When you're an American, you know a lot more about how much things cost than you do about how much things are worth.
that's a good line... so true.
it reminds me of the old Steve Martin joke where he pulls out and holds up the handle to a gasoline pump and proudly proclaims "I got this for five bucks. You have to be a smart shopper nowadays."
WASHINGTON Â— The Senate voted 58-42 on Tuesday to confirm Samuel Alito to the nation's highest court, putting to bed the most partisan Supreme Court nomination battle in recent memory. Â
New York Senator Hillary Clinton blasted Wal-Mart last week for failing to spend enough on health care for its employees. But Clinton could not say whether she advised the company to expand benefits when she sat on its board of directors from 1986 to 1992, saying, "that was a long time ago, I have to remember." A staffer told reporters that Wal-Mart is "a very different company now," a claim backed up by the Wall Street Journal, which notes that Wal-Mart offers more extensive and generous health benefits than when Clinton served on the board.
The Clintons were tight with Wal-Mart back then, It's based in Arkansas so they played the political game. You don't need a source. It's common knowledge.
"So what the hell was she doing on the Wal-Mart board? According to press accounts at the time, she was a show horse at the company's annual meetings when founder Sam Walton bused in cheering throngs to celebrate his non-union empire, which is headquartered in Arkansas, one of the country's poorest states. According to published reports, she was placed in charge of the company's "green" program to protect the environment."
Wal-Mart needed her. Her presence gave the company the appearance of a corporate conscience. Maybe she honestly thought she could make a difference and change the company's philosophy a little bit. If that was here intention, it didn't work. So what?
With all the troubles the Republicans have — lobbyist scandal, the president's numbers underwater — you would think the Dems would be in clover. But they always invent a new way to shoot themselves in the foot.
When are you lefties going to realize the Clintons are in politics for themselves. They don't really give a damn about you or your causes.
probably right around the same time you conservatives realize that the Bushes are in politics for themselves (and their wealthy friends) and that they don't really give a damn about you or your causes.
Yeah, that is why Bush went into Iraq. He did it for himself. Everyone was on board with that one. They still are. It is obvious he is in it just for public approval. Oh and don't forget the wire tapping "scandal."
Kate O’Beirne’s "Women Who Make the World Worse" is one of the boldest books challenging the orthodoxy of political correctness to be released in years. Above all, it documents the real damage inflicted on our culture by radical feminism and the women who lead that destructive movement.
All in all, however, the country is better off with a strong leader on defense and foreign policy in these perilous times than a visionary on domestic issues. And President Bush showed once again in his State of the Union address he's the former, even if he can't quite live up to expectations on the latter.
Yeah, that is why Bush went into Iraq. He did it for himself.
you don't actually think he did it for you, do you?
His VP is a Halliburton fat cat and Rummy has made an entire career for himself and his wealthy friendsby taking public defense money and putting into the pockets of his friends in private business. It's how he made a name for himself at the pentagon. He put our public defense money into the private sector.... and I got news for you... you ain't part of the private club he's working for.
So how did America degenerate into this twilight zone where the brutal killer of an old woman goes unpunished, but mourners must be protected from the emotionally distressing sight of a cross-shaped planter?
In answering that question, Kupelian recounts a piece of judicial history of which every American should be aware and too few are. As Kupelian reminds the reader, the First Amendment opens with the words: Â“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Like the rest of the Constitution, the First Amendment was intended to restrain federal power. That’s why it explicitly restricts what Congress can enact. But in 1940, the Supreme Court, in Cantwell v. Connecticut, applied a legal doctrine called “incorporation” to the First Amendment. According to this doctrine, the First Amendment restricts not just Congress, but the states as well.
During an election campaign, political operatives are fond of seeking to induce in their opponent a negative "defining moment." ....Surely, at the State of the Union address the Democratic Party provided such a moment when, as has already been well commented on by others, they wildly applauded President Bush's statement that Congress failed to pass Social Security reform last year.
As the party of reactionary inertia -- as the party that not only doesn't have any solutions to today's dangers and problems but denies that such problems exist -- the Democrats on the floor of the House Tuesday night demonstrated a flawless, intuitive sense of its new, dysfunctional self.
So is there a middle road between the extremes of non-accountability and electioneering? Maybe California has the better system: The governor appoints judges, but voters can remove those who go wild on the bench, and did so 20 years ago after California Chief Justice Rose Bird voted against the death penalty in all 61 of the capital punishment cases that came before her.
Californians saw that she was substituting her own opinions for the laws and precedents upon which judicial decisions should be made. The successful anti-Bird campaign ran television commercials featuring the children of the victims of the murderers whose sentences Bird had voted to reverse. California judges don't have to run and keep running for office, but they are not beyond recall.
Maybe that's the approach for the whole country: no lifetime tenure, no recurring elections, but a check on abuse.
The rabblerouser you linked to did not mention the untidy fact that to do what he espoused would take a Constitutional amendment. I wonder why that was?
YOU are the one that screams bloody murder every single time anyone even MENTIONS amendments to the Constitution, and that is putting it MILDLY.
What the hell are you talking about? the only thing I condemn is the Court amending the Constitution through their idiotic decisions. Some of them should be impeached because they often violate their oath to uphold the Constitution.
"We are restless as well as strapped. The common thread joining all members of this generation is a sense of permanent impermanence.
"From enormous student loans and credit card bills to the lack of health insurance and good-paying stable jobs, young adults are drowning in a sea of debt and inertia, both authors say."
You have repeatedly said the Constitution is NOT a "Living Document" and that is should NOT be changed, for any reasons. The very meaning of the word "Amend" is "to change".
It is obvious that you are either intentionally misrepresenting my position or that you are an idiot. The Constitution itself states that it may be amended. See Article V. That article sets forth the only methods for amending the Constitution. The concept of a "living constitution" is simply a rationalization for the justices imposing their personal opinions.
"From enormous student loans and credit card bills to the lack of health insurance and good-paying stable jobs, young adults are drowning in a sea of debt and inertia, both authors say."
Got any more?
Did you just order a $12 bowl of soup?
Sure did.
A bowl of soup? Broth and stock?
Uh-huh.
It costs twelve dollars?
Yep.
You don't put bourbon in it or anything?
Nope.
Just checking.
Yummy!
Can I have a taste of that? I'd like to know what a twelve-dollar bowl of soup tastes like.
Be my guest.
slides the bowl over to him.
You can use my spoon, I don't have kooties.
Yeah, but maybe I do.
Kooties I can handle.
takes a taste.
Goddamn! That's a pretty fuckin' good bowl of soup.
Told ya.
I don't know if it's worth twelve dollars, but it's pretty fuckin' good.
The restaurant was like a wax museum -- with a pulse.
"I don't know if it's worth twelve dollars, but it's pretty fuckin' good."
When you're an American, you know a lot more about how much things cost than you do about how much things are worth.
that's a good line... so true.
it reminds me of the old Steve Martin joke where he pulls out and holds up the handle to a gasoline pump and proudly proclaims "I got this for five bucks. You have to be a smart shopper nowadays."
Reading what he has written.
"A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing"
So who's up for a trip to WalMart?
Don't have to worry about any $12 bowls of soup, lowered from the kitchen by a dumb waiter in a crowded tiny restaurant in the Marais.
I don't even know where one is.
WASHINGTON Â— The Senate voted 58-42 on Tuesday to confirm Samuel Alito to the nation's highest court, putting to bed the most partisan Supreme Court nomination battle in recent memory. Â
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183270,00.html
now if Stevens would retire wwe could have a real battle.
that's a good line... so true.
no, its B.S. unless, maybe, you are referring only to lefties.
Reading what he has written.
New York Senator Hillary Clinton blasted Wal-Mart last week for failing to spend enough on health care for its employees. But Clinton could not say whether she advised the company to expand benefits when she sat on its board of directors from 1986 to 1992, saying, "that was a long time ago, I have to remember." A staffer told reporters that Wal-Mart is "a very different company now," a claim backed up by the Wall Street Journal, which notes that Wal-Mart offers more extensive and generous health benefits than when Clinton served on the board.
Hehehehehehehehe
Hell, Coulter just suggested poisoning him. Why wait?
Those right wingers are watching 24with rapt fascination. What can you expect?
I thought you were a fan.
I'm a fan to the extent that I'm entertained by an over-the-top right wing fantasy.
I've heard people of another political stripe hail it for brilliance and intelligence.
Fan? I don't know. Call it what you want.
How about "habituated"?
The Clintons were tight with Wal-Mart back then, It's based in Arkansas so they played the political game. You don't need a source. It's common knowledge.
Here's a six-year-old piece from the Village Voice
"So what the hell was she doing on the Wal-Mart board? According to press accounts at the time, she was a show horse at the company's annual meetings when founder Sam Walton bused in cheering throngs to celebrate his non-union empire, which is headquartered in Arkansas, one of the country's poorest states. According to published reports, she was placed in charge of the company's "green" program to protect the environment."
Wal-Mart needed her. Her presence gave the company the appearance of a corporate conscience. Maybe she honestly thought she could make a difference and change the company's philosophy a little bit. If that was here intention, it didn't work. So what?
When are you lefties going to realize the Clintons are in politics for themselves. They don't really give a damn about you or your causes.
With all the troubles the Republicans have — lobbyist scandal, the president's numbers underwater — you would think the Dems would be in clover. But they always invent a new way to shoot themselves in the foot.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183377,00.html
probably right around the same time you conservatives realize that the Bushes are in politics for themselves (and their wealthy friends) and that they don't really give a damn about you or your causes.
Yeah, that is why Bush went into Iraq. He did it for himself. Everyone was on board with that one. They still are. It is obvious he is in it just for public approval. Oh and don't forget the wire tapping "scandal."
In fact, it is strange that anyone would devote so MUCH hatred for ANY group of people, especially here in
America...?
Kate O’Beirne’s "Women Who Make the World Worse" is one of the boldest books challenging the orthodoxy of political correctness to be released in years. Above all, it documents the real damage inflicted on our culture by radical feminism and the women who lead that destructive movement.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/davidlimbaugh/2006/01/31/184416.html
Women who write books about women who make the world worse also make the world worse.
How much boldness does it take to write a book like that?
It just takes a moral elitist.
Women who write books about women who make the world worse also make the world worse.
No that is just your moral relativist bias speaking.
It just takes a moral elitist.
we could use more people striving for elite status in that area.
All in all, however, the country is better off with a strong leader on defense and foreign policy in these perilous times than a visionary on domestic issues. And President Bush showed once again in his State of the Union address he's the former, even if he can't quite live up to expectations on the latter.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/lindachavez/2006/02/01/184777.html
"we could use more people striving for elite status in that area."
You're already there. You can look down on all of us, jethro.
I think there's a difference between elite and elitist.
You can look down on all of us, jethro.
well many of the posters here are small people
King Richard is accusing someone else of looking down?
Why do you call it an accusation? It seems like a pretty obvious fact to me. And he pretty much admitted it.
I've been looked down on before. That's alright.
you don't actually think he did it for you, do you?
His VP is a Halliburton fat cat and Rummy has made an entire career for himself and his wealthy friendsby taking public defense money and putting into the pockets of his friends in private business. It's how he made a name for himself at the pentagon. He put our public defense money into the private sector.... and I got news for you... you ain't part of the private club he's working for.
crabs: the insane conspiracy theorist
So how did America degenerate into this twilight zone where the brutal killer of an old woman goes unpunished, but mourners must be protected from the emotionally distressing sight of a cross-shaped planter?
In answering that question, Kupelian recounts a piece of judicial history of which every American should be aware and too few are. As Kupelian reminds the reader, the First Amendment opens with the words: Â“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Like the rest of the Constitution, the First Amendment was intended to restrain federal power. That’s why it explicitly restricts what Congress can enact. But in 1940, the Supreme Court, in Cantwell v. Connecticut, applied a legal doctrine called “incorporation” to the First Amendment. According to this doctrine, the First Amendment restricts not just Congress, but the states as well.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/books_entertainment/reviews/LeslieCarbone/184779.html
During an election campaign, political operatives are fond of seeking to induce in their opponent a negative "defining moment." ....Surely, at the State of the Union address the Democratic Party provided such a moment when, as has already been well commented on by others, they wildly applauded President Bush's statement that Congress failed to pass Social Security reform last year.
As the party of reactionary inertia -- as the party that not only doesn't have any solutions to today's dangers and problems but denies that such problems exist -- the Democrats on the floor of the House Tuesday night demonstrated a flawless, intuitive sense of its new, dysfunctional self.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonyblankley/2006/02/02/184896.html
So is there a middle road between the extremes of non-accountability and electioneering? Maybe California has the better system: The governor appoints judges, but voters can remove those who go wild on the bench, and did so 20 years ago after California Chief Justice Rose Bird voted against the death penalty in all 61 of the capital punishment cases that came before her.
Californians saw that she was substituting her own opinions for the laws and precedents upon which judicial decisions should be made. The successful anti-Bird campaign ran television commercials featuring the children of the victims of the murderers whose sentences Bird had voted to reverse. California judges don't have to run and keep running for office, but they are not beyond recall.
Maybe that's the approach for the whole country: no lifetime tenure, no recurring elections, but a check on abuse.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/marvinolasky/2006/02/02/184894.html
Yeah, why should we worry about that pesky ol' constitution thingy, anyway?
Yeah, why should we worry about that pesky ol' constitution thingy, anyway?
The rabblerouser you linked to did not mention the untidy fact that to do what he espoused would take a Constitutional amendment. I wonder why that was?
HA!
The rabblerouser you linked to did not mention the untidy fact that to do what he espoused would take a Constitutional amendment.
because it was unnecessary to do so.
YOU are the one that screams bloody murder every single time anyone even MENTIONS amendments to the Constitution, and that is putting it MILDLY.
What the hell are you talking about? the only thing I condemn is the Court amending the Constitution through their idiotic decisions. Some of them should be impeached because they often violate their oath to uphold the Constitution.
Another Rotton Day in the Promised Land
"We are restless as well as strapped. The common thread joining all members of this generation is a sense of permanent impermanence.
"From enormous student loans and credit card bills to the lack of health insurance and good-paying stable jobs, young adults are drowning in a sea of debt and inertia, both authors say."
You have repeatedly said the Constitution is NOT a "Living Document" and that is should NOT be changed, for any reasons. The very meaning of the word "Amend" is "to change".
It is obvious that you are either intentionally misrepresenting my position or that you are an idiot. The Constitution itself states that it may be amended. See Article V. That article sets forth the only methods for amending the Constitution. The concept of a "living constitution" is simply a rationalization for the justices imposing their personal opinions.
"From enormous student loans and credit card bills to the lack of health insurance and good-paying stable jobs, young adults are drowning in a sea of debt and inertia, both authors say."
College is expensive and study is time consuming.
At what time in history did the notion take over that college students were "on welfare?"