– A grand bargain is probably a bad idea politically as well as on policy grounds.
– If any of the attorneys have any opinion on the judge who was admonished for not wanting to perform same sex marriages, I’d like to hear it.
– Lindsey Graham is pretty terrible. Doy.
– The deadline for early applications for The Institute of a Democratic Future is coming up. I haven’t done the program, but for everyone I know who did, it has been a positive experience.
– The of course teens should have access to condoms argument isn’t new ground, but Lindy West makes the argument about as humorously as anyone will.
– This Halloween, you could be sexy capitalism.
Beating your child for Jesus doesn’t always get the results you intended.
This couple was active in the local Sedro Wooley Tea Party, and kept their family isolated from the outside world. The kids weren’t allowed to have friends, go to school, nor were they allowed outside the home without direct supervision. This couple actively took steps to train their kids to lie to CPS and rehearsed the answers the kids would give to the CPS caseworkers to hide their crimes. They weren’t raising the children to love Jesus, they were training them to become murderers.
Praise the fuckin’ lord.
@1
Crazy motherfuckers.
Twisted, paranoid, fear-saturated, hateful monsters. They differ only in degree from the garden variety Teahaddists we smack around these threads all the time.
Here is the answer to the next Bird’s Eye View Contest – sorry to ruin it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....74870.html
I’m not an attorney but I have an opinion regrading the judge who refuses to perform marriage of same sex couple. My feelings are a bit conflicted, one one hand, and when I’ve thought about this in the past, I feel like so be it, if he doesn’t want to do it that it is his prerogative. But on the other hand I say, wait a minute, what if he was uncomfortable performing the marriage of two black people, or an inter-racial couple – would he get a way with it? Or maybe he doesn’t feel comfortable marrying a divorcee? Would that be acceptable? The same applies for a business, more so with the correlation to not want to serving a black person. Isn’t not wanting to marrying a gay couple the same kind of discrimination? Or not wanting to sell them a weeding cake? Isn’t that discrimination? Plus this Judge has a job to perform that he is getting paid to do. I think I’ll try to tell my employer that I don’t want to do a certain task because I am uncomfortable with it or it goes against my religious beliefs, let’s see how that works out with me or in a court of law.
I guess the only exceptions that I would grant would be to a church. I don’t think I have any problem with a church not wanting to perform the marriage. But an individual whose job it is, or a business that wants to discriminate against, well find a different Country, preferably Russia, to do business.
Was talking to a conservative about Detroit. His opinion was, “Too bad if one is poor”. If you let your house get run down, and you don’t maintain it, doesn’t matter if you own it, eminent domain should be used to take the house and sell it to someone who can afford to maintain it and the people evicted sent to shelters. Blight is worse.
This is a person who feels he will never be that poor, so his positions will never effect him.
Remember that quote? Where was the call by Democrats for investigations (or that Bush pay back the Treasury) of the shoddy implementation? There were none, because the Democrats understood that the world isn’t perfect and laid down in black and white.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01415.html
Remember when Republican governors dipped into their state’s reserves to cover seniors who couldn’t get through to the website or they were turned down?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01376.html
It’s been awfully quiet here today. Seahawk hangover? (That game would have given anybody a headache).
@5 There are three different ways of looking at charity. The expedient approach is more or less on lines of “If a poor man is hungry, give him a fish.” The more long-term remedial view is something like, “If a poor man is hungry, give him a fishing pole and teach him how to fish.” The conservative paradigm would be, “If a poor man has a fish, take it away from him and give it to a rich man. The rich man, owing to his noble lineage and superior intellect, will make a better choice of what to do with it.”
@8 is that the principle that the rich must be better people becase they have more money?