" don't count... when and if any of those "wives" try to leave. Most of those LEO types in those places look out for the elders.. not those "wives" There are others as well. Ya can't have property runnin off ya know. Seek and ye shall find Speculation, not facts. mh . Out of sight.. out of Mind Mark...we get it... really... Anywhere that fundamentalists bludgeon any group.. because their BOOK says it is ok to do so, is wrong... no matter how much you wish to turn a blind eye to it. Women are a favored target across the world. It really is too bad you are incapable of seeing past those blinders. Of course it is not only wrong, but it also violates the law (...of the land, not the book) which I'm guessing is the point Mark was getting at if I am understanding his post correctly. As happens in MANY jurisdictions.. local LEO have different ways of handling those laws. If your 14 year old "wife" runs away... do you really want to contend that the "LAW" is there to protect her from her 60 year old "husband" or do you think the local officers will return her to her abuser??? Yeah, but wouldn't the LEO himself be violating the law by looking the other way. Was the 14 yo given involuntarily (or willingly for that matter) into slavery? Isn't boinking a 14 yo under the pretense of being "married" to her considered pedophilia ...even in Utah? Maybe not! Just asking. (I know, I know ....google) I'm sure that a lot of LEOs are "persuaded" to not perform their sworn duties for one reason or another. Doesn't make it legal.

I suppose those communities in Utah that like to give the 13 or 14 year old daughters to the creepy old church elders as "wives" don't count... when and if any of those "wives" try to leave. Most of those LEO types in those places look out for the elders.. not those "wives" There are others as well. Ya can't have property runnin off ya know. Seek and ye shall find Speculation, not facts. mh . Out of sight.. out of Mind Mark...we get it... really... Anywhere that fundamentalists bludgeon any group.. because their BOOK says it is ok to do so, is wrong... no matter how much you wish to turn a blind eye to it. Women are a favored target across the world. It really is too bad you are incapable of seeing past those blinders. Of course it is not only wrong, but it also violates the law (...of the land, not the book) which I'm guessing is the point Mark was getting at if I am understanding his post correctly.

Seems like I vaguely remember a couple of bars like that ...no cover charge but you had to pay to get out.

Dissin' Bob Dylan is just plain Un-American. +1

No, China buying America for pennies on the dollar is a victory for communism. It seems that the communist have beaten us at our own game. Oh, and Dylan Rocks. Seen him several times since the 70s and hope to see him again. +1

Well, not unless everyone at the concert had equally crappy seats. (I wonder how much a ticket cost and how many pairs of Nike Air shoes had to be stitched up to pay for them.)

Succession issues were MUCH more than just 'racist' issues. Sorry; I can tell from numerous responses, including yours, that I obviously didn't phrase the thread title as I meant the message. I didn't literally mean, "What was the real cassus belli in the Civil War?"; I meant more like "Why did we fucking bother preserving the Union - i.e., what use was it - if this was destined to be the result?" Pretty obvious to me that it was a rhetorical question. That's why I included both Lincoln quotes. Lincoln knew that what is in people's hearts will not be changed and that the War was not fought to do that anyway. (That is what is dangerous about so-called "hate speech" laws. Give haters the freedom to spout whatever bile they wish and we will all get a daylight glimpse into their true nature. But that's another debate.)