First Read -

Jesse Jackson Jr.’s on medical leave and is being treated for exhaustion.

I'm not surprised. Making excuses for Obama must be very exhausting.

I don't know how you Libs do it here.

All day every day.

It looks like WH press secretary Jay Carney is finally living up to his last name as the main attraction at the WH press room carnival. It is not a good thing when the press bursts out laughing at the President’s press secretary. But, it is Hillaryous!!!!

From Politico:

The White House jumps the shark
By: Keith Koffler
June 25, 2012 09:56 PM EDT

Last Thursday afternoon, in the briefing room, it finally happened.

Nobody was prepared for it — least of all White House press secretary Jay Carney. But it happened. The White House, which on a near daily basis has been ladling out credulity-straining explanations for President Barack Obama’s actions, finally jumped the shark.

To set the stage: The White House, in campaign mode for months, now has the credibility level of a campaign. Meaning virtually none.

Carney was at the podium, huffily insisting, as usual, that Obama toils solely for the interests of the nation, while politics is the constant companion of Republicans, whose petty ambitions are interfering with the president’s noble efforts.

Carney was asked if, in his view, it was “mostly on principle” that Obama had claimed executive privilege to withhold documents demanded by House Republicans investigating the administration’s Fast and Furious gun-running operation.

Carney agreed. “This is entirely about principle,” he said.

The White House press corps burst into peals of laughter.

Carney was rattled. He tried to put down the insurrection. “It has nothing to do — no, no, this has nothing to do …” He never said just what this had nothing to do with since he must have realized that he would only be met by more laughter.

Carney had jumped the shark. Not that he looked like Fonzie in “Happy Days.” But he had gone too far, and maybe he knew it. Just as Henry Winkler, who played The Fonz, clearly realized that the sitcom writers had taken his tough guy character to a ludicrous extreme. He was on water skis, in a bathing suit and leather jacket, and he, literally, leaped over a shark.

The White House had been airing lead-ins for Carney’s “Jumping the Shark” episode for weeks.

In an episode earlier this season, Carney announced to a startled press corps that a journalist they’d never heard of had determined that Obama had actually increased the deficit at a lower rate than any recent predecessor.

This was debatable on technical grounds, though George W. Bush had certainly handed off a large deficit.

But whether the statement was literally true was beside the point. Carney was trying to suggest that a president who had added some $5 trillion to the deficit was a fiscal tightwad.

This was ridiculous. Like saying an alcoholic, who had been drinking 15 beers a day, was doing great because he had merely increased it to 17 a day.

There was also the old White House saw that Obama, our most liberal president, was not politically motivated when he described his position on gay marriage as “evolving.”

Without warning, however, Vice President Joe Biden, whose views on the matter were also “evolving,” accidentally blurted out the truth — he supports same-sex marriage.

Obama suddenly found himself to Biden’s right — at a time when gays are among the leading donors to a reelection campaign struggling to hit its fundraising targets. The president’s evolution was over. Obama now voiced strong support for same-sex marriage.

Then there was Obama’s miscalculated contention that “the private sector is doing fine.” This was a spin too far — with the unemployment rate at 8.2 percent and the economy expanding at an annual rate of less than 2 percent. Obama soon reeled that back in, acknowledging that the private sector was not doing so fine after all.

But then Carney added an extra helping of dissimulation by claiming that the press had misreported Obama’s words — failing to put them in proper context. Obama, Carney claimed, was obviously saying the private sector was doing fine relative to the public sector.

But reporters knew that, though Obama had mentioned public-sector job losses, he had made no comparison. For example, if I in the same sentence said, “spinach is disgusting and lobster is delicious,” virtually no one could conclude I meant lobster is only delicious relative to spinach.

There was Obama’s recent canard that he was stopping the deportation of Latinos who had arrived in the United States as children in part to “focus our resources more wisely” on other immigration matters. Perhaps he meant focusing campaign resources on other ethnic groups.

There have been other random fibs. Like Carney’s suggestions that Obama isn’t traveling to swing states for political reasons.

The background music has been the constant refrain that everything wrong is Bush’s fault. Obama continues to sing this tune like some aging vaudevillian barnstorming in the Catskills, desperate for one last round of applause.

It all added up to a laughable collection of ham-handed deceptions.

But nobody was laughing. Until Thursday — when Carney finally jumped the shark.

If the Supreme Court rendered a "split decision" on the AZ Immigration law, why is the Executive Branch now refusing to assist Arizona with enforcing the part that was upheld? Do they not have respect for the three-brach system of this government or the rule of law?

So babyish, Chicago-style in tone. We didn't get everything we wanted so now we are going to help you with nothing. Extremely divisive in my opinion.

Couldn't possibly be that Homeland Security's needs outweigh the needs for Arizona to make a political playpen out of itself.

So it's kinda funny- down here in Mexico they cover Fast and Furious a little different than up in the states.

Or at least they seem a little more concerned over the death toll, and not the toll on O's ratings.

Wonder why that is, eh, gang?

And shoot, the TEEVEE's got Fox, Cnn, and CNBC, but no MSNBC. Such a shame, but a big improvement over prior years when all we got was CNN International and BBC news.

Ok-mimosas arrived, heading to pool bar/beach.

You all have a fine day.

:)

"Right-wing coup?" A crooked Supreme Court? Puhleeze.

What a bunch of whimpering crybabies you people are. What's the problem? A couple of decisions don't go your way and you cry like a couple of 4 year-olds whose mommy took away your sippy cups. Waaaaaahhhh!!!

You STILL have your sacred right to slaughter your unborn baby, don't you? Yes. You do. That's always been at the top of the list of priorities for you people so you should be thankful for that. Also, the Supreme Court of the 1960s and 1970s was so liberal, so "progressive", that it can be squarely blamed for much of the sociaetal decline of the last 40 years in this country. Can't that at least keep you people satisfied for a while?

And you all are such hypocrites and two-faced whiners that, if the SCOTUS makes a decision you agree with later this week or the next, you'll be praising them for being "fair." Quit your crying.

It is a sad day when a state like Arizona loses a court decision that came about solely because the federal government refuses to do their job. Then to add insult to injury, Obama takes his ball and goes home. Cutting off Arizona's right to enforce federal law proves what a petty thin skinned president Obama is.

Once again Obama proves he is incapable of being president, of acting presidential, or of accepting the role of the job which is in fact to enforce our laws. Arizona had to act because Obama wouldn't. We elected the most unqualified person to ever sit in the oval office, and the country is paying a very heavy price.

Yesterday I was repeatedly chastised for referring to the Supreme Court as a Kangaroo Court, by the emotional uniformed right wing.

_______________________________________

The right wing has "uniforms"????

Probably for that coup Outhouse is worried about.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

T he Wicked Witch of the West (Arizona) gets slapped down by the SCOTUS. I love it. Couldn't happen to a nicer witch (spelling). So next comes the Heath Care vote. I'm pulling for just the individual mandate being thrown out. I can't believe even these guys would throw out the whole bill. Wishfull thinking? Let's hope not.

And is "Romneykins" ever going to answer a direct question with a direct answer? I doubt it. And again, WHERE ARE THOSE TAX RETURNS?

OBAMA IN 2012.

"But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforc­ing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind". -Supreme Court Antonin Scalia in Immigration Law Dissent

I suppose that if I were a liberal, because the Supreme Court ruling did not go quite the way that I wanted it to, I would be complaining that "activist judges were playing politics". Instead, I find it difficult to argue that the majority opinion which was based on the assertion of the primacy of federal law was the incorrect one.

In a nutshell, the provisions of Senate Bill 1070, were not struck down because the Justices felt that enforcing laws that discouraged illegal immigration were in themselves unconstitutional, but rather that Arizona did not have the right to usurp federal authority by passing and enforcing laws that already existed at federal level.

What this means is that the only recourse left to the 2/3 of the electorate that supported SB1070 is to change the politicians who refuse to enforce these laws.

Anyone else notice the right wing nitwits aren't nearly as cocky as they were last week

Let's see if you're still as cocky after Thursday.

So what do you call it when the President refuses to follow the law? Why does he favor Illegals over Americans? The Panderer In Chief!!!!!

Anyone else notice the right wing nitwits aren't nearly as cocky as they were last week! lol

How about we talk on Thursday? LOL

How about we talk on Thursday? LOL

No problem!

The brouhaha over Fast and Furious speaks to the fact that most folks - including "journalists" - don't have a clue how to do research. Fast and Furious appears to have its roots back in the Bush Administration, morphing from Operation Wide Receiver through other iterations to Fast and Furious. At least that's what we think we know so far. Might it go back even further?

Attorney General Holder seems to have been misled by the ATF in Phoenix and had little or no information about the program. Let's pause here to ask what kind of idiots sell guns to suspected criminals? What kind of idiots are we hiring run a law enforcement agency that sells guns to suspected criminals?

If I'm Eric Holder, I want the answer to those and a whole lot more questions, moreso when I discover that at least one of those weapons that ATF sold was used to murder another American law enforcement agent. Did Holder actually lie, or was he trying to keep an ongoing investigation quiet? You have to know there's a lot of law enforcement types who are busy covering their fannies.

Darrell Issa, a publicity whore whose own background isn't exactly savory, may have actually done his level best to sabotage an active investigation. Compound that possibility with his complete disinterest in the financial services sector, which still threatens to destroy the world economy.

Please read this account of Fast and Furious to get an appreciation for how big this scandal may really be. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/25/fast-and-furious-documents-what-do-show/

Mind you, that's from Fox. From my experience over the years, I know Holder is going to need time to ferret out the criminal elements in all of this. I also know Holder may end up protecting previous President(s). This incredibly stupid program may be far bigger than we know. I'd also like to see Issa shut up and work with Holder to get to the bottom of this.

Give them six months and let both of them take credit for giving us answers we all desperately need. If we find that heads need to roll, that's when we do it......when we have ALL the information we need.

We might also give some thought to the fact that while ATF was facilitating the sale of 2,000 guns to criminals, almost 70,000 - that's right SEVENTY-THOUSAND! - more guns got to Mexico through "legitimate" methods. Folks, we have some really serious problem with firearms.

Anyone can see that Issa is manufacturing trouble in an election year.

President Bush started this gun-running fiasco in 2006. Hundreds of the most powerful weapons were sold to suspects over the border, and this is the fallout.

Mr. Holder already released 7,600 documents, testified on the Hill nine (9) times, and said Fast & Furious was a mistake.

NRA and A.L.E.C. are on shaky ground with the 'Shoot First" laws ~ hence Issa & the GOP jaws attack.

At a time when popular revolutions are sweeping the globe, the United States should be strengthening, not weakening, basic rules of law and principles of justice enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But instead of making the world safer, America’s violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends -- President Jimmy Carter

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-human-rights-record.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

I just have to smile as the Bookers, Ford Jr.s, Rendells, Carters et. al. are distancing themselves from the most corrupt administration in history bar none.

I had quite a civil discussion with Albany yesterday where we pondered whether the conservative majority on the Court would display cowardice in the timing of the release of its decision on ACA. Joe believed the delay would be a deliberate slap at the Obama administration. I believed they would wait till the last minute in order to duck and cover, whichever way the decision went. Finally, we agreed that the Court may actually delay its ruling until the end of the week – which it evidently has chosen to do – because it has a desire to soften the blow and dampen the celebration if the decision is to uphold the law. Both Joe and I think this is definite possibility.

But let me tell you two ways that I believe the Court displayed cowardice in the decisions it issued yesterday.

First, the Court could have, but did not, enjoin the Arizona "papers please" statute. The Court claimed there was not enough evidence yet as to how it would actually be enforced. And yet, in many Constitutional cases, injunctions are issued for that very reason – i.e., to prevent an unconstitutional measure from being implemented – to protect individuals from irreparable harm – which is what Constitutional violations are generally considered to be.

Indeed, if the ACA mandate is overturned, this will be exactly what the Court is doing -- enjoining the implementation of what it considers to be an unconstitutional law before it is implemented. And this is exactly what the Court said yesterday that it would not do.

I will freely admit, however, that this was a close case. But it had the effect – cowardly in my view – that the issue is now kicked down the road for another day – after the election.

What wasn't a close case was the Montana decision where Citizens United was at issue. In that case, it appears from the decision itself that, at the certiorari conference, the conservatives must have announced an intention of taking the case to issue a "per curiam" (i.e., unsigned) decision overturning the Montana Supreme Court. Because, it was actually the liberal justices who voted to deny certiorari, out of protest, as one of them stated in dissent. Indeed, we wouldn't know which justices voted for certiorari at all except for the dissent, which was signed by the liberal justices.

And thus, the conservative majority essentially pulled a parliamentary maneuver not usually used in these kinds of cases with the obvious intent of blocking oral argument – i.e., public airing -- on this issue. Otherwise, it would have made more sense on the level of principle for them to vote to deny certiorari.

And why would they do such a thing? Because Montana was apparently coming to the bar with heaps of evidence of the corruption caused by the infusion of corporate money into state election campaigns. And the conservative majority didn't want the American people to hear that evidence. So, essentially, it pulled a fast one.

If that isn't cowardice, then I don't know what is.

Back to you, Joe.

Couldn't possibly be that Homeland Security's needs outweigh the needs for Arizona to make a political playpen out of itself.

You obviously do not live in a border state, to speak generally of Homeland Security's "needs". How elite and trite of you.

The SCOTUS did not rule entirely as I would have liked but I respect the decision and will not be UnAmerican and vilify the highest court in the land just because it didn't go entirely my way. The childish display of unpatriotism on here is a sad commentary of a few individuals.

However, I believe those who support the executive branch's bypassing of the congressional branch will also support states who will bypass another branch's decision because they disagree with the action -- right hypocrites????

We might also give some thought to the fact that while ATF was facilitating the sale of 2,000 guns to criminals, almost 70,000 - that's right SEVENTY-THOUSAND! - more guns got to Mexico through "legitimate" methods. Folks, we have some really serious problem with firearms.

Which is exactly what all the "brouhaha" is intended to cover up.

Somehow to blame all the gun deaths in Mexico on President Obama and to deflect attention from the real merchants of death, which provide the campaign funding for those jokers like Issa.

Does anyone seriously think that a Congress beholden to the gun lobby has suddenly become concerned about one ATF officer or even a whole mess of innocent Mexicans, when their own campaign supporters have an interest in supplying infinitely MORE guns to Mexico?

Please.

Great post, David.

Ben-636050

The SCOTUS did not rule entirely as I would have liked but I respect the decision and will not be UnAmerican and vilify the highest court in the land just because it didn't go entirely my way. The childish display of unpatriotism on here is a sad commentary of a few individuals.

And yet you disrespect the President of the United States with your hateful avatar and your hateful comments. You're a hypocrite, and if anyone around here is un-American, it's you.

The arrogance of Barack Obama is truly breathtaking ! Its like being in an elevator with a 900 lb Sumo wrestler who cuts loose with a nasty "green gasser" .... and you have no choice but to breathe it in ! The stench is unbelievable !!

First, he arbitrarily decides he will not enforce existing immigration law with respect to deporting certain "classes" of illegal immigrants that are estimated at about 800,000. Second, after the Supreme Court upholds ( 8 to 0 )the most controversial part of Arizona law requiring local officials to check the immigration status .... Obama pulls the plug on Federal cooperation and orders the federal government to NOT COOPERATE with Arizona law enforcement.

It doesn't matter that the decision was UNANIMOUS over that one, very important provision. Obama has decided in haughty fashion to summarily SCREW the people of Arizona.

Barack Hussein Obama has no respect for the law of the United States, the upheld portion of Arizona law and he has no respect for the people of Arizona.

All Hail .... King Obama has decided what HE thinks is fair ! Or to be really truthful, Obama has decided what HE thinks will get him the Latino vote !! It is ALL about maintaining his power .... at all costs to our society. Next, he will likely cut the border patrol in half.

OMG ! Obama Must Go.

@Redhead

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-20/us/us_scotus-justices-finances_1_justice-sonia-sotomayor-justice-department-chief-justice-john-roberts?_s=PM:US

Seems there is gift giving and favors for all. Try telling the whole story.

Breyer and Scalia, as usual, ran neck-and-neck in the category of most-traveled justice, with Breyer gaining the edge with 21 out-of-town destinations on expense-paid business trips.

He went to Canada, the United Kingdom and France in addition to states such as Florida, Arkansas, and Colorado. He was among at least six justices to travel to California.

Scalia was among them, attending a seminar last year of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. The 76-year-old justice also jetted to seven countries, including Australia, Switzerland and Ireland.

Sotomayor visited El Salvador, while Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan went to Argentina, along with the retired Sandra Day O'Connor, for an international legal conference.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy conducted their separate annual summer teaching stints in Italy and Austria.

Eight justices reported teaching income from universities, including lectures, which generally earned them about $15,000 for one or more days of extracurricular work. Most such stints occur during the court's three-month recess, scheduled this year to begin late next week, when the last of the session's rulings will be issued, including the much-anticipated health care decisions.

Justice Samuel Alito did not submit his disclosure form on time, and asked for an extension into August.

Thomas noted his wife, Virginia, had 2011 non-investment income as a columnist at the Daily Caller website, and at Liberty Consulting, a conservative advocacy group founded by her. The specific amount of income did not have to be listed.

Twenty Democratic lawmakers last October formally asked the Justice Department to investigate the justice's appearances before conservative groups and his failure over the years to publicly disclose about $700,000 of his wife's income, as required under federal law. Thomas updated the income on an amended disclosure form, and said the lapse was inadvertent.

Scalia reported $18,755 in book income, including for a new legal treatise out this month called "Reading Law." Breyer's 2010 book, "Making Democracy Work: A Judge's View" earned him more than $45,000 in royalties last year.

From the administration on the individual mandate:

Verrilli argues that the individual mandate plays a critical role in relation to the rest of the law by serving as an incentive for individuals to finance their participation in the health care market by means of insurance. He says the mandate “works in tandem with the Act’s other provisions to expand the availability and affordability of health insurance coverage.”

How can anyone argue that the elimination of the individual mandate will not essentially dismantle the ACA? How can you lose something that "plays a critical role" and "works in tandem" with other provisions and have any teeth. Oh, unless late tomorrow -- since Ginsburg leaked the AZ decision to the WH, so she will the ACA decision -- the administration makes an announcement of how it will violate the U.S. Constitution in this matter as well.

Anyone hear "Justice" Scalia's rant against Obama's recent decision to not deport undocumented immigrants who'd been brought here as children? Obama's policy had absolutely nothing to do with the Arizona law, and it doesn't take a law degree, let alone a seat on the Supreme Court, to recognize that. I wonder if Scalia is going to claim Obama's birth certificate is fake while he explains his vote against the health care act on Thursday. The man has lost his marbles, probably because he's spent too much time sitting on a sofa watching Sean Hannity. He should be impeached and removed from office on grounds of insanity and/or incompetence.

I will now sit back & wait for the RWNJ’s to defend the indefensible!

Feisty, it will be a long wait. The RWNJs, courtesy of SCOTUS/Citizens United, now get their marching orders from China and Saudi Arabia. Ah, the good old days when O'Reilly and Faux News was the sole contributors of their talking points.

So right-wingers, via the Chinese and Saudis, what are your talking points today? They taking away your guns and forcing you to have abortions? We all know that if the money stream tells you to support a stance, you will defend it viciously to the bloody end, regardless of whether you were against that position yesterday.

So folks, cheers to the flip-flop right wing freaks. For the Dream Act until Obama pushes it forward. For the individual mandate until Obama pushes it forward. Pro massive debt/deficits (ala Cheney) until Obama needs to use it to correct the economy. Folks, the right wingers have no conviction. All it takes is for some Saudi or Chinese citizen, with a whole lot of money, to dangle it in their face, and they do an insta-poof into a whore begging for more, more, more.

Adelson is the face of United Citizens and SCOTUS. That whore of the Chinese is spending millions on Romney and will continue to do so to keep his Chinese casinos operating. Rove, the boy-toy whore of the Saudis, is contributing to Romney, all so he can keep his pudgy fingers in the oil stream. A final thanks to SCOTUS, half of which is bought and paid for by foreign interests. Right wingers, enjoy your pro-abortion anti-gun stance that you will shortly own. For just like Adelson and Rove, your only conviction is being a whore the money stream.

@ Alan --

Perhaps we can agrees that there is a qualitative difference between writing a book and accepting the royalties from sales or teaching legal courses at universities and attending conferences sponsored by or taking money directly from groups that have a vested interest one way or the other in legislation that is coming before the Court for review.

Guess which justices did the latter.

I know you're smart enough to see the difference, which makes the rest of your post irrelevant.

I am curious, however, as to why Alito needed an extension beyond the end of this week. You?

Seems there is gift giving and favors for all.

I stand by what I wrote & will let the readers decide!

Do you seriously think I was trying to sway your opinion? lol

Don't get your kilt in a knot!

Thomas updated the income on an amended disclosure form, and said the lapse was inadvertent.

Inadvertent - for (5) freaking years?

And this joker is still sitting on the highest court in the land?

I would hire this clown to defend me for a parking ticket with his sloppy work!

Oh look at this today !

We have Damage123, Fool's Gold, and now Ben.......all in the same thread and all the same person !!!

Keep making those fake identities to pad your vote count.

The Supreme Court decision must have really gotten to you.

On the issue's at hand: Romney is a day late and a dollar short on every issue. Especially those he doesn't like. Now we get, "I'll tackle immigration reform in my first year in office"...but what does that mean? He's already said he wants people to "self deport".

Republican outrage over "fast and furious" is manufactured at best. Issa promised to have investigations for political gain when they took the house.........so much for integrity.

Ben-636050
"The SCOTUS did not rule entirely as I would have liked but I respect the decision and will not be UnAmerican and vilify the highest court in the land just because it didn't go entirely my way. The childish display of unpatriotism on here is a sad commentary of a few individuals."

Well Ben, guess your idea of Un-American and Unpatriotism (by the way, that's not a word!) are vastly different, you say that we must "respect" the court's decision and I normally would if this court wasn't so biased! If 5 members of this court weren't letting their party ideology get in the was of the Constitution, if they weren't attending CPAC conferences, if Thomas recused himself from the Heath Care case because his spouse is a paid lobbyist for the Health Insurance Industry!

You say that it's a childish display of unpatriotism (again, no such word) but is it patriotism to filibuster every bill to create jobs or to better the economy so a party can run on high unemployment, or a stagnant economy, is it "American" to yell "let em die" to someone in need of health care or boo and active duty soldier because he's gay? Is it patriotic to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress on a program that was created under the Bush Administration and not even call anyone from THAT administration to testify, just like not calling any women to testify on issues related to – WOMEN!

But would you be singing your "Happy" tune is the court leaned left? If the court decided against Citizens United and the ability for Corporations and Billionaires to buy our country, if they decided that the immigration bill was unconstitutional, or voted the Health Care bill as being "Constitutional" (my guess is that you would be vilifying the court over that wouldn't ya!) as we both know that this court will inevitably vote it down as the back Corporations, billionaires and party ideology over that of the Constitution, Country and the people!

You obviously do not live in a border state, to speak generally of Homeland Security's "needs". How elite and trite of you.

Speaking of elite and trite - only TexasT idiots fail to realize most all of us live in a border state. Of course, leave it to Arizona and Texas to cry VICTIM, the two states begging government to protect their borders while screaming anti-government rhetoric in every post.

Speaking of anti-government, how are those wild fires going? Isn't it Romney that said we do not need more firefighters in the country. Odd, that over half of them are now battling fires in the 'red' states.

Anyone else notice the right wing nitwits aren't nearly as cocky as they were last week! lol

I thought the same of you, Feisty, after the Walker recall.....

Can't wait to see you sputtering after Obama gets his ass handed to him in November!

I already know your responses: vote fraud, evil rich bought the election; anything but the truth of the matter.

Feisty - Yesterday's decision was great for Arizona and the US. Arizona can still check immigration status and the feds HAVE to enforce immigration laws. There goes Hussein's ability to pick and choose what laws his administration will enforce.

Perhaps we can agrees that there is a qualitative difference between writing a book and accepting the royalties from sales or teaching legal courses at universities and attending conferences sponsored by or taking money directly from groups that have a vested interest one way or the other in legislation that is coming before the Court for review.

Guess which justices did the latter.

I know you're smart enough to see the difference, which makes the rest of your post irrelevant.

You mean because the 4 "liberal" justices are independent and have no biases, where as the 5 "conservative" justices are partisan hacks?

Tell me a group that does not have a vested interest before the court?

And I take the justice at her word but I can imagine the outcry if Thomas said this

Sotomayor reported two gifts from friends: fine china worth $1,400 and a "translucent composite print" from artist Robert Weingarten.

"During 2011 many people sent me gifts of books, art, jewelry and trinkets," explained Sotomayor in her form. "I have no reason to believe that any of those items exceeded the $335 limit" requiring separate, itemized reporting of their value.

Eric, Your last paragraph is garbage. The investigation of Fast and Furious has been dragging on for about 14 to 15 months. Only when Holder's back was put against the wall did Obama come in and ABUSE his executive privilege.

Furthermore, I think your last sentence is a lie.... unless, of course, you can provide me a quote. That would not include an "op-ed" quote from Ed, Madcow, or "I have a tingle down my leg" Mathews.

Feisty (post 1.13)

This is all the idiot from Albany has left? LOL

Let's see how quickly Sally or Tyler will ban Feisty for her violation of the Code of Conduct. But I'm guessing they dont' they ban MSNBC staff writers pretending to be members of the general public.

.

@ Alan --

Poppycock. Not to mention deliberate obfuscation of the point.

Exactly what issue does "artist" Robert Weingarten have before the Court?

Now, exactly what issue do the groups from which Clarence Thomas's wife takes money directly have before the Court?

And therein lies the difference.

As you well know.

Scott -- You guess wrong. I have respect for the courts. I may disagree with their decisions like last week's decision that the FCC can't control language and nudity and Roe v Wade but I won't try to find excuses or reasons why certain judges should or should not rule. I would have felt the same way with Citizens United.

Elected officials are just that -- elected. If the Congressional branch does not like what the Administrative branch is doing, then it has that right under our law to do what the majority was elected to do legally. The pendulum swings both ways. However, the Supreme Court has the final say, so unless you want to cause yourself stress (like selecting what are and what are not correct words which is laughable in this day and age of Twitter) then that is your call. I for one will learn how to adapt.

Issa has already said (google it yourself) that there is no cover up. Furthermore, he walked away from the deal to get the information he wanted just to keep his base fired up. It's only been "dragging on" because Republicans need the politics and the innuendo that goes along with it.

You can think what you want it's a free country.

Anna Molly

Maybe Justice Alito can use the same excuses Geithner, Rangel, Daschle and the rest used to explain why the forgot income or to pay their taxes for a number of years. It should be okay with liberals as the took those excuses at face value.

On another note what is your opinion of those lawmakers from both sides who sat in and listened to the financial gurus and then went out and restructured their portfolio's so as to make money on inside information. Personally they should be removed from office.

Also what about the city of Stockton which may declare bankruptcy because they cannot pay bills because of union pensions. The unions will not go for the bankruptcy because it nullifies all existing contracts. If Stockton can pull this off iin the most liberal state in the union other California cities will follow suit and thereby break up union contracts and diminish union power. Thank you Wisconsin and Governor Walker. (sorry couldn't help myself.)

The SCOTUS votes unanimously to keep one part of the AZ immigration bill intact yet Prsident Obama acting like a kid decides we will not enforce the law and sets up a hotline for people to call for abuses. Wonder how many fake calls will come in.

Glad you decided not to pay attention to those who were giving you a hard time. Always a pleasure. Gotta go work calls. Will review your response this evening here in CA.

@ Ben --

Did I just hear you say that you accept Roe v. Wade as stare decisis?

Because if that's the case, then you may want to tell your own conservative friends to back off on trying to overturn it, including effectively overturning it through regulations intended to make it impossible for a woman to exercise her Constitutional rights.

I always thought you conservatives were also against intrusive regulation.

Maybe you could mention that to your friends, as well.

p.s. Your avatar is highly disrespectful, but no more so than many that were used to depict George W. Bush as Alfred E. Newman. I'll respect your right to use the avatar, but not the right to suggest that the President is a terrorist or wasn't born in the United States.

And by the way, I don't believe for a minute that you respect the Court except as they rule in favor of things you agree with. If Citizens United had gone the other way, conservatives would be treating that decision with the same derision that liberals do now.

From an anonymous post on datalounger.com. Well though out.

Why Romney will beat Obama.

Unless something very unexpected happens, something that enables Obama to show real leadership at last, Romney will almost certainly beat him in 2012. The conventional explanation is that the jobs picture is not going to improve much between now and then--and the election will hinge, above all, on the economy. True.

Republicans understand this, of course, and they are going to make sure that the economy doesn't improve -- which would be unlikely even if Obama's latest round of half-measures were to take effect. So that's a double whammy.

But Obama is in deeper trouble. His significance, the very meaning of his being, has settled itself in the national psyche and a couple of remarks in Romney's recent speeches on foreign policy play skillfully upon it. Here's first one:

"I will not surrender America's role in the world," Romney said in a carefully-crafted speech. "This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your president. You have that president today."

"Carefully crafted" is right. A whiff of Bush-Cheney jingoism, yes, but just a whiff for the remaining yahoos -- the lethal dose is in the negative "do not want" and the loaded "You have that President today." Obama is weak. Obama can be rolled. That's the message. It resonates with a deep anxiety abroad in the land, the feeling that America itself is getting weak--dependent on the fate of the Euro, yielding to an ascendant China, paralyzed politically. Images of a weak Obama and a weak America are fusing.

This fused image fits with Obama's conduct of domestic politics, with all the situations in which he seemed to cave before the battle was even joined. The sad fact of the matter is that people who were once his ardent supporters cannot help but share this sense of him. Their half-hearted applause for the much touted toughness of his tone in recent weeks betrays the fact: it looks like an act. Obama has secured his coveted bipartisan consensus at last -- in this ruinous assessment of his character.

Here's another ring on the same bell from Romney's website: "Instead of apologizing for America abroad and 'leading from behind,' Mitt Romney will pursue a strategy of American strength."

As for "apologizing for America" -- well, once again, a bipartisan consensus is achieved. The election of Obama did represent, among many other things, an apology for America. And a good thing too, many of us felt. It was an apology for the America that re-elected the Bush-Cheney regime after having been directly confronted with irrefutable evidence on a massive scale of their brutal indifference to life and truth. So again, with this theme, Romney will be tapping into something real and deep in the national psyche, however divergent evaluations of it may be.

As for "Leading from behind," -- well that is right up there with "I was for the war before I was against it" on the top 10 list of phrases uttered while committing political suicide. It fits so perfectly with how people have come to view Obama that most of them have probably forgotten -- if they ever knew -- that he never said it. But that's how it goes in politics, once the image congeals.

Ben -- Your avatar screams immaturity. So why should anyone give your words credence?

"We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Much of a president’s job is crisis management, and the only way to succeed is being nimble. "

Thanks for the laugh. When Obama took several months and months to make a decision about a 'surge' in Afghanistan, even though he had all of the recommendations from his field commanders - he was praised by the media for 'not making snap judgments, but being 'deliberative' '. In fact, if there was one thing that Obama has been criticized about, it is his inability to make a decision - another case in point - the crisis in Libya, where he stalled and stalled, and then finally let the French make the tough decisions - he called it 'leading from behind' - LOL.

Somehow, I see this as a biased media attack.

Poppycock. Not to mention deliberate obfuscation of the point.

Exactly what issue does "artist" Robert Weingarten have before the Court?

Now, exactly what issue do the groups from which Clarence Thomas's wife takes money directly have before the Court?

I was actually referring to this quote:

I have no reason to believe that any of those items exceeded the $335 limit" requiring separate, itemized reporting of their value.

As I said, I have no reason to doubt the justice but I doubt you would give the same leeway to Thomas. As to his wife accepting money from an interest group, is that any worse than Justice Kagen, who actually sits on the court, sitting in judgement over the ACA? You really think she has an unbiased view of the Administration's legislative centerpiece, when she served on that same Administration?

Anna -- I -- as a Christian -- disagree with the Roe v. Wade decision and I have that right. But I am not a fanatic and I can not control others -- just like the progressive liberals on here. Women who believe as I do have the choice of exercising their rights under that decision. I have a right to voice and say why that is wrong since I believe life begins at inception.

You also should not judge what is in my heart when it comes to what I say is how I feel. You can call out someone as a liar if they misrepresent themselves with so-called facts on here -- that's fine.

Richard --

Maybe Justice Alito can use the same excuses Geithner, Rangel, Daschle and the rest used to explain why the forgot income or to pay their taxes for a number of years. It should be okay with liberals as the took those excuses at face value.

Tax fraud is universal. Geithner, of course, is no liberal. But that's not the same issue as Alito not disclosing a source of income for ethics purposes.

On another note what is your opinion of those lawmakers from both sides who sat in and listened to the financial gurus and then went out and restructured their portfolio's so as to make money on inside information. Personally they should be removed from office.

Agreed. Hope you're not too disappointed.

Also what about the city of Stockton which may declare bankruptcy because they cannot pay bills because of union pensions. The unions will not go for the bankruptcy because it nullifies all existing contracts. If Stockton can pull this off iin the most liberal state in the union other California cities will follow suit and thereby break up union contracts and diminish union power. Thank you Wisconsin and Governor Walker. (sorry couldn't help myself.)

Well, you could have, of course, but you chose not to, which is okay.

Blame this one on the city managers, not the unions. Wisconsin is probably not your best analogy because its pension fund is fully funded, despite those greedy unions. By the way, Walker is now trying to tinker with the pension fund, in order to make up for budget shortfalls caused by massive giveaways to his cronies.

If it ain't broke ....

Always a pleasure.

Ditto, sir. Hope it's a beautiful day in CA.

Eric-913730 "Issa has already said (google it yourself) that there is no cover up."

Actually, he said he does not have any EVIDENCE of a cover-up by the White House, but then they are trying to prevent giving the documents requested - WHY?

Perhaps it's because they show a 'cover-up'?

It seems very strange that Obama invokes 'Executive Privilege' over documents from the Justice Department, when that usually only applies to White House communications. IS OBAMA COVERING UP LIKE NIXON DID WITH WATERGATE?

@Don't Carry -- When you post the same comment for Feisty, GT and others, then I will consider your request. You shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water though. You might learn something.

@ Eric #1.42, So I see you are either UNWILLING or UNABLE to back up your last sentence in #1.32 ! Geez, Eric, are you admitting you just make things up ?

You and the other libbies on this site seek to attack and disparage Issa because he has made the DOJ and the Obama administration look bad. Holder has consistently refused to turn over requested documents, instead, showering them with volumes of irrelevance.

What did Holder know and when did he know it ? How much does Obama know and when did he know it. Obama DID invoke "executive privilege" didn't he ???

@ Jim --

When a person invokes his or her 5th Amendment "privilege" against self-incrimination, the jury is given an instruction that it can't be used to infer guilt.

There are many reasons for a President to invoke executive privilege that have nothing to do with a cover-up.

Just ask Dick Cheney.

Issa has admitted that he has NO evidence of any involvement or cover-up. Given that, perhaps instead we ought to scrutinize HIS motivations AND the legal basis on which he asked for the documents, many of which cannot be turned over without violating other laws, which Issa -- in his self-appointed and self-important role as Grand Inquisitor -- ought to be fully aware of.

Because unless he has some evidence, this can be viewed as nothing more than a witch hunt.

Well, actually, it can be viewed as something more. It can be viewed as an active attempt to smear the President in an election year, rile up the gun crowd as was done in the recent recall election here in Wisconsin, and at the same time deflect attention from the REAL gun problem caused by his own campaign supporters in the gun lobby.

In short, a purely political witch hunt.

Ben -- Those avatars do not deface the President of the United States. Again, your avatar speaks volumes to your character. Don't like it, change your avatar.

@ Jim --

Ponder this fact.

Issa apparently can't even find a stooge who is willing to come forward and say that the President was involved in Fast and Furious or has undertaken a cover-up. If that was the case, then someone ought to know about it.

Meanwhile, for comparison, the Watergate investigators found more than a few such stooges, despite Nixon's best attempt at a REAL cover-up.

What does that tell you?

Also, the Supreme Court of the 1960s and 1970s was so liberal, so "progressive", that it can be squarely blamed for much of the sociaetal decline of the last 40 years in this country.

Yes, it is a terrible thing that we have a much fairer society than in 1972. Women are now earning advanced degrees at a rate that equals, if not exceeds, men. Women executives are no longer a rarity and even sit on the Supreme Court. Gays no longer have to fear arrest in bars, let alone their own bedrooms. A black man is the President of the United States. So, tell me again, how has our society declined?

Back to you, Joe.

___________________________________________—

AM: let’s take the Montana case first. Cert was granted and oral arguments were not necessary based on the info in bold below. To proceed to oral arguments would simply be re-arguing the Citizen’s United case with the same outcome. Why waste everyone’s time on such a futile effort.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., FKA WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., ET AL. v. STEVE BULLOCK, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MONTANA, ET AL.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA

No. 11–1179. Decided June 25, 2012

PER CURIAM.

A Montana state law provides that a “corporation may not make . . . an expenditure in connection with a candi­date or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.” Mont. Code Ann. §13–35–227(1) (2011). The Montana Supreme Court rejected petitioners’ claim that this statute violates the First Amendment. 2011 MT 328, 363 Mont. 220, 271 P. 3d 1. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, this Court struck down a similar federal law, holding that “political speech does not lose First Amendment protectionsimply because its source is a corporation.” 558 U. S. ___, __— (2010) (slip op., at 26) (internal quotation marks omit­ted). The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does. See U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Montana’s arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citi­zens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.

The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment ofthe Supreme Court of Montana is reversed.

It is so ordered.

In the AZ case the SC deferred because the section of the law they upheld could be enforced in an entirely constitutional way. In fact there is already a federal law requiring the feds to cooperate with such inquiries from state and local police. That law was referenced in the SC opinion.

From today’s WSJ:

Arizona's one victory came in the court's decision to uphold the status-check provision. Federal law already requires immigration authorities to respond to checks from state and local officers, indicating that Congress saw nothing wrong with such "consultation" between arms of government, the court said.

As far as ClunkerCare goes, let’s see what happens when the issue their decision.

Anna Molly, Your "argument" is circular. You say that Issa has found no evidence, yet the issue is a FAILURE of the DOJ to produce requested documents and e-mails which could provide that evidence. One cannot simply "find" what one is not allowed to see.

Not sure if Holder is a witch or what, but producing said documents could exonerate him of any wrong doing .... that is, unless of course, he does have something to hide ! So why IS Obama blocking the investigation ? Why IS Obama circumventing a valid Congressional subpoena ??

Your last sentence simply tells me you are wrongly trying to compare two entirely separate fact situations at two entirely different points in time by two entirely different Presidents. Anything to distract from Obama's deliberate obstruction of the investigation.

jim #'s --Please read David Walker's post above. Come out of your tunnel and look at the big picture.

BTW When all is said and done, who will you hate next? Those who lack understanding only have hate to sustain them.

jim-1455434

Boehner said: “an admission that White House officials were involved in decisions that misled the Congress and covered up the truth.”

Asked about Boehner’s statement, Issa said: "his committee had no evidence to support assertions of White House involvement".

sounds like there is some bitch-slapping going on between Boehner and Issa.

NBC’s Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower

What a POS article today. It really couldn't get much more biased and have less credibility.

In the ruling on the Arizona immigration case -- which struck down three parts of that state law, but (sorta) upheld the “show me your papers” provision

sorta upheld? It was 8-0 you partisan hacks! That is consensus and approval that law enforcement in Arizona has the right to check citizenship status on traffic stops, arrests, etc. The only part that makes it a "sorta", is this President's order for ICE to quit cooperating with Arizona law officers in enforcing the United States Federal Law. Why aren't you commenting on the fact that Obama took and oath to defend the laws of this United States, and he is criminally neglecting to uphold his position?

Mitt be (not so) nimble, Mitt be (not so) quick

Really? This is your header to that item? He took hours to come up with a decision on how to address it publically. Not weeks like Obama did with the Libya mess. Not months, like Obama did with Afghanistan. Not a year like the Obama administration has done with Fast and Furious. Shall we talk about which of the two candidates is NOT nimble, or quick Todd, Murray, Montanaro or Brower?

Folks, here is an example of how truly poor these 4 "journalists" are at putting together a story:

They conclude one paragraph with

The only recent comparison that comes to mind is when then-candidate Obama used free trade (and NAFTA) as a weapon against Hillary Clinton in the primaries and then has signed free-trade treaties as president.

Then, four blurbs later, they speak of Obama's new ad campaign:

seizes on last week’s Washington Post story, which reported that Romney’s Bain Capital invested in companies that shipped jobs overseas.

And yet, they can't make that simple connection? That Obama's policies and free trade treaties have done nothing but exacerbate, and allow, MORE outsourcing of jobs? Bain may have invested in those companies....but NAFTA, the WTO Treaties, Bush and Obama have been the ones at the helm while the laws were put in place to allow this.

All four of you should go back to journalism school...or at least start prefacing your articles by announcing that the following story is not news, but simply a twisting of facts to make Obama look better.

Ben-636050

It's too bad you felt the need to change your avatar due to the whining of a few. but, I understand compromise and the ability to let something minor go. Something liberals just don't seem to get.

Funny thing is...the only other place you see people get that upset about the use of an image is the Muslims over Mohommed.

Feel free to make the connection...

Rombot's about as nimble as a tortilla stapled to a dead elephant's ass, and only half as appetizing. The candidate can't recover from his primary run to the far right and has to tell governors in states that are prospering to "downplay". Just got out-flanked and out-foxed on immigration and Issa didn't help any with the contradictory statement, the President is not involved in "Fast and Furious".

The American electorate knows the Teapublicans have been stalling progress so they can make President Obama a one term President. The American electorate knows Rombot's return to the past won't move the needle on the economy (unless it's the lethal injection needle, then it will slide all the way in). Finally, the American electorate knows...

Rombot.Has.Nothing.

Romney has no state rights

• About Us
• Resources
• Send Tips
• Donate
• RSS

• CNSNews.TV
• On the Spot
• On the Scene
• The Schein
• OTJ
• Golden Hookah

Home » News
Romney: ‘I’m Running For Office for Pete’s Sake, I Can’t Have Illegals’

By Eric Scheiner
October 19, 2011
Subscribe to Eric Scheiner's posts

(CNSNews.com)- During last night’s Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas, Nev., former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney admitted that a lawn company he had used hired illegal immigrants and that when he found out he told the company it could not have illegal aliens working on his property because he was running for office.

Joe #'s-- Guess you forget how outraged Republicans were when images of Bush were defaced.

Come on Joe, make the connection.

Dont_carry_it_all

Ben -- Your avatar screams immaturity. So why should anyone give your words credence?

HAHAHAH!!!!

And Feisty's avatar is any better?

Silly liberals... you always make me laugh!

(show me the clown nose, Fisty!)

Sickofbeingwrong, your avatar is fine. You are still immature

Looks like "Roy Wilson" is a student of the grand fool "Kenneth Starr". Problem is; while the bullsh^t He's slinging has enough smell to give Him a republican high, the substance is so thin the "tumble turds" are rejecting it to the favor of the ass of His own britches.

@ Albany --

Not buying, Joe. If you have read the per curiam AND Justice Breyer's dissent, you already know it's not as "clear" as the per curiam says it is.

To wit --

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1179h9j3.pdf

Moreover, even if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court's legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Su­preme Court's finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana. Given the history and political landscape in Montana, that court concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations. 2011 MT 328, ¶¶ 36–37, 363 Mont. 220, 235–236, 271 P. 3d 1, 2 AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC. v. BULLOCK BREYER, J., dissenting 36–37. Thus, Montana's experience, like considerable ex­perience elsewhere since the Court's decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so. Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant thepetition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case. But given the Court's per curiam disposition, I do not see a significant possibility of reconsideration. Consequently, I vote in­stead to deny the petition.

And, yes, I STILL call it cowardice.

As for the Arizona case, that's why I said it's a close call.

jim --

Anna Molly, Your "argument" is circular. You say that Issa has found no evidence, yet the issue is a FAILURE of the DOJ to produce requested documents and e-mails which could provide that evidence. One cannot simply "find" what one is not allowed to see.

Spoken like a true birther.

And you question MY argument.

That's not how it works, Professor Marvel.

Well said Anna

Anna Molly:

I have heard that the Court may have done the nation a favor by refusing to hear the Montana case. The "swing" vote - Kennedy - is hardly likely to change his vote as that is an admission that he was wrong in Citizens United. Justices are far too brilliant and erudite to admit they might have erred in such a recent case.

The best hope we have is that we can put together a Constitutional Amendment, which is not as far-fetched as it might sound. There is something of an unlikely coalition building that includes true independents, true Republicans, Tea Partiers, and left-of-center types. These folks understand that corporations are not people, that we don't want foreigners buying our government, and that money is not speech.

Otherwise, we must hope that Democrats are in power when we have another vacancy on the Supreme Court.

For liberals to be celebrating this decision is pathetic. Break out the party favors Obama doesn't have to do his job. The fact that Obama refuses to support the immigration crisis in Arizona proves he is not qualified to be the president. Obama supporters are applauding a decision that allows our president to sit on the sidelines while those he has sworn to protect are over run. None of you liberals would be siding with Obama if this was happening in your backyard.

Illegals seeking a better life in the US get no complaints from me, but we need a process to make it happen for them. Illegals coming here to scam the system need to go home. Illegals that are coming here to cause anarchy our border couldn't be an easier crossing. We are a country ripe for the picking, and the total dysfunction from Washington is an open invitation. The Obama administration should put up signs along our open border welcoming all illegals, because nothing else makes any sense.

@ David --

That argument has a lot of merit. Thank you for setting me straight.

Funny thing is the constable still has the right to ask for papers, so long as they do not racially profile. So seems the folks from Arizona still have what they wanted, but the Feds still won't prosecute their side of the law.

Should be able to figure out if someone belongs here if they no habla englis or nein sprechen sie English or what ever.

@ bay lie #1.61, Do you really think I am going to accept to "clipped quotes" from you, taken out of context with no links cited ? Furthermore, you don't need to jump into the middle of an issue when you really don't know what in the hell I was talking about !

In #1.32, Eric said "Issa promised to have investigations for political gain when they took the House ... so much for integrity". I challenged Eric to PROVE that Issa said this. Eric's weak little "crawdad reply" in #1.42 shows he can not.

So you jump in trying to look all scholarly with your B.S. ! Epic failure by you. If that's the best you can bring to the table, you might as well stay in bed.

jim --

Furthermore, you don't need to jump into the middle of an issue when you really don't know what in the hell I was talking about !

This begs a REALLY big question, but in my renewed state of serenity, I plan to say nothing at all. The thing speaks for itself.

jim-1455434

@ bay lie #1.61, Do you really think I am going to accept to "clipped quotes" from you, taken out of context with no links cited ?

considering you never provide any links for anything you say, your standards are quite high, don't you think?

I know it's hard for you to look anything up - even out of your own curiousity but here it is. The first one even a video. Did I lie - jimbo??? come on make something else up.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/issa-admits-no-evidence-white-house-involved

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/us/issa-says-no-evidence-of-white-house-cover-up-in-guns-case.html

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/13406284-418/rep-issa-no-evidence-so-far-of-white-house-cover-up-of-fast-and-furious.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/24/darrell-issa-john-boehner-fast-and-furious_n_1622141.html

jimmy, jimmy - how do you look at yourself every day? You keep calling everyone a liar but you cannot ever come up with any proof for anything you say. You make me laugh every time you post - it is so predictable and generic.

Mitt Romney has a MUCH BETTER plan!

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/immigration

Lets BOUNCE Obama! Drop kick Obama to the curb this November! Time for a NEW leader at the helm of this country.

Obama can just go be a talk-show host, after all he wants to be Britney Spears.....

Ben 1.45 - the opinion piece you posted was not well thought out as it contained a conclusion based on an identified inaccuracy. Presient Obama has not gone around apologizing for America.

Joe 1.62 - perhaps the "sorta upheld" was partially based on the discussion the "papers please" activities have not yet been shown to be racial profiling. Not being a lawyer it kind of looked to me that this part of SB 1070 was upheld but has the potential to be revisited if the implementation of the activity is shown to biased.

Anna Molly 1.70 and David Walker 1.72 - I think you are both correct in that this was not argued because the decision was a foregone conclusion.

Love the Obama propaganda puffery masquerading as 'journalism.' As to the 'articles' themselves, they are essentially, well, not much except a waste of space on the internet.

More amusing is the conversation over choice of avatars. The squeamish 'progressives' are all indignant over one that shows a pic of Obama & the 'raise your hand if you're stupid' title while not one of the squeamish give a nod to a vulgar avatar coming from a very vulgar 'progressive' commenter. Amusing since, along with the childishness and pettiness, it demonstrates in a wonderfully apt manner how hypocritical and biased those pretending to be 'liberal' truly are. What else of a petty pickiness can be discovered? Don't like the truth so....call them names or else pick on their choice of avatar. Nitpicking pettiness, is that the 'new' progressive?

Issa has already said (google it yourself) that there is no cover up. Furthermore, he walked away from the deal to get the information he wanted just to keep his base fired up. It's only been "dragging on" because Republicans need the politics and the innuendo that goes along with it.

WOW! Eric...talk about spin. Issa did not say that there was no cover-up. He stated there was no evidence that the WH was covering anything up. That could change as evidence is gathered. As for the deal, since when is a "briefing" ever been considered as a substitute for what a subpoena calls for?

A limit to state and consumer rights but no limit to the rights of their masters Citizen United!

jpeg

WOW! Eric...talk about spin. Issa did not say that there was no cover-up. He stated there was no evidence that the WH was covering anything up.

so according to your thought process, since there is no evidence that Santa and Spiderman do not exist, there is no evidence that they do not exist...

DUMB FUX - suits you quite well.

Best comment I've ever seen from DUMB FUX.

I left it just for you...

Perfect place for you to drop your stinky load! ;o)

♥

DumbFux!

She didn't want to miss her period...

She was somewhere else dropping another stinky load. She knows about stinky!

She's doing her damnest right now to collapse all #2 comments.

She's doing her damnest right now to collapse all #2 comments.

Not a chance - I want everyone to see what you contribute!

You're a great poster child for Team Red! lol

Your post reveals a lot about you Feasty .... it is Team Blue vs Team Red, and everything else is irrelevant to you. Chicago style politics is all you know.

For the rest of us, we are more concerned about Team U.S.A., and I am not talking about the Olympics !

Ah the key Republican buzz word of the week, "Chicago style politics".

How about "Rove style politics", seems even worse to me.

Republicans complain about "Chicago style politics, because its effective", so sorry Romney isn't being more effective. But what did you expect from a Koch/Rove puppet.

Hey Feisty - A while back you posted how concerned you be if you lived in Colorado or New Mexico and Romney was President because he'd let the states burn. Where is your Messiah? Our state's area that is burning has about quadrupled, even while Hussein is the President. What gives?

Yeah, Chicago Style murders are also effective, so what's your point ?

Chicago is a cesspool of corrupt politicians with a history of dishonesty. I would expect you to support that, Eric.

Chicago style politics delivers......that's why its effective and why people vote for it.

Cesspool and corruption is what we've got with the GOP. Especially the last party Romney threw. It's nice his SuperPacs could attend, even though they aren't supposed to "coordinate"......oooo....and Rove even was a speaker.....talk about illegal.

I for one will not comment on the MSNBC staff writers comments. They are high and mighty today but when they get their rearends handed to them on Thursday it will be the same old garble about the "terrible' right wing nut jobs in the Supreme Court. The only nut jobs are you people that keep on supporting this dicator style leadership we have now. You are really going to be in for a long 8 years after November. I hope MSNBC can keep you on staff and pay you! No one else will hire you and your idiotic rants.

Ooohhh, "...and Rove even was speaker ... talk about illegal".

Eric, you seem determined to make foolish statements today... are you saying Karl Rove has no legal right to speak ? Are you really that twisted in your partisanship ??

Obama throws the big bashes, schmoozes with the usual Hollywood libtards, raking in millions and that is okay ..... in fact, Obama is setting new records for Democratic fundraisers !

But Republicans doing fundraisers is now something sinister, something evil .... that you magically declare it illegal ?

LOL Colorado is crying for government help. LMAO

dogs80- if you mean that you expect Romney to win, I suggest that he won't have 8 years. We barely survived 8 years of Bush-o-rama and we still haven't recovered from it. With Romney having 24-count 'em, 24- of bushco's inner circle, I'm quite confident that we won't survive even 4 years of BushII. Best case scenario, he'll get bounced, actually trounced, after 4 years. Worst case, and what I expect, Europe will eventually implode and collapse and the staggering US economy will follow it, especially given Romney continuing down the bush path to the thorn garden. The banks will crumble as the economy crumbles and as the US morphs into an oligarchy, we will finally and eventually get to experience what South America suffered in the 60's and 70's until they overturned it with much blood. Further, if we do have 8 years, they will be pretty long and hard for all, not just the dems.

jim-14isanidiot I believe you are on the brown team Romney owns. The one against the bible.

The Mormon Church has bragged the Book of Mormon is “the most correct book on the face of the earth”. Those words were uttered for the first time by none other than Joseph Smith himself on Sunday, October 28, 1841.

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

Feisty, stop being such a closet racist; just admit that you hate Clarence Thomas because he is black and doesn't share your opinions.

We all know that you want all non whites to get in line with your beliefs.

News flash tramp, you Democrats don't own Minorities anymore, they are free to leave your plantation.

elliot agreed here is Romneys Mormon doctrine you support

Nephi 12:23 And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations. (Joe Smith, Mormon founder, calls dark skinned people ugly, filthy, lazy, and perverts.)

jim-1455434 - Don't be ridiculous in your comparisons - the "Hollywood Libtards" as you put it are not the administrators of Obama's Super PACS, and therein lies the problem most have with it.

Learn to argue, and start by comparing apples to apples, not apples to red herrings, weakling.

you Democrats don't own Minorities anymore, they are free to leave your plantation.

Judging from the poll numbers amongst minorities - they are quite happy to stay right where they're at!

Sorry it SUCKS to be you! lol

Where you are standing you have only one direction to go, down. I like where I'm at.

Del, you interpret "they become dark" as a reference to dark skinned people? I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.

elliot I agree dark skinned people ARE NOT a sin as Mormons like Romney will call it

Jacob 3:8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.

meaning dead.

I didn't know they stacked sh!t that high.

You are totally pathetic. Go wash your mouth out with a shotgun.

Don't you guys live longer than us? In spite of an affinity for smoked meat?

No mention of how the doctors are on the take? I have a friend who has a herniated disc, received from work (cargo delivery) and her doctor saw it unfit to give her disability. So now she is unemployed, laid up, and without much hope of returning to work...From all the horror stories she has told me, I wouldn't want that quality of care here in the US of A.

You're right about the prescription medicines though!

Ideo,

Damn that socialized medicine!!!

What a urban myth!

All kidding aside, good to see you on the mend my friend!

As you know I worked many years for a Canadian company based out of MTL and I never heard a complaint from any of my co-workers & friends about your health care system,

{{{hugs}}}

Ideologyspoils, cheers for your terrific post! And best wishes for a speedy recovery.

Don't you guys live longer than us? In spite of an affinity for smoked meat?

They keep themselves well preserved with mass quantities of Moosehead.

Ideology,

If you were to see the medical bills I am seeing (and I have GOOD insurance), you would have another heart attack.

Folks, wake up, read your insurance policy, you will be shocked at what private companies can and do get away with. BTW, anybody have any sand bags?

For everyone, what is playing out now politically won't matter a bit come the big October surprise (there always is one) THAT is what will influence the election. Any guesses what it could be?

Sirie ... well golly, have you met a disgruntled canadian soul? None of those down there in wonderland right? Your friend is full of @!$%#e.

For everyone, what is playing out now politically won't matter a bit come the big October surprise (there always is one) THAT is what will influence the election. Any guesses what it could be?

Mitt Romney is a member of the evil Crab People???

I love eating crab (mmmmm, crablegs and crabcakes). No crab is evil. Just yummy.

Da Noid, I'm a Labatt guy, myself.

I am getting hungry. For crabs and a beer (I think I hear one of my docs crying somewhere, I am not following the diet plan they think i should eat)

Really Ideo? Let me ask a question then... how long does it take to get in to see a specialist there in Canada? See, the US of A has the best of the best health care in the world, and if we move to socialized healthcare, anyone in the medical profession can tell you that the result will be reduced quality, longer waiting to get to see a doctor, if you get to see a doctor at all.

Why mess with a great health care system? Best in the world!!

ideo: I entered a hospital in Montreal in the wee hours this last Saturday morning experiencing shortness of breath and a growing tightness in my chest.

ideo, wishing you a speedy recovery and the best of health.

Ideo, Congrats and please get well. I sent you a Newsvine yesterday but all was askew, and don't know if you received it.

You've written a fantastic post.

Other developed countries have had health care for decades. U.K. has had a national system since the last war. Such systems are always being updated and tweaked. The folks who live in those countries are different, because they have the security of knowing their health care is a given. Secure in the knowledge their family members will be always OK - with or without parents or spouses.

Preventive care is the key. You aren't afraid to go see the Doctor - every day if needs be. Something that might turn bad is caught early on. The ACA is all about free preventive care.

Here, the NONONONOChange-ers here, use anything as an excuse to deny themselves and others the right to affordable, accessible health care.

@Idealogy I have a young man who works for me who is from Canada. He came to the US on a hockey scholarship. He and most of his team mates from Canada go to Doctors in the US because wait times are so long. Seems this isn't as much @!$%#e as you stated based on this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/12/12/wait-times-surgery-fraser.html

thank you ksw, it seems many Canadians come to the US for healthcare/surgeries because of the long waiting to see a "government" doctor.

That link you posted says it all! Kudos!!

Ideo, you were treated right away. Clearly.

Please confirm how FALSE is the phony Spin about "wait-time" in other countries:

It is a desperate fantasy from the right wing here to justify not providing healthcare for all Americans.

ksw,

Hate, reallly hate to tell you this (my hubby works in a hospital and my BF is the director of social services, there) It is money that puts you at the head of the line - both in the good old USA and GB and all other countries. Had an interesting discussion with my son in law on the subject (he is from Sheffield, England, and a US citizen)

Backhouse - take a look at Britians healthcare waiting period.

BTW, phinephancy-4252115 here's to a speedy recovery!

@Phinephancy Great to see you on here this morning. Sending you good thoughts...

Actually I do not disagree with you. My cousin's husband is also from England and he says the same thing. I also have several family members who are doctors and hospital administrators. Bottom line is even with the health care systems in place they still are not getting immediate care. Taxes in both countries are also extremely higher. I am not saying our health care system isn't broken but rather those countries are not without problems.

ideo, wishing you a speedy recovery and the best of health.

Will you look at that?

Snuffy fresh out of rehab & earning herself a time out right off the bat has decided to rejoin us!

I told you months ago sweetie, you needed to take break!

Peace!

The Canadian lying in his hospital bed, recovering from a heart attack writes:

I will not go bankrupt … I will not lose my house … my family will not have any financial pressures … no one’s health will deteriorate due to stress … my medication costs will be 80% less than yours, and best of all, no bloodsucker is going to make a profit.

And that, my friends, is what the Obama administration wants to create for Americans: the security of knowing, if you get sick or injured, you won't lose everything you own, and the security for your provider, that they can take care of you, and still get paid.

The "wait period" you like to harp on about in Britain - is just fine.

Even if it weren't, tens of millions of folks HERE have NO healthcare at all. So no amount of waiting will do them any good if they don't go to Emergency to get help, will it?

Using Emergency services drives ALL of our costs up. That is why we need the individual mandate.

In 2014, 30 million Americans will have access to affordable healthcare via exchanges, under the Affordable Healthcare Act.

sirie

thank you ksw, it seems many Canadians come to the US for healthcare/surgeries because of the long waiting to see a "government" doctor.

The traffic is two-way. Ever hear of "medical tourism"? It's the thousands of Americans who go to foreign countries each year for medical treatment and surgery because the costs are so outrageously high in the U.S.

Wait-times are for elective, read non-life-threatening, surgeries. What did you guys miss about my getting a stent within 15 minutes of entry. All that @!$%# aside, I will stick with the system that allows me to live longer. Sirie, you really need to read up on usa comparisons with other countries. Yours is well down the list in many areas of medical care and delivery. But of course they are lying anti-american reports right?

Any emergency room in North America is going to rush a possible heart attack in before almost anything else. Go in with a broken arm and sit for hours but if you want attention right away, tell them you are having severe chest pains. Poof, you're in.

@ Backhouse here are two more sources in case you are interested.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/244716

http://healthydebate.ca/2012/02/topic/innovation/how-does-canada-compare

ideology,

"I am always surprised by the term ‘socialized medicine’ because it is not what we did in Canada, what we did do was ‘socialize’ the medical insurance industry into a single payer system where everyone pays through a variety of taxes even down to the wino on the street when he buys his bottle of poison. Our doctors and nurses are no less able or less dedicated than yours because greed was removed as a factor in medical care."

You heath care system works, the US system is broken. The Heath care Act is a big step to provide insurance to the uninsured.Thursday will be the final say on this particular law.

How many citizens will have a heart attack this week? How many will not have any heath insurance? Or as Phine said , you have insurance but it what is the small print? Does your heart attack leave you nearly bankrupt? Does it eat up you savings in your emergency funds to the tune of say $50,-$80, 000?

Or do you live inside the picket fence of Ideology's metaphor and don't have a worry in the world: Romney, his superpac guys, all elected officials including past and current president, the Supreme Court with their Cadillac coverage ?

President Obama spent a whole year hammering out a law in Congress that moves the country forward and provide insurance to the ininsured in the next two years. In spite of the party of NO, it is the law of the land.

I voted for him in part because he said he would tackle heath care. He did .

And now we wait to hear from the SC on Thursday. Does it stand or not?

Backhouse - kind of like the private sector is "just fine"? Sorry, couldn't resist...

TIRED OF YOUR RIGHT WING ATTEMPTS AT CODE WORDS:

"Private sector" is in the best shape EVER. Profits have been going up, continuing all the way through the worst recession in 60 years, for the private sector. (nb Check out CEO pay and compare it to ordinary wages.)

Top American income-earners are the wealthiest group in the history of the world.

700,000 public sector jobs were cut by Republican governors since 2010. Other Presidents INCREASED public sector jobs while recovering from much milder recessions ---as a recovery strategy. Reagan for the same reason, increased teachers at such times.

Yes, it is the public sector that needs help. All of those thousands of jobs must be restored. This will put money back into the system and is good for families as well as businesses, as well as the Treasury.

SO YES, the private sector is doing much better than VERY, VERY FINE.

They are kicking me out soon but I cannot leave until I pay the 6-buck phone bill ... @!$%#ing socialist greed.

Later one and all.

Ideo....great post. Sending you all good wishes for a speedy recovery. Be well.

how long does it take to get in to see a specialist there in Canada? See, the US of A has the best of the best health care in the world,

Best care in the world eh? Then why, when I popped into the local ER on Friday evening, blinded in one eye, did I have to wait until Sunday to be seen, only to be told I needed to see an eye specialist. Bill for that advice - $800. Treatment received - nada. Should we talk about the 6 month waiting lists to see a dentist for a broken tooth? I have to tell you, I love the 4 month wait time to schedule an appointment with my doctor. While the US may have some of the best medicine available, it is not available to everyone and it most certainly isn't available when needed. That is why so many Cali-AZ folks pop over the border to Mexico for treatment.

Ideo - have a speedy recovery.

Phine - Ditto for you. And let's hope and pray your insurance holds through. Hopefully those Obama-care lifetime caps have been removed.

Ideo,

Desperately trying to understand how health care could actually be a GIVEN in another country ~ someone on here is saying well, of course a heart attack will be treated right away...

WELL, WHATEVER TREATMENT IS REQUIRED, IT COSTS YOU NOTHING MORE THAN YOUR MONTHLY PAYMENT (LOW).

The healthcare system in Canada will go to the ends of the Earth to find out what is wrong. Any number of specialists. And you will be charged nothing extra. Zero.

Same in U.K. and other countries that are permitted to take care of their citizens.

ideologyspoilstheview:

First and foremost, I wish you a speedy recovery. You too, phine.

Secondly, thank you for a wonderful post. There is no perfect health care system, but there is little question some are better than others. I have a number of Canadian friends and most of them speak very highly of their system, which is not to say they don't have a beef here and there. However, those who have experience with both the Canadian AND the U.S. systems say the Canadian system is far, far superior to the American system. For starters, they don't have millions of uninsured citizens.

Yes, in some instances, Canadians come to the U.S. for treatment, however the reverse is also true.

But for the right wing, when it comes to dollars (and that's the only measure that counts, right?) the American system is to the Canadian system what blood sucking leeches are to modern medicine.

Backhouse - But for the right wing, when it comes to dollars (and that's the only measure that counts, right?) the American system is to the Canadian system what blood sucking leeches are to modern medicine.

No doubt that the healthcare in this country is extremely expensive and needs reform.

RedDev - Waiting for 6 months for broken tooth? My dentist got me in the very same day for mine, and had temp crown put in 2 days later. I'm glad I'm in a small town! (Not totally)Unbelievable that you were blinded in one eye and they didn't treat you for 2 days, wow! I guess it depends on where you live as to how soon you get treated.

I'm not saying that Canadian health care is bad at all, I have just heard about massive waiting periods for specialist, and that was a second hand story albeit from someone that I trust.

Talk to the Hand

Any emergency room in North America is going to rush a possible heart attack in before almost anything else.

Sure, but in the U.S. you're likely to be charged a ruinous amount of money for the treatment that will bankrupt you if your insurance isn't quite right or if the insurance company finds some technicality for denying you coverage. That doesn't happen in Canada.

Phinephancy,

Great to have your presence, get strong, stay strong. We're all pulling for you.

And a speedy recovery to you also, ideology.

"Any in hospital in north America will treat heart attack symptoms right away". Wong. I took my neighbor to a hospital in Dallas, Texas with heart attack symptoms. We sat in the ER for 12 hours before anyone saw her. It was determined she didn't have a heart attack, she had a stroke. 12 hours she sat there and waited. Best in the world my ass.

I love social medicine. The Republicans gave us a good dose by bailing out all the banks.

Endorsing your party's tactic to waffle around and waste time?

Once again, you make a quotation, but it is NOT something I said.

Stop worrying how much it costs in other countries!

Let them worry about over there. They are taking care of their people. And doing a great job of it.

You just don't want folks here to have affordable, accessible health care.

I'm no expert on the differences in the systems but from what I've read and heard, the wait times in Canada and Europe- and even Cuba- or on non-critical and elective services. Not on critical care.

Well Backhouse, let's just take a look at some European tax rates used to support the social programs including that Healthcare that you don't think we need to worry about what it costs.

United Kingdom
Income Tax: 50% VAT: 17.5% TOTAL: 67.5%

Germany
Income Tax: 45% VAT: 19% TOTAL: 64%

France
Income Tax: 40% VAT: 19.6% TOTAL: 59.6%

Greece
Income Tax: 40% VAT: 25% TOTAL: 65%

Spain
Income Tax: 45% VAT: 16% TOTAL: 61%

Portugal
Income Tax: 42% VAT: 20% TOTAL: 62%

Sweden
Income Tax: 55% VAT: 25% TOTAL: 80%

Norway
Income Tax: 54.3% VAT: 25% TOTAL: 79.3%

Netherlands
Income Tax: 52% VAT: 19% TOTAL: 71%

Denmark
Income Tax: 58% VAT: 25% TOTAL: 83%

Finland
Income Tax: 53% VAT: 22% TOTAL: 75%

Oh and for you libs, the VAT tax is the equivalent of a national sales tax.

Oh and Canada? (Marginal Tax Rates)

Alberta (AB) 39.00%
British Columbia (BC) 43.70%
Manitoba (MB) 46.40%
New Brunswick (NB) 43.30%
Newfoundland & Labrador (NL) 43.40%
Nova Scotia (NS) 50.00%
Prince Edward Island (PE) 47.37%
Ontario (ON) 46.41%
Québec (QC) 48.22%
Saskatchewan (SK) 44.00%
Northwest Territories (NT) 43.05%
Nunavut (NU) 40.50%
Yukon (YT) 42.40%

Mitt Romney has a MUCH BETTER plan!

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/immigration

Lets BOUNCE Obama! Drop kick Obama to the curb this November! Time for a NEW leader at the helm of this country.

Obama can just go be a talk-show host, after all he wants to be Britney Spears.....

Well, we sure do need affordable healthcare in the US. Unfortunately, HCR is merely a boon to health insurance companies and big Pharma. Single payer healthcare would work, that is not in HCR, nope, what is there are no cost caps, rationing and no caps on drugs. We need healthcare reform and HCR ain't it.

Ideologyspoilstheview...That was the most bad ass post I've read in a while...While all these fools rail against ACA, they don't recognize how much good it has...they claim to like the provisions but hate the act...isn't that something like hate the sin but love the sinner? Yet they can never articulate what exactly they don't like...which makes me think its not the act they really hate but a revelation of their deep and profound prejudice against this presidency If the court does find this unconstitutional, I hope they will feel the sting of limits on coverage and pre-existing conditions...it would be so fitting.

Romney's campaign has a big problem spelled B-A-I-N. Romney is the "pioneer" of out-sourcing as one article put it. While equity capital firms are legal (there are good ones and bad ones), one must remember that firms like Bain Capital invest very little real money; they leverage other profitable businesses to buy the next business placing that profitable business in jeopardy by burdening it with debt and making that business unable to do R & D, invest in new equipment, etc. There is also huge tax incentive investments given to Bain (or ?) provided by local and state governments. After they destroy a business, the "investors" walk away with hundreds of millions leaving nothing but devastation in their wake. That is not what capitalism should be. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich both nailed Mitt Romney by calling it what it was "vulture" capitalism; Gingrich said flat out that Romney "is a liar". Too bad, Romney's multi-billionaire backers had so much money, they could drown out the truth coming from the other GOP candidates by blanketing the airways with negative ads against those speaking the truth about Romney.

Listening to Romney campaign supporters over the weekend try to tell everyone there is a difference between out-sourcing and off-shoring was hysterical. If the out-sourcing of telemarketing is to India as Romney did as MA Governor, it doesn't matter whether he calls it "out-sourcing" or "off-shoring"--the jobs left the country. Ed Gillespie explained that President Obama "out-sourced" telemarketing for fund raising to Omaha, Nebraska. Really bad example there, Ed. Last I checked, Omaha, Nebraska is part of the United States and those "out-sourced" jobs remain in the USA and they were given to permanent employees of a telemarketing company. Therein lies the difference. "Out-sourcing" is not the same as off-shoring if the jobs remain in the USA but that is not what Mitt Romney and Bain Capital did--they just shipped the jobs overseas--"off-shoring". One other Romney staffer did his best to explain that "off-shoring" is because a business is expanding into a foreign country. Oh, really? That would be correct IF the business stayed open in the USA but Romney and Bain closed the USA businesses and opened "off-shore". Do not be fooled by the Romney campaign into thinking they are one and the same.

Too bad, Romney's multi-billionaire backers had so much money,

Well then they wouldn't be multi-billionaire backers would they. Here's your sign.

Liberals have the gall to talk about the Koch brothers measley $200 million when the left has backers like Ford ($10B), Gates ($40B) and Hollywood.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

If it wasn't for Conservatives, Liberals would have spent this country to death 100 years ago.

Steven, Delaware, well said!

Do we want to surrender a system that allowed increases in material wealth for all and a form of government providing citizenship over serfdom?

Steven - I agree with Jody, excellent post. Sadly, if the conservative crowd are representative of the right wing freaks that post on this site, we know that they will surrender to serfdom. We need to look no further than the Adelson Chinese whore. He will do bidding of the Chinese government to ensure he gets his millions from those Chinese casinos.

Well said Jody and RedDevPS. Agreed

Jody,

All I can think of is the old 1960's song "Dizzy"

phinephancy, "Dizzy" sums it up.

Jody,

Clearly both sides received a little of what they wanted. However, truthfully both sides are trying to spin that they got the better of it. IMO, the precedent has been set, the court has allowed a state the power to usurp the duties only the federal government can do. This will only prod other states, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah to move forward as well. Their own "papers now" laws can now go forward. Other states will follow suit, some harsher then others. A mash up of fifty state laws addressing immigration.

The DOJ case, correctly, rested solely on the fact that federal law regarding immigration law and enforcement should outweigh state law. The SCOTUS convuluted ruling that states can't do some portions of immigration enforcement but can do others is confusing. Either, federal law is supreme or it is not. All portions of the state law should have been thrown out.

Now the spectre of racial profiling will raise its ugly head. Further strain will be placed upon latinos whether they be undocumented, residents or citizens. Police should not have this extra power, nothing good will come of it. Police motto "To serve and protect" changed "To inspect and Profile"

See my posts yesterday with jpeg on the immigration thread.

Now Romney wants to address his plans for immigration reform, probably only involves border fences.

Talking about songs - Thought of a variation of "American Pie"

So come Mitt be nimble Mitt be quick

Mitt wants the bully pulpit's stick

Said tax cuts are his only friend.

Jody:

SCOTUS overturned the "heart" of the AZ papers please law. Those who wrote and said otherwise clearly did not understand the law in the first place or became lost in space somewhere between hearing the ruling and writing their columns.

The corporate media doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that Obama has ANY victories except when it's absolutely necessary. There was one provision of the law whose constitutionality was not ruled on. It was NOT upheld as the media has been spinning it. There were three other parts that were ruled to be unconstitutional.

You can bet that if the court deferred ruling on the three provisions that were found unconstitutional and ruled that what the media is falsely calling the "heart" of the law unconstitutional, the media wouldn't be referring to it as the "heart". Instead, the headlines would have been something like "Obama suffers major defeat. Three out of four provisions upheld. Only one ruled unconstitutional". And then the sub-headline would be "How badly does this hurt Obama's reelection chances?"

But I guess the media will have to defer their Obama-bashing headlines until Thursday, when he probably will be dealt a serious setback with the health care act.

June 26, 2012

This will be a tight one, and my current Projection: (Currently the states that will play the biggest in November are Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida and Wisconsin. For now these states are remaining in the tight toss up status.

The key months for this race are going to be September and October. And as far as the debates, Romney may have a problem in this area, along with his lack of availability to the press/media concerning his policy details.

For now, the new projected election out come totals are:

Projected Winner Obama 293

Projected Loser Romney 244

What were the numbers last week?

Job1

Romney is making a big mistake not talking to the press, because he could really use the practice. Poor guy even botches interviews with FOX.

Job1, well said. Even republicans are beginning to question why Mitt Romney is not giving voters specific policies and describing his vision; they question is vagueness. No one knows who Romney is let alone what Romney will do; he's been all over the place on every issue but we can assume a great deal simply from his embrace of things like the Ryan Budget and AZ SB1070, his anti-immigration stand.

Romney is a candidate running against an incumbent. Mitt cannot continue to simply run as the candidate who is against President Obama and Obama's policies without providing details of what he plans, what he will do. Romney cannot continue to simply be "against" something, he must be "for" something.

Failure to get specific means the candidate Mitt Romney and what he will do will be and is being defined by President Obama. Romney's previously expressed view that if he tells voters what he plans to do, they will vote against him is a failed campaign strategy because President Obama is already painting a clear picture of Mitt and presenting a stark contrast in their visions for America.

Hi Amy,

I can't believe Romney has any supporters. President Obama is so happy and relaxed and Romney is just out of place and a stiff suit.

He looked happy and relaxed last week when Putin was slapping him around in the press conference. He is a failure and all the pee-pee bumping you libs do will not change that.

LOL, Obama last night, in Boston made a huge mistake bringing up a trade from the Red Sox to "his" White Sox... started stammering to a hoard of boo's.

Well said Job1 and Jody. Agree

The President had it right when he said Romney's singular quality is evasiveness.

Hi RTFS, 100% spot on!

Thanks Job1. But how is it that the media never recognizes or calls Romney out on this?

@ RTFS, I don't quite agree with your assessment that Mr. Romney has no opinion on any subject. On most he doesn't....but on many he has two. For abortion at times...and then against it. For mandates in the past....and then against them. Perhaps he's playing the averages.

Repub's seem to not necessarily really support Mr. Romney, as much as they're against President Obama. I cannot imagine if Romney wins....no one knows what he stands for....including himself.

That is a great question. It seems that Willard's stance is, elect me and you will find out where I stand.

Obama simply stands in the way with enforcing previously passed legislation. Even the Supreme Court's 8 to 0 affirmation of one portion of the Arizona law has been thwarted by Obama who has acted quickly to avoid a UNANIMOUS decision.

Obama stands for getting re-elected and enforcing U.S. laws is something he avoids.

That sounds like Obamacare. Nancy Witch Pelosi....Gotta pass it to find out what is in it! NEXT

Sort of like "we have to pass the bill before we know what's in it."

Governor Romney is in control and it is driving the left and media crazy. It is hilarious to watch them have apoplexy. He is listening to his advisors and is not being flushed out to be shot at by drunken and crazy progressives. When the time is right governor. When the time is right.

Romney 2012

Stupidity always drives the left crazy!!! Hes not a Governor anymore for a reason!!

These right wingers are pulling at straws. They know that they have a loser in Romney.

RTFS, well said.

Romney has no backbone, no core and no character either. While I am not one to question any candidate's patriotism, in Romney's case, he provides the doubt himself. How can anyone claim to love his/her country yet stash millions in the Cayman Islands and Swiss bank acounts to avoid paying his/her fair share of taxes--14% in 2010 while most middle income earners without millions paid a higher tax rate.

LOL, the right wingers continue to beat that "no one read the bill" drum. Except, they helped write it and their staff read it and advised them--that's why they have staff. Legislators cannot possibly read every piece of legislation written--just as SCOTUS does not read every law they review, their staffers do that work and report their analysis, pros, cons, etc.

Why do Conservatives continue to use the Nancy Pelosi quote out of context?

"You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Obviously she was talking about the unending stream of distortions and lies the Republicans were spinning about the bill, trying to stop it from being passed.

Hey... Ben I agree with 90% of what you say..... But I dont agree with that Avitar. Even if you dont like Mr. Obama he is the POTUS and should be afforded the respect of office. I served under a few POTUS's (coff coff Mr. Carter) one of them. Regardless of your opinion the man is our President. For now!

I have changed it and I am sorry for offending Alfred E. Newman. What me worry???? LOL.

This post didn't start off talking about the ACA, but....here we are. So I have to wonder: Exactly where were the repub's when congress was sorting it out, two years ago? Why didn't they show up and present their ideas? Why did they sit on their hands, and wait two years to simply whine about it?

What has been created is good, but it could have been even better with their input and cooperation. Just wondering....why the complaints, NOW? Why didn't they want to be part of the solution, THEN?

I will say this on Romney he avoids the press...runs to Wawa and does not have a policy except blame Obama. The guy does not want to take a stance. Too afraid to be called wrong like he has in the past. A poor leader.

I so agree with your comment Hey,

What has been created is good, but it could have been even better with their input and cooperation. Just wondering....why the complaints, NOW? Why didn't they want to be part of the solution, THEN?

Why are the people that are actually BENEFITTING from the ACA not jumping up and down and waving their hands! My daughter has been able to be carried on my insurance while she attends college and from the numbers I've seen millions of others have enjoyed this benefit as well. I've personally liked the fact that so many of my "getting older" preventative evals have been covered 100% by my insurance. Anyway ... I know NOT on topic but liked your post!

dal -

Saw a problem with your post. If Romney only blames Obama, then why is it that Obama always blames Bush?

Hey, It's MEEEEE

The conservatives were "at the back of the bus". They made several recommendations, all of which were summarily rejected because Dems knew that they had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Obozocare is what they wasted that majority on... and that's why Scott Brown won in Mass... or we'd have Cap and Tax to deal with too.

Well, FedUp, hopefully next time repub's will stop sitting on their hands, and get involved...and start helping the American people. Shed that 'Party of Noooo' emblem, you proudly wore for the past three years! MAKE THINGS HAPPEN! We're moving forward, with or without you guys, so...you might as well help out. It would be easier for both sides as well as the American people.

Your welcome for all the benefits us taxpayers give you for all the handouts you get.

Oh the benefits and handouts that the tea party members get.

Uniforms are available at the Romney campaign website - you can either get a T-shirt that says "I'm With Stupid" (arrow pointing up) or "Romney 2012" - they both mean the same thing.

....and so far this year the Red Sox are ruling the cellar of the American League East.

Tnsevol,

You owe me a monitor:-)

Fisty, where do we get our uniforms? LOL

Sox, why are you such a racist? Had to ask, you haven't posted that line in at least 24 hours.

Job1 -

No problem, the check is in the mail!

Did not Arizona have the same problem?

Phine I hope your feeling better, and have a set of waterwings. My house is 8 feet from being underwater with more rain today. And Maryland blue crabs are the best. Although the tiny shrimp I used to buy off the docks on Baileys Island Me. made the best toasted shrimp rolls, with a little Hellmanns!

My wife has a cousin who lives along an inlet to Chesapeake Bay. On our last trip over he caught some fresh Maryland blue crabs (right after a full moon) and steamed them up for her.

She was in heaven, while I of course am allergic to shellfish so can't understand what the fuss is all about.

The only thing that the states should be required to provide to illegal immigrants is a free ride to the nearest ICE office where the Federal Government can take care of them

You and I would still pay for but I like the idea.

Socialism for everyone.

We need a better leader in the White House

or just a leader

commieslayer -

Stop counting on your toes and put your shoes back on. As a matter of fact you should quit trying to do math altogether - you might hurt yourself.

Which illegal communist are you referring to? President Obama is a certified US Citizen and a Capitalist.

I myself am a Democrat (not a Communist) who believes in God.

Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side - Abraham Lincoln

Obama is a capitalist ? Thanks TNSEVOL, we all needed a good laugh today ! Has Barack Obama ever run a lemonade stand ?

Excuse me while I take a few minutes to laugh at what you vomited!

I was doing the math on the electoral college.

Give me a break .. commieslayer can't write a coherent sentence, much less do math. Been waiting for almost a week for a reply commie - how many reds have you killed.

jim & commie -

Well, if you don't agree that President Obama is a capitalist, you could at least try and decide what you think he is - Socialist? Communist? Facist?

I laugh at the fact that you don't even know the difference yet continue to "vomit" words you don't even know the meaning of.

Nice try, TNSEVOL .... sorry if my post at #16.2 contained too many "big words" for you to understand.

What do I think Obama is ?

He has campaigned for most of his 3.5 years in office .... Campaigner-in-Chief

He has no budget in 3.5 years of office ... Financial Disaster-in-Chief

He has done nothing effective to reduce unemployment ... Laser-Like Vision in Chief

He has played class warfare over tax issues ... Divider-in-Chief

So,TNSEVOL, your "diarrhea of words" at #16.1 might try to compare Obama to Abe Lincoln, but I can assure you sir, Obama is NO Abe Lincoln, and he is not a capitalist either !

coomieguzzler and jim-14IQ. And you guys say you are against gay marriage...

Be careful dal, Tyler might come and ban you for that use of lang.....wait, my bad.

I dont see many level headed liberals here. Try having a civilized conversation or debate.

Whatever Raff if they banned the use of language then most of the Repugs would be gone. Nice try! Just fighting Karl Rove and people like you.

The problem is that the administrators ban anyone with views that differ from this website. Im nothing like Karl Rove. And believe me when I tell you that I am not the person you should be fighting with.

All I did was point out the double standard this forum holds. And may I also point out that while both sides of the aisle use foul language, I see it more often from the left. All I see from people like you and Feisty are attacks. Not much more than that, unfortunately.

You are a fool

LOL Are you really that ignorant?

then you shouldn't have voted for Immelt... I mean Ofailure

The truth about the jobs in India is they already existed before Romney became governor. He brought most of those jobs back to the states.

Nothing like lying via ommision.

3rdpartyadvocate -

That is not factually correct. Romney vetoed a bill that would have made it illegal for companies to outsource MA state businesss to other countries. Shortly after that CitiBank transferred their MA business to their call center in India.

I believe the jobs eventually came back to the US but not to MA although Roney had no part in that.

Check your facts.

Romney could have written the wording into the contract that jobs stay in Massachusetts. He chose not to.

As a business leader who went to Harvard, you would think he would know how to write contracts to employ people in his state.

Would President Romney be so vague in defense contracts to allow his beloved France build America's fighters and bombers?

Romney choose to do missionary work in France rather than serve his country. When Romney was asked about his sons serving America, he said they served America better by being at his side. Something that turned Republicans heads. Many Republicans quickly called Romney an elite who doesn't understand Americans.

Romney outsourced GOVERNMENT JOBS TO INDIA. It is a fact and sad. He raised a middle finger to us

Debbie -

What is the one thing that most politicians have in common? They are LOADED! Now, tell me that you would offer up your children to the military? Im sure you wouldn't. What is it with Liberals and double standards? Jesus, get real, would ya? Only patriotic Americans willfully serve their country.

James-

Do you have facts to support your claim?

Most independent studies of the mortgage crisis place the blame on a de-regulated banking industry that issued risky financial instruments using mortgages as collateral. When these instruments failed the insurers couldn't cover the losses and defaulted.

This led to the US bailout of the banks and the insurance companies.

Republicans controlled the House, Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court all championing the great ownership society from 2002-2006.

Housing bubble began to burst in 2006, a year when Republicans controlled all of Washington.

Doesn't surprise me that a Republican would try to lie about the great ownership society and their "deficits don't matter" philosophy of 2001-2006.

Debbie,

That's right, it's all Bush's fault. Frank and Dodd's "give away" mortgage program, that made Barney's, Fannie Mae, boyfriend rich, didn't have anything to do with the millions of forclosure's, of people that shouldn't have even been allowed to own a credit card. You just keep drinking your koolaid.

David, I'm simply pointing out the bubble and crash occurred as a result of Republicans.

You keep supporting Romney. Romney loves Americans so much that he hired European nannies rather than Americans to help raise his children.

Debbie is right

Do you have facts to support your claim?

The truth is often very painful for the libtards

As we entered the recession, as many as half of all mortgages in the U.S. were considered inferior and liable to default. This was a clear result of government housing policies to encourage home ownership, which resulted in a broad misallocation of capital, loosened mortgage standards, and created distortions in the real estate market.

On top of this, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had an official policy of increasing home ownership by lowering mortgage underwriting standards.

This had a significant effect on the quality of mortgages in circulation prior to the recession.

So who's to blame for the housing policies that caused the recession? HUD was created by Lyndon Johnson (a Democrat) after passage of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act by a Democrat-controlled House and Senate in 1965. The Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law by Jimmy Carter (another Democrat) after, once again, passing through a Democrat-controlled House and Senate.

It would appear that Democrats are to blame
Another cause of the 2007-08 recession was banking regulation that a) concentrated mortgage securities with a small number of firms, b) offered implied government insurance on bad mortgages, and c) established accounting guidelines that allowed banks to significantly reduce their capital positions.

This is where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac come in. Both entities, while technically private entities, made the federal government the implicit backers of every mortgage held. That implied guarantee was made explicit once they were bailed out following this latest recession
Another cause of the 2007-08 recession was banking regulation that a) concentrated mortgage securities with a small number of firms, b) offered implied government insurance on bad mortgages, and c) established accounting guidelines that allowed banks to significantly reduce their capital positions.

This is where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac come in. Both entities, while technically private entities, made the federal government the implicit backers of every mortgage held. That implied guarantee was made explicit once they were bailed out following this latest recession

There is the report out just last week that says that the immigration of Asians now outnumber Hispanics.

Another report says that the immigration of Mexicans has been in decline in recent years.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/asian-immigrants-hispanic-us-pew-report-132434717.html

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/07/illegal-immigration-mexico-continues-decline/

We have a town outside of Detroit Novi Michigan. Just about 34% of the town are now Asians. Used to be Indians and Japanese, lately a lot of Chinese and Koreans have been moving in. So much so that the local grocery chains have started adding entire rows of Asian fresh products. Which I love, This isnt your mothers bok choi!

All the other 'immigrants' are actual legal 'immigrants' and didn't just walk across the border as felons. Big difference and not a problem.

Romney: ‘I’m Running For Office for Pete’s Sake, I Can’t Have Illegals’

By Eric Scheiner
October 19, 2011
Subscribe to Eric Scheiner's posts

(CNSNews.com)- During last night’s Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas, Nev., former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney admitted that a lawn company he had used hired illegal immigrants and that when he found out he told the company it could not have illegal aliens working on his property because he was running for office.