JohnO

I'm getting from him exactly what I expected. His whole campaign was based on lies and deception. You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear. Did you like today's Bloomberg Business Week report where President Obama is quoted, in an interview discussing ways to rein in the soaring federal deficit, as saying "he is "agnostic" about raising taxes on those making less than $250,000"? Watch your wallets!!! I guess this is a good thing if it marks the end of his class warfare crusade.

Talk about recycling! This is simply the communist rhetoric of Stalinism and Marxism. It is no more relevant today than it was when they were coined 80 years ago. Europe's latest socialist experiment is starting to crumble with the Euro crisis .

Is there another job in this world where you can be wrong a majority of the time and suffer no consequences? Washington politicians excluded of course.

Hopefully the GOP will run someone who can get elected. The last time they were in this situation in '96 they put up Bobdole just because it was his turn.

I agree. I attended a 3 night run in Oakland that culminated in Mardi Gras and on the second night Vince carried the band. The Vince critics are way out of line imho.

I was listening to the Hollywood Palladium show from 1971-08-06 over the weekend. Highly recommend! http://www.archive.org/details/gd1971-08-06.fob-SonyECM22p.miller.88816.sbeok.flac16

Philippe de Broca - King of Hearts

It's always a good day when a Manning loses but today is a really good day!

You didn't say it, I wrote it. The concern is that the state should have any right or interest in an individuals dna without due cause or their explicit consent is simply un-American.

Forget about bioethics on what Constitutional grounds? Where's the ACLU???

Not from the perspective of bioethics if you believe the State has an interest in the child. Either the State has an interest or it does not. Why wouldn't they collect DNA from all abortions, mother and child? Or if abortion is too prickly a topic then from anyone going for an operation or doctors visit?

And that's exactly the way it should work! Vote with your money. Justice Thomas pointed out in remarks on Tuesday that the desire to restrict speech cuts both ways. He pointed to the Tillman Act of 1907. The genesis of the legislation came from Senator Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina's concern that Corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them. Stand up for more speech rather than less lest we find ourselves in this place. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communis

Definitely big brother! This guy scares the hell out of me! Art Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, says he understands why states don't first ask permission to screen babies for genetic diseases. "It's paternalistic, but the state has an overriding interest in protecting these babies," he says. But they don't have 'an overriding interest in protecting' the 10's of thousands of babies that are aborted each year? Talk about a bioethical conflict of interest!

The "multi-national conglomerate" argument is a red herring. The SC's ruling left standing the portion of the law related to foreign contributions. In fact the majority opinion makes seven different references to the fact that the ruling does NOT apply to foreign contributions. The President and his supporters are intentionally using this lie to smear the Court.

What about the 120 years of case law that preceded? There are laws to deal with corruption so there's no need to limit speech "just in case" it might corrupt.

Classic troll

I concur to a degree. In the words of William Tecumseh Sherman, "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it". Truman blew it in Korea by giving MacArthur field command. If he had Ridgeway in command from the beginning, a real soldier’s soldier, then events on the ground, reserves, supplies, intelligence, would have been drastically different. Eisenhower made the right call on Vietnam, Johnson was a putz. We were well on our way to knocking out Saddam in '91 when GHW Bush wimped out when pictures of the burnt out hulks of Iraqi vehicles carrying loot out of Kuwait started showing on CNN. Of c

In this case the President was lying. He is a politician of course so when his lips are moving you know it's a lie. Alito was just stating the obvious. The hell with decorum, beating a few of those clowns, D's & R's, with a cane would be too good for them.

Ya he was a great fiction writer.

Put the pipe down and step away from the table. Crack does weird things to people.

No I wasn't. I'm not appropriating anyone elses experience. Europe dragged this country into two world wars that resulted in 100's of thousands of American deaths. However many we killed to end the conflicts is of no consequence to me. Others here are free to criticize their efforts only because of their sacrifices. That's pretty typical for a bunch of pampered, selfish, ingrates who's biggest sacrifice is giving up their morning latte.

I can see history isn't your strong suit. The British were just trying to finish what Oliver Cromwell had started a couple of hundred years earlier. Long before capitalism even existed. It's called survival of the fittest, nothing more or less, and it has been going on since the beginning of time.

Your ability to avoid the obvious is stunning. They Europe, Japan, Started it and we ended it. Big difference that's obviously lost in all your self loathing.

Oh the revisionist historians are out in force. Easy to criticize when your ass wasn't on one of those transports or in the actuarial tables estimating a million American casualties. Take your head out of where the sun don't shine fool. Oh ya and the 'indigenous populations' were well practiced in the art of genocide long before we arrived. We just happened to be better at it than them.

Ya but they're smoking babes!!! http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TZ4zYEBSw1I/Sx_Cp4N3aiI/AAAAAAAALOo/9k2P9nEVmw8/s320/scott_brown_family_3.jpg Does his experience as a JAG officer in the Massachusetts National Gaurd really qualify him as "another trial lawyer"?