Lucky...

Calling him secular is the irony, perhaps that was too obvious for you to see. Also, the concept that Obama is some secular sinner and Gingrich is the moral Christian monitor of the country, yet he is an adulterer. These are obvious concepts, pretending to not understand them doesn't make them less obvious, it just makes obvious the fact that you don't want to acknowledge the hypocrisy in your party. Also, shall we talk the Clinton impeachment? We know who spearheaded that. I know, I know, it wasabout perjury and obstruction, but what prompted the hearings? Oh yea, adultery ala Gongrich-style. Hillarious Clinton commited a felony He should have been thrown out of office I would take him back to day however Given the piss poor example of a leader we have today But to call a man into congress ON THE REASON THAT HE COMMITTED ADULTERY is what initiated the congressional hearings is pathetic, esp considering the spearheader of teh deal was Gingrich, a soon after adulterer himself. Now Gingrich calls Obama secular. So how do you feel about Scooter Libby? Should your hero have commuted his sentence? Should your other hero have gotten his way and pardoned him? I see, no wanty to talk abouty.

Cool, now I can carry a gun while I skydive . I have never CCW'd here, altho it's an easy class, I hear they teach you basically it's a bad idea to carry one. Unless you have all the facts/witnesses on your side, if someone gets shot and you were the only one who brought a gun to the party, you kinda hold the bag. The home is quite different, but out on the streets, I'd be careful. I used to carry a gun under my seat - completely legal if in a holster - and it caused me nothing but grief. I haven't done that for years. With all that, I hope the gov signs it.

Right, that's why you had to pay. The tax code is BS and the last dumbshit just gave a tax benefit to married people as well as Clinton gave more for having kids. The trend in this moral toilet is to punish being single w/o kids.

Calling him secular is the irony, perhaps that was too obvious for you to see. Also, the concept that Obama is some secular sinner and Gingrich is the moral Christian monitor of the country, yet he is an adulterer. These are obvious concepts, pretending to not understand them doesn't make them less obvious, it just makes obvious the fact that you don't want to acknowledge the hypocrisy in your party. Also, shall we talk the Clinton impeachment? We know who spearheaded that. I know, I know, it wasabout perjury and obstruction, but what prompted the hearings? Oh yea, adultery ala Gongrich-style. Hillarious

Yes, but we forgive you anyway.

That D.O.W. sounds a lot like Communism. Hmmm, so Capitalism and Communism are that close, huh? Yep and they are both very Utilitarian too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_us/us_republicans_gingrich Gingrich: Obama is 'most radical president ever' He urged his fellow Republicans to stop what he called Obama's "secular, socialist machine." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - So Gingri(n)ch is the anti-secular, moral monitor. Great, now explain this: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/24/1976721.aspx Republican Newt Gingrich (2007): As he was weighing a 2008 presidential run, the former speaker acknowledged -- in an interview with the Christian conservative group Focus on the Family -- having had an extramarital affair during the 1990s. So he is an admitted adulterer, yet he is calling someone the evil, secular bastard. The right is fortunately still all fucked up, I wouldn't count on a take-back any time soon. Oh, is there evidence that Obama ever cheated? That really makes this rich; a cheater calling a Christian man who is known only as faitful, secular. Really pathetic, kids.

Yep, altho some of the biggest POS I know are pot heads, didn't we learn from prohibition?

I've said for a long time, people aren't taxed, money is. You earn a lot of money, you get taxed accordingly. You earn shit, you don't get taxed and perhaps get EIC. Get it; money gets taxed, not people.

What would we do without them? They carry the same sympathy with mine safety as they do with HC and any other system where, as a lovely person calls it; pussies are.

Well, then better join the mile-high club in there to make it worth it. Naw, I have serviced, removed, repaired those shitters all the way from the tank that you sit on to the lines to the main shit-tank in the belly and all I have to say is that for flights 2 hrs or less, shut em down. It's a lot of system to fascilitate idiots who can't remember to piss/shit b4 they board. As for charging, that's even more idiotic. What if a person doesn't have the money? They shit in their seat? Yea, that's better.

If they can't afford it, they will be able to get it bought for them by the gov. I know, such a luxury to have for free..... next thing they will be allowed to eat and breath.

So stopping the wars won't actually save much money? Kinda hurts your argument for funding the healthcare bill. . That sounds like the kind of argument a 6th grader would use when told to stop doing something stupid. Right, the truth is we need to: - Stop the wars - Quit matching the world dollar for dollar in basic defense spending Together these will shore up the spending end, then a tax hike will do just fine and we will see the fall as soon as the steep escallation rounds teh top.

Your post looks a bit silly now that a year has passed. You can't be serious. Take a look at the underlying fundamentals of the economy. The second dip of the double is gonna be deep. You know, if the market being up from a down is your idea of success, remind me not to take your investing advise. Hey moderation, this is obviously Stanley; can we have 2 user accounts? At what point do you actually relent and admit you were wrong? Weren't you saying the same thing wherever you were as Clinton took over? We know you were and I'm sure you blamed the 2008-09 market tanking 7-8 years after his exit on Clinton ; am I right? What the hell are you talking about? Once again you are making assumptions and writing as though you know and what you say is fact. That is not me so I will ask once again that you stop making up stuff to make your meaningless drivel worth something. It never will be but keep trying to bait me...... carry on with your small understanding of economy and the market. You didn't make claims that the dow would likely tank, it was oversold, etc? Riiiiight, as I said, you and Chuck are one in the same, you both predict doom, now that it hasn't happened, you're sad. Cheer up, the R's will take control one day and your prediction of crash will them come to fruition.

Your post looks a bit silly now that a year has passed. You can't be serious. Take a look at the underlying fundamentals of the economy. The second dip of the double is gonna be deep. You know, if the market being up from a down is your idea of success, remind me not to take your investing advise. Buy low, sell high works for me. You have a different strategy? That' not investing, that's trading. There's a big difference. I can discuss either, but you'll first need to decide which conversation you want to have. Oh brother, in today's and since the early 90's the market is about day trading. Go back to the 70's and all mwe had were long-term investors. Sorry, but most of all that's out there is day traders and profit takers; it's the way it is and has been for some time. Can't believe you just don't admit you fucked up.

Your post looks a bit silly now that a year has passed. You can't be serious. Take a look at the underlying fundamentals of the economy. The second dip of the double is gonna be deep. You know, if the market being up from a down is your idea of success, remind me not to take your investing advise. Hey moderation, this is obviously Stanley; can we have 2 user accounts? At what point do you actually relent and admit you were wrong? Weren't you saying the same thing wherever you were as Clinton took over? We know you were and I'm sure you blamed the 2008-09 market tanking 7-8 years after his exit on Clinton ; am I right?

Your post looks a bit silly now that a year has passed. Right, it's as brilliant as saying the unemp was Obama's fault, it has skyrocketed 3.4% from Feb 08 to Feb 09, so the 2% it kept going after Feb 09 was the overrun it took for the stimulus to kick in. Now it has dropped from 10.1% to 9.7% and jobs are being created. Same with the market, it had tanked from 14k to whatever Obama inherited, 8-9kish and it kept rolling downward. See, when the other total financial crash happened in teh GD and the gov thought they would let it fix itself, it kept rolling with no intervention; today's Repubs don't get that doesn't work and tehyt cite 1920 depression which was just a war transition-to- non war economy where the banks were dead, just some markets, jobs, etc. I just apologize to Chuck, Stanley and all the real Americans who want the US to tank so they can be, "right."

why do you keep mentioning the AMA? they have absolutely zero authority. given that less than a third (most of the figures i could find range from 17%-22%) of doctors even belong to the AMA, odds are that he doesn't even belong to the organization. given the AMA's stance on obamacare, i would bet that he is not a member. Just threw it out as a possible authority. I also stated, several times, the state lic board; I'm sure you agree they have authority and they might frown on his behavior. So what do you think, was it unprofessional?

If so, where will you find these people? Can you name a single politician who is not in the game for themselves? The new governor of New Jersey seems to be very popular on this kind of platform. Ron Paul comes to mind. There's a few others out there. Let the tidal wave of new-breed low-government politicians begin! I just got my mortgage escrow analysis for the year. My house payment is going up $150 per month. Why? Increasing taxes... I'll vote for anyone who shows the balls to hold the line. The sad truth is in order to turn this around we need to raise taxes AND cut spending. The days where one or the other could do it are long past. Well that's true. Of course in the old days, since 1930's, the tax rate has always been huge; 70% or greater top brkt. So from the mid 30's until Reagan we never have had taxes below 70% top brkt, so there really never was a time when we could control debt thru spending; we've always had high taxes until Reagan. I think 50-60% top brkt is about right.

That means a lot from the master. So no response? Ok. It's a response in kind - no more, no less It's a response in absentia - we get it.

Trial cts are supposed to apply the law that has been legislated or decided upon by appellate cts. Now with jurisdictional diffs, like a state ct ruling that a fed statute doesn't apply, they can try that and be within the rights, but trial cts don't revist the constitutionality of statute, they must apply that which has been decided or legislated, unless they rule it is inapplicable due to venue or other reasons. Trial cts apply law, not overturn it. Has it come to academic dishonesty? I wrote the following, I will embolden what you trasncribed me as writing: And appellate courts affirm or reverse a lot more than state trial cts refusing to acknowledge fed statute, they affirm or reject trial cts: I was saying, as would be clear if you posted the entire passage, that appellate cts do more affirming / reversing than do trial cts rejecting fed statute. It was a proportionate comparison, but you decided to partially quote me. Right, but as you just said they invalidate it, they can only find it doesn't apply to a given case, not that it is fundamentally invalid and strike it from the books. Isn't that what I've always written? *YAWN* Yep, but fortunately, as for this elitist judicial system, it probably won't become precedent as these decesions are cherry-picked for publishing by the justices, at least at the state level. *YAWN* Agreed, so when I see these tea bagger dorks running around screaming for small gov, they are the ideology that was repsonsible for dropping a POS gov on Obama on teh brink of collapse with 10.6T debt, while >*T came from their own. The Lear Jet liberals is very relevant too, it's all a power grab, only hypocritical morons claim it's just the other side; they're angelic. LAWROCKET: I findit appalling how many people think what you think. Rules don't count. Process doesn't count. "The ends justify the means." LUCKY: Where did I advocate it. See, counselor, unlike you I have the ability to be 3rd person objective. Take Heller for example, saying that, "well regulated" (with or w/o the hyphen; juries still out on that one) means well maintained is the fantasy of 5 of the current justices. Is that a FAR STRETCH? Of course, but subjectively I'm glad, just that objectively it's a farce, it has never been interpreted that way before. I can separate the cheerleader inside from the intellect, I don’t see that you can, which is why you bias your reasoning’s. SO I'm not saying rules don't count; where have I? As for ends justify means, I hope you're not so naive to think that the justices don't decide these cases based upon that practice, usually form 2 sides and get people to join, then have their clerk find flowery BS language to support it. Again, the original writing is basically useless. There is enough precedent to stand on that reflects a real-life process, whereas the climate present at the time of the original writing was: - Slavery - Women's right absent - Elitism - Classism If I had a Model T, I wouldn't drive it to work everyday, I would stick in my garage and marvel ove rit, take it out carefully once a month. I would drive the vehicles that stemmed from that and are being improved upon everyday until they are contemporary pieces of work. Get it? You don't like it, but the old cars (orig const) is antiquated and irrelavnt, the new hybrid car (living const) is relevant in today's world and can be used daily. I'm for a set of rules, the problem is that how HC was passed is much like the process that much legislation has passed. I just read that 17 of the 23 reconcilliations were signed by R pres; you're fishing at the wrong lake when you're trying to catch rule circumventers. I hang my life on that . I see you're looking for the popularity bump over substance. I can point to several areas where my personal opinion and legal opinion are far different. See, I now understand why and how you develop your legal opinions. See how you post fragment of what I write, which is dishonest w/o the "..." and some support if neccessary to bring it into context. "Sahll not be infringed" sounds pretty tough if it stands alone, but when it's part of a sentence it is now under the scrutiny of context. I will post 2 of the versions: 1) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 2) A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The comma is moved in these two versions. I've heard of there being a hyphen or not between, "well regulated." Either way, the entire passage must be considered: - Well regulated (objectively means controlled) - Militia (not standing army) - necessary to the security of a free State (infers defense only) - the right of the People to keep and bear arms (where, in the well regulated militia lockup) - shall not be infringed (based upon all the previous conditions. I don't know if you practice contract law, but it doesn't take a contract specialist to understand that all provisions affect the others as far as performance and expectations. This is why the US Const was great for its day, shitty shortly thereafter. It is very vague, but I think it was designed to be reinterpreted by the leaders of the future, knowing it was grwat for its time but that times change. So yea, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed where we need to keep a free state, with a militia for defense, and as long as it's well regulated. It says nothing about the gun under your pillow, as there is no need to keep and bear that arm considering we have a standing army, aren't suject to hostile invasion and takeover and there is no regulation process in place in many states. So the fact it shall not be infringed is only relevant if all other conditions are met. Again, living on your popularity contest, me gives a shit not. Do the majority of teh people think low taxes lead to prosperity too? They during the fascist pig years and guess what? They were wrong. They did in the 1920's; guess what? They were wrong. I've checked over and over and I still can't find a grain of give-a-shit to your DZ.COM popularity pole; I defer to substance. Or drop your ad hominem and rely on substance. See how conservatives "rally the trops?" They try to pull everyone in to a popularity circel rather than the silly libs using data and substance. I respect them most of the time, they can almost always seperate themselves / their personal opinion from the issue. But I see more name-dropping for more....popularity; we get it. It is far better to be popular than it is to be correct. I think you are extremely biased. Show me a legal position that you have decided is a certain way from a legal set of criteria, yet you personally think it s/b another way. Let's take taxes, you want no taxes as you make real good money and want to keep it all. But, all available data shows that we (as a nation) do best in high tax environments - Kallend who we both respect just said this very thing in a diff thread - so tell me, is your personal position inline with the very obvious fact that the US does best in higher tax climates? Or are you being biased by ignoring decades of data? As I thought. I am totally objective. I do have an opinion on most things, but I can separate them: - Guns: objectively disagree with Heller's reasoning / hope Heller stands - Abortion: think it's disgusting / hope Roe v Wade stands - Affirmative Action: think it goes too far / it needs to stand as well since racial bias exists today - Gay Rights: don't have gay friends / am all for gay rights, marriage, etc How many can you disclose? That's what I thought. Many things my personal opinion and objective legal postion are identical, but one doesn't influence the othr. I expect some mor eof your, "friends" will pop in here to cheerlead and tell us how objective you are. So then is that an agreement that when the justices certify a case for being heard that they have pretty much already decided how they're gonna rule, just need a few law clerks to put the justifying BS in ink? Thought so. (I will answer the rest later)

I presume you mean currently. Unlimited? Hardly. Low deductable? Hardly. How will it be limited? In a free market, won't the demand for more HC = more HC professionals enterring the field? You keep acting like the public option or single payer was passed

Then write the check and shut the fuck up-come on man, you remind me of my bloodhound bitch-constant howling for no good reason......except Maggie has health insurance because she lives in a household that considers it a priority. And you remind me of someone who is beatdown, defeated, crying, scared and just out of gas. Enjoy my party; FUCKING DEAL WITH IT. Oh, and don't forget to have a nice day.

I didn't tie them together, in fact, I established the 1st could not offer protection against civil libel suit. Mike = the king of abstraction. No where did I say the 1st could be used as a defense to a civil libel suit. To people who like it there, sure. Those same people woiuld scream if any religion was introduced that was Jebus-loving, fucked up Christianity. That's right, which is why I said the 1st won't protect you from a civil libel suit; don't know how I can make that more clear. Again, let's not be absolute here, I bet there's a case or two where a person has successfuly used the 1st as a defense in a libel case. I don't know of them but the law doesn't work like binary. All I'm saying is that on its face, the US Const is designed for gov restrictions and citizen rights and liberty. I understand that you only want to see the gov restriction side, as you are pissed your party in marginalized thus the gov must be corrupt. When you party gets back in prominence, you will be pro-gov once again. Then why did I write it, let alone write it before you did? I apparently can figure it out. BTW, I'm so lucky to have a guy liek you w/o any college to explain to me how these things work. Yea, it must be me, I'm still trying ot figure out the rules thingy where sometimes the exact same comment is a PA, yet other times it is not - it must be me. Right, since you're pessimistic and pissed that your party is nill, the gov is all bad and needs to be restricted, once your party comes back into prominence, it's all about freedoms. h did you have to give someone a ride to a comm college once? Brag to us your vast collegiate experience. But you want to give me the ok that I didn;t do well on it. I see, an authority w/o knowledge. And that's my point, either: - Test well - Be in a racial minority group - Have rich parents We can all say, but if.... the reality is that I didn't fit any group, hence I'm screwed. Grad schools are not objective. She got a partial ride, in fact as I recall, I think she said they paid a good part or all of it, just expenses she had to borrrow. And I'm guessing she did well enough on the LSAT to not have to go to Florida Coastal or the one in San Diego @ 25K/yr, so her tuition was 5-10k/yr that was basically paid for as I recall. And you can live cheaper than 25K/yr depending upon where you live. For her it's a blessing, a tax writeoff when she needs one. Again, I would be glad to go into debt to get into law school and I may, probably not tho, getting too old to be worth it. Still, rich brats get a free ride and an academic free ride in some cases, just look at JFK Jr; took him several times to pass the Bar. Still wanna argue there is no exclusive preference? Racial preference? Didn 't think so.

That means a lot from the master. So no response? Ok.