"...go to court AGAINST a Christian who wants to wear a cross"

• Define change, please. Both sides. - What it means to you.
  • Changes I would like to see - sbMT
  • Changes I would like to see... - sam
    • Religionopathy - an incurable disease. - nm
    • A few things I would add... - see message
    • A question about the religion part of your post. - see message
      • No, I am not confusing the body with an 844-ft mountain top... - sam
        • Please cite ACLU case that aims to ban - and individual wearing cross on body. sm
          • That is not what I said. I will have to search for the specific case... - sam
            • "...go to court AGAINST a Christian who wants to wear a cross" - is what you said. Another delusion. nm
            • Please site an actual instance where anyone...sm - oldtimer
              • Get on the net and search. Apparently there are a lot of schools... - sam
                • Apparently NOT. Your claim. Your citation. - You internet search. Otherwise, sm
                • Get a grip. This is illegal and against the constitution. nm - you are delusional
          • The case was about a teacher - Old part-timer
            • That teacher also burned a cross into a student's arm. - Agnostic
              • That wasn't the story to which I referred - Old part-timer
                • What part of you have to back up your own claims - Do you not get? Show us the story...sm
      • Your "quotes" of what I said in my post are false. - sm - from my perspective
        • My apologies... I thought you were responding to - my post, not Sam's. Sorry!
          • NP. This is most definitely a touchy subject - for us all. sm
  • What 'change' means to me: - from my own perspective
    • Obama professes to be a Christian and... - sam
      • Religious people go to church - to practice their faith sm
        • Sorry....I do not ever "check" my religion... - sam
          • Read the other post again. - sm
          • Yes, but there's a big difference between - sm - from my perspective
            • That may be so....but Christians, at least the ones I know... - sam
              • The Christian zealots don't give a s___ about the - babies they're 'saving' by
    • This is a very good post. You should submit it to - the candidates.
      • I remember "The Grit!" It was a great - mae
    • Here I thought I was the only boomer - What it means to you.
      • I knew an MT who did just that - died at her desk. - Boss came in & found her next morning.
      • Getting late. Change name line to read - "whose retirement plan consists of"
        • Actually there were a couple things to add - (sm) - from my perspective
          • Animal treatment - I agree

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

After a very quick Google search, I found this, which indicates a salary of "roughly $149,000."  (I personally thought the number would be much higher, but not as high as multi-million bonuses, etc. that we're paying for Wall Street to have.)  And as far as Pelosi, she should ride commercial, just like everyone else, IMHO.

Monday, August 4, 2008

this politically correct horsesh*t is a joke - get all self-righteous

I think McCain's goose egg is brown and probably still resides in his flaccid diaper -  go cry about that

How much did you contribute?

Why some people love Bush and Israel so much.  

http://harpers.org/rapture-ready-20060718001.html

I've been lurking on the other board (after learning quickly not to post there any more), and they also confirm the end is near.  I can almost understand why some would be so excited about the end of the world after 6 years of Bush.  It almost even looks good to me.   

pin as he writes an article in an accountant's magazine claiming that deregulation of financial business was so successful he wishes to deregulate the health care industry.  let's see if this gets the subject off the ground.

x

By federal law, they cannot garnish someone's wages at maximum 65% and yes, child support is a garnishment.  The judge can say all he wants and should put him in jail if he doesn't pay.  I am totally behind you on this, but I have been there.  I received checks for $15 for two weeks for years and that was 65% of his income.  (The reason it was that low was because he decided to go back to school and his daddy supported him).  The judge in our case also told him that he, by court order, still had to pay the full amount even though by FEDERAL law they could not garnish his wages more than 65%.  Judge told him it was his responsibility to pay the difference no matter where it came from.  Judge told him to get another job, borrow from his family, do what he had to do to get it paid. 

Unfortunately in the state of Ohio (I lived in Michigan), you have to be like $25,000 behind before they would go after him and actually put a person in jail for child support.  Enforcing child support laws is something they were very much in lack of when I went through the system. 

He did get it paid up about 2 years ago.  Took him over 10 years to do so.  He has since passed away and I'd return all the money if it could bring him back for my kids.

I struggled for years with my kids on my own.  We had a lot of mac and cheese and PBJs.  There were many times I went hungry to feed my kids or to make sure I had gas in my tank to get to my job.  But I made it.  She can too.  I know how hard it is and how frustrating the whole situation is.  I was just trying to empathize with you and let you know there were others out there.  The person you need to blame is the dad for not taking care of his children.  It is wrong of him to keep creating more children when he can't take care of the ones that he has, but I am a firm believer that what you do will bite you back twice as hard at some point. 

Remember that if he loses his security clearance and gets out of he military, jobs are even harder to come by that pay anything above minimum wage these days.  They can hold his federal taxes only if he is holding a job that doesn't pay cash under the table.  Holding a drivers license, most of the scum bags don't care.  I was in a support group many years ago and ran into a lot of these situations.  I've heard about what a lot of these irresponsible parents will do to get out of paying.

Best of luck to you and your daughter.

and with courts and lawyers (and hospital legal departments) deciding what probably ought to be private family matters, everything is up for political grabs.  Then libs and conservatives can square off on opposite sides and make a media circus out of it. 

It is unfortunate that husband and parents could not come to agreement on this matter.  Were the parents just selfishly refusing to release their brain-dead daughter's soul, keeping it trapped in her deteriorating body; were they doing this out of love, to spite her husband?  Or was her husband selfishly trying to get rid of an encumbrance in order to move on with his own life; was he doing it to spite the parents?  Or was it more than a little of both? 

credibility in the Bush/Gore recount. 

Thate 5-3 decision would have been a 5-4 decision, had Roberts not recused himself from ruling due to his prior ruling in the case at a lower court.

Alito and Roberts are Bush loyalists who will vote in his favor every time.  Same with Scalia and Thomas.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, is 86.  This means there is a very good chance that Bush will have the opportunity to appoint a third Supreme Court Justice, thus negatively tipping and fixing the scales of justice for decades to come, long after Bush is gone.  Some radical right-wingers (including Ann Coulter) have publicly called for the assassination of a Supreme Court Justice, and Pat Robertson has been *praying* for another Bush appointment.  If/when that happens, freedom as we know it in the United States will be gone for generations. 

In the meantime, the current Supreme Court ruling won't mean much.  They're already talking about creating a law to make Bush's tactics legal.

Not that even THAT would matter much.  Bush hasn't agreed with Congress' laws 750 times since he's been in office, and he's issued *signing statements* allowing him to ignore the law.

He apparently views himself as having expanded Presidential powers in a time of war.  Maybe that's a large part of the true reason we're at war with Iraq.

Wow, I believe we have some sore losers!

From NBC’s Pete Williams

When the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court meet on Dec. 5th, in their regular private conference to decide which cases to hear, two lawsuits that have captivated a segment of the blogosphere will be up for discussion.

Both urge the court to consider claims that President-elect Obama is not qualified to be president, because he is not a natural-born American citizen.
Persistent concerns about the qualifications of both major party candidates rank among the oddest aspects of 2008's historic campaign.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen" is eligible to be president. John McCain's status was questioned because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and various theories have been advanced to cast doubt on Obama's.

Lawsuits over the inclusion of their names on state general-election ballots popped up around the country and were quickly dispensed with by local courts. But two challengers have pursued their cases to the Supreme Court.

Pennsylvania lawyer Philip Berg claims that the circumstances of Obama's birth are vague and that he may have been born in Kenya. Obama's mother, Berg asserts, later flew to Hawaii to register the birth.

Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey lawyer, contends that election officials in his state failed to ensure that only legally qualified candidates were placed on the ballot. Obama may have been born in the United States, Donofrio argues, but "natural born" status depends on both parents being American citizens. Obama's father was Kenyan.

The justices are unlikely to take up these cases for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the invitation to overturn the results of an election in which more than 66 million Americans voted for Obama. An equally high hurdle is the issue of whether Berg or Donofrio have the legal right to sue claiming a violation of the Constitution.

In dismissing Berg's complaint, a federal judge in Pennsylvania found that he failed to meet the basic test required for sustaining a lawsuit, because he couldn't show how the inclusion of Obama's name on the ballot would cause him -- apart from others -- some particular harm. Berg's stake, the judge said, "is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters."

Other courts presented with similar challenges have reached the same conclusion, ruling that there is no general legal right to sue over the Constitution's eligibility requirements. Federal courts typically reject claims of legal standing based simply on a litigant's status as a voter or taxpayer.

The Obama campaign had hoped to end the controversy last spring by releasing his actual Hawaii birth certificate. But that prompted further questions about its authenticity, which were compounded when state authorities in Hawaii said they could not vouch for it, because they were constrained by the privacy laws.

Then, on Oct. 31st, the director of Hawaii's Department of Health issued a statement, proclaiming that he had personally seen and verified that the state has "Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record," which shows that he was born there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701127_pf.html

Looser Emission Rules Rejected
Court Says Changes By EPA Violated Clean Air Act
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.

The Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Review policy was formally issued in 2003 but has never taken effect because of legal challenges by state officials and environmental groups. The administration has long argued that the existing standards are too stringent and have discouraged utility plants and other industries from upgrading and expanding their facilities. But opponents have characterized the rule changes as a favor to administration allies in the utility and coal-producing industries that would greatly add to public health problems.

New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer, who led the court fight to block the administration's New Source Review policy, called yesterday's ruling a major victory for clean air and public health and a rejection of a flawed policy.

It will encourage industry to build new and cleaner facilities, instead of prolonging the life of old, dirty plants, Spitzer said.

In a statement, EPA spokesman John Millet said: We are disappointed that the Court did not find in favor of the United States. We are reviewing and analyzing the opinion and cannot comment further at this time.

Some studies have linked pollution from coal-fired power plants to as many as 20,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. Environmental activists have made curbing this type of pollution one of their most pressing legislative and legal priorities, and yesterday they celebrated the ruling.

Irish eyes are surely smiling -- and we all will be breathing easier -- with this green court ruling on St. Patrick's Day, said John Walke, director of the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is about as thorough a rebuke a court can give.

President Bush took office in 2001 promising to ease regulations on coal-fired power plants as part of a larger energy production initiative. Three successive administrators of the EPA have tried without success to alter the rules and policies adopted during the Clinton administration that cracked down on aging power plants and refineries that were not equipped with modern air pollution equipment when they were upgraded and when their output was expanded.

Under the revised policy that was rejected by the court yesterday, power plants and other industrial polluters would not have to install new pollution technology if they modernized less than 20 percent of their operations.

The central question in the case focused on what constitutes an industrial facility modification, because that is what triggers the federal requirement to cut down on the smog or soot emitted by utilities, oil refineries, incinerators, chemical plants and manufacturing operations. Previous administrations, including Bill Clinton's, had interpreted that phrase to encompass any physical activity that increases pollution from a given facility, with the exception of routine maintenance.

EPA officials in the Bush administration sought to broaden this exemption by asserting that routine maintenance is any activity that amounts to less than 20 percent of a plant's value. But the ruling, written by Judge Judith W. Rogers, rejected that reasoning as illogical.

EPA's approach would ostensibly require that the definition of 'modification' include a phrase such as 'regardless of size, cost, frequency, effect,' or other distinguishing characteristic, Rogers wrote. Only in a Humpty Dumpty world would Congress be required to use superfluous words while an agency could ignore an expansive word that Congress did use. We decline to adopt such a world-view.

The other two judges on the panel were David S. Tatel and Janice Rogers Brown.

The EPA's statement did not indicate whether the administration intends to appeal the ruling. Both Walke and Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the utilities industry, said it would be difficult for the administration to forge ahead in light of the appeals court's strong ruling. Walke said the decision is tantamount to the court burying the rule six feet under, where before it was just in a casket.

Segal said the ruling will make it more costly for plants to operate. This is a missed opportunity for reform that would have made it easier to improve power plant efficiency and workplace safety, and that's bad news for consumers and the environment, he said. We believe it is a step backwards for the protection of air quality in the United States.