The other day I was checking out some of the other posts on this board when I came across one about the Supreme Court's decision to invalidate Obama's recess appointments. That particular ruling did not bother me overly much, since its something you could argue one way or another.
Is it possible to give up some rights and gain more? Isn't this the core assumption behind the Constitution? And isn't this the core disagreement between libertarians and liberal2leftists?
In this regard, libertarians seem to see rights as a zero sum game... rights can only be lost, never created. And so starvation, and the refusal of individuals to donate food, are seen as possibly regrettable, but essential aspects of liberty... while a government safety net to prevent starvation is seen as tyranny since it's funded with involuntary taxation.
Rumblings of Theocratic Violence
Could this take off?
Already some successes. Nothing much that I can find in Middle America. Any members here?
This case remains one of the most troubling chapters in this nation’s crackdown after 9-11. Despite the jury verdict and the agreement reached to allow Dr. Al-Arian to leave the country, the Justice Department continued to fight for his incarceration and for a trial in this case. It will remain one of the most disturbing cases of my career in terms of the actions taken by our government. -- Jonathan Turley, attorney for Dr. Al-Arian
Perhaps this off-year election’s October surprise is being telegraphed to happen in September as the release date of Rick Santorum’s new movie “One Generation Away”. The trailer is beyond belief.
Is it just me, or have you noticed that Chris Matthews's mind is deteriorating fast?
Take a look at his pigheaded, and ahistorical grilling of Elizabeth Warren, blaming Obama and Democrats for the unprecedented obstruction they've faced since Obama came into office. Then go listen to his ridiculously simplistic comments on the Bergdahl situation and you will start to see what I'm saying.
This guy needs to retire. He's clearly losing his mind if he ever had one.
As I type this I'm watching "The Big Picture" show on Friday, June 27th and just a moment ago one of Thom's conservative guests on the "politics panel" said that she is more concerned that her children might see two men hug than she is with having to walk through a crowd of men armed with assault rifles to get into a Target store. Now I ask you: just who's the pervert -- a couple of people who love each other showing affection or a person who thinks that a group of men putting on a display of their ability to commit mass murder is less offensive than a display of affection?&
I received an e-mail, today from Professor Lawrence Lessig's MayDayPAC, discussing its plan to "establish a SuperPAC to end SuperPACs, for ever." The e-mail contained this compelling video: http://youtu.be/i3X2eDCmPRY.
With all due respect to Prof. Lessig, I do have several pressing questions that I would like to ask him about this plan:
John Boehner's friends and colleagues apparently need to sit him down and do an intervention. Surely a mind clouded by cigarettes and booze can be the only explanation for the phantasmagorical meanderings of his reasoning ability. House Speaker Boehner actually believes he has a case to sue the Executive:
This morning on Thom's radio show he had a very interesting conversation with Dana Frank, professor of History at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and the author of Bananeras: Women Transforming the Banana Unions of Latin America, About what is actually behind the flood of child immigrants from Central America coming across the US southern border. Apropos of what she had to say about the US being complicit or even directly responsible for much of the violence that's driving the migration I think this document is quite interesting though I cannot vouch