Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What the fuck to you call the presciption drug entitlement?

Proof that no invoice is too big for the GOP to pass onto their children, if they think it will get them a few extra votes ?

ETA - Dammit, Sebby!

[Replaced_Texan]

I'm pouring over material on John Roberts. So far I cant' get a great handle on him, which is probably what the administration wants, but I'm troubled by this passage in a Salon.com article:

Roberts wrote that the Metro's mandatory arrest policy was not unconstitutional in part because it would not have been "regarded as an unlawful search or seizure under the common law when the Amendment was framed," that is, under the law as it stood in 1791. He described this inquiry as "the usual first step" in assessing Fourth Amendment cases, but really it is not. Instead, it is part of an approach to the law put forward by Justice Scalia, one that has been used inconsistently at best by the Supreme Court, garnering a clear majority's support in only one Fourth Amendment decision. It is an approach that would in essence freeze our rights as they were in 1791. And it is contrary to a great deal of modern Supreme Court case law that is dear to most Americans -- from protection against wiretapping to protection of the right to choose.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Here in CA, we have a supermajority requirement to pass a bil that would raise any new revenues. Nobody has been able to prove that is unconstitutional.

That's via proposition right? Big difference between that an a rule enacted by the legislature. There would be turmoil in DC if either house proposed something to that effect.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
So you admit that you value the fetus over the person carrying it after 3 months? I'm not disparaging your position; I'm merely clarifying it.

Its one thing to bury your position in frothy explanatory prose (like a pork rider in an omnibus bill) or water it down, both of which you’ve done here. Its quite another to come right out and say clearly what you mean.

You’re welcome. There’s nothing I enjoy more than helping someone clearly say what he so obviously means.

No. That is not what I mean. I value the two lifes equally and one is not greater than the other (although I have said that in the case of a material threat to the mother's life by continuing the pregnancy post-first trimester abortions are okay, which further undercuts your erroneous presumption).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
A tight, passionate, mutually beneficial hug with Big Pharma, which lasts until the end of the party.

Seriously, what part of the new deal has the GOP undone. I'm for undoing much of the new deal, and part of my dismay with the GOP is that they have abondoned this position.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm pouring over material on John Roberts. So far I cant' get a great handle on him, which is probably what the administration wants, but I'm troubled by this passage in a Salon.com article:

In related news, I saw the interim president of Planned Parenthood on TV last night and was pleasantly surprised. She stated that Planned Parenthood does not yet have a position on Roberts because they do not know enough about him and are waiting to see the hearings. Very refreshing, especially in light of the knee jerk reactions of NOW.

I also found it interesting that, as a lawyer, he represented Playboy.

efs

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I learned Daily KOS requires a 24 hour wait period before allowing comments on their site. I'll send the uber personal resonse I received from the "Huffington" folks to anyone that asks, since its rather personal (and hilarious).

Congrats to Ty, Sidd, Gatti, Sidd, and others (e.g.the half-brain of Sebby) for allowing the silencing of dissention.

Godspeed, lefties.

You're welcome, though you should know that it's not a silencing of dissention generally. It's just a prohibition on you.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
In related news, I saw the interim president of Planned Parenthood on TV last night and was pleasantly surprised. She stated that Planned Parenthood does not yet have a position on Roberts because they do not know enough about him and are waiting to see the hearings. Very refreshing, especially in light of the knee jerk reactions of NOW.

I also found it interesting that, as a lawyer, he represented Playboy.

efs

The Human Rights Campaign "action" email only asked for money to research his record.

There's a nice round-up of activist organization executive directors and scholars' initial impression of the nomination over at Salon.com.

ETA: I agree with this guy over at the Cato Institute quoted in the above article:

• What do we know about John Roberts? Not much. Yes, Roberts is one of the most highly respected lawyers of his generation. He has also spent vanishingly little time on the bench. Is it too early for pundits of all stripes to take a dose of humility and admit the obvious? We have no idea what kind of a justice he will be.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
No. That is not what I mean. I value the two lifes equally and one is not greater than the other (although I have said that in the case of a material threat to the mother's life by continuing the pregnancy post-first trimester abortions are okay, which further undercuts your erroneous presumption).

Taking your position necessarily values one life over the other. You’re forcing one life to suffer because you value another’s rights more. Its real simple, and I don’t know why you fight me on my accurate characterization of your position. To clarify:

Me - The woman’s rights trump the fetus’ until the fetus is viable (very viable, as in late 2d trimester) outside the womb.

You - The fetus’ rights trump the woman’s after three months.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Seriously, what part of the new deal has the GOP undone. I'm for undoing much of the new deal, and part of my dismay with the GOP is that they have abondoned this position.

Which part of the New Deal do you want to get rid of? I haven't noticed the WPA building too many parks in my neighborhood recently.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Taking your position necessarily values one life over the other. You’re forcing one life to suffer because you value another’s rights more. Its real simple, and I don’t know why you fight me on my accurate characterization of your position. To clarify:

Me - The woman’s rights trump the fetus’ until the fetus is viable (very viable, as in late 2d trimester) outside the womb.

You - The fetus’ rights trump the woman’s after three months.

And if I find that a six month old born baby causes my life to suffer why does the state force me to bear that burden thus trumping my rights to the liberty and the pursuit of happiness...why can't I just humanely dehydrate it to death (the most humane form of death according to the liberals)?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Which part of the New Deal do you want to get rid of?

All of it, although we may want to resurrect court packing (at least on a one time basis for the current president).

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
And if I find that a six month old born baby causes my life to suffer why does the state force me to bear that burden thus trumping my rights to the liberty and the pursuit of happiness...why can't I just humanely dehydrate it to death (the most humane form of death according to the liberals)?

No, call Animal Control. You're confusing threads.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
Maybe you can answer this for me... Maybe you can't...

Dude, I'm in bar mode. and everyone here knows it. But I'll try (cut me slack for brevity).

Why is it that the party thats so gung ho about undoing the New Deal and ripping away regs which protect people from being exposed to injury, cancer, etc... is so gung ho about "the unborn?"

You honestly have a problem with this? To me, this is nothing more than "assumption of risk".

You gonna sue soon for that pack of Camel humps you're smoking?

I'm a fan of inconsistency, and this boggles my mind. How can the GOP be Socially Darwinist on everything, and suddenly flaming idealist on abortion? I can't help but reach the conclusion that the party has a broader cultural agenda (rolling us back to the never existent 50s nuclear family), and that rolling back abortion and refusing to fund contraceptives for all is just one way of putting women back into their “traditional role” in that never-existent fantasy of the perfect nuclear family. No matter how the GOP justifies the inconsistency on these issues, its sounds disingenuous.

You know my stance. If you're gonna respond to me with this bullshit, at least send me some scotch before you cash the NARAL check.

What do you think the GOP will do if Roe is overturned and we suddenly find a majority of states want to keep abortion legal within their borders? How will the GOP then placate its angry religious wing?

Honestly, I think they locally adopt or lose, as they should.

You think I like the ID or IA Republicans? I said a long time ago, this is not MY Administration nor my House nor my Senate.

THat being said, I love the losers trying to tear it down, only to find they are shining shoes.


And what will the Religious Wing then do? It won't be satsified with any result other than national outlawing of abortion, so whats its option? Does it then reject states' rights and fight for a constitutional amendment? And does the GOP support that quest?

This isn’t rhetorical. I’m truly interested in hearing what you think might happen then. [/QUOTE]

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You honestly have a problem with this? To me, this is nothing more than "assumption of risk".

So you assumed the risk of a slaigow?