W.H. charges 'activism' in ruling

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

As I said, that would require those assigned to their duties the ability to work in an unbiased environment where they handle appropriate business as they 'volunteered' to do.

There have been multiple instances reported of abuses by Steven and AJ particularly. Direct bashing that gets either ignored or blatantly allowed to stay.

Kriskit, Otto, and Kathryn should all recuse themselves from their positions/this forum. Their actions over the course of the past few weeks and what they have paid attention to and what they allow to 'slide' on by because they adhere to a few individuals around here, is ridiculous.

Steven's comment isn't the first similar one he's made and AJ has done it multiple times as well and has gone ignored/left in place.

Though someone dares to mention that perhaps Steven should 'learn to read,' then that thread gets edited out for that part and comments made about TOS violations.

No Kathryn, you're not biased at all.

vj is report driven. mods don't read everything looking for tos violations. you need to report posts if you want something reviewed.

[james&olya 1,121]

Court rulings are not a basketball game. 12-1 in favor means Obama loses. ONE ruling that it is unconstitutional means it is unconstitutional and the other 12 are wrong.

Yes they can appeal it, then it can be appealed again to the Supreme Court. what do you thnk will happen then? Which side of this issue do YOU think is anxious for the Supreme Court to get this case?

Actually it is a bit more complicated. This judge's ruling will control only in his district for now, and considering that 12 other judges have ruled otherwise you can guess that prevailing judicial wisdom will see this judges ruling overturned by a higher court. In other jurisdictions it is still very much 'constitutional' and the fact that one judge's ruling can be cited as relevant when other courts consider the same issue DOES mean it is 12-1, just like the basketball game. Were this as far as it would go that means the side with 12 points wins! It eventually will probably make it to the supreme court and it is only then that a ruling of unconstitutional carries real authority.

[james&olya 1,121]

I really wonder how they will rule on the government being allowed to FORCE you to buy insurance.

You do know that the government is already taking money out of your pay for medical insurance and has been doing so for decades! It is called medicare. If 'Obama-care' is ruled unconstitutional it may be a gift to progressives who would prefer a 'medicare-for-all' system of government run universal health insurance!

[mawilson 2,133]

Jared

That's a low blow, even for Steven.

[The_Dude 1,142]

That's a low blow, even for Steven.

How do you actually know that is who he is referencing? He could very well be this Jared

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How do you actually know that is who he is referencing? He could very well be this Jared

Well, at least that Jared hasn't shot anybody of importance,...yet.

[웃 910]

That's a low blow, even for Steven.

Do you remember P & Vs comments when the shooting occurred?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I Subway.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Do you remember P & Vs comments when the shooting occurred?

Yes, because you didn't like it, that's all the reason why to go on a trolling rampage.

I didn't call for anything to be done, just pointed out the ridiculousness of targeting a lowly congresswoman if these were legitimate persons with anti-government sentiment.... Daring to mention the second amendments intention seems to 'offend' a lot of people who have no idea in hell what that means.

People need to get the hell over themselves. No one was personally attacked by my comments and it was just pointing things out. Yet people feel the need to attack me personally instead of debating the issue reasonably.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Yes, because you didn't like it, that's all the reason why to go on a trolling rampage.

I didn't call for anything to be done, just pointed out the ridiculousness of targeting a lowly congresswoman if these were legitimate persons with anti-government sentiment.... Daring to mention the second amendments intention seems to 'offend' a lot of people who have no idea in hell what that means.

People need to get the hell over themselves. No one was personally attacked by my comments and it was just pointing things out. Yet people feel the need to attack me personally instead of debating the issue reasonably.

Paul, you say some pretty asinine and irrational things. I don't think many people on here would be surprised if we saw your pic up on the news under the title "unstable texas man goes crazy shoots........"

ETA: Suggesting that a member of congress should be prepared upon taking the position to be a target of violence like what happened to congresswoman Giffords because of the public nature of the job is reprehensible.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Rob & Mel

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Anyone else hankering for a Subway beside myself and Jared?

[mawilson 2,133]

Anyone else hankering for a Subway beside myself and Jared?

Subway? I don't get it.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Subway? I don't get it.

Pull out one of your iPads and search "Jared Subway" on youtube. It seems everyone else here has seen the advert campaign.

[^_^ 5,021]

... the ridiculousness of targeting a lowly congresswoman if these were legitimate persons with anti-government sentiment....

You're implying that merely having anti-government sentiment is sufficient cause to go shooting elected officials.

Despicable.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul, you say some pretty asinine and irrational things. I don't think many people on here would be surprised if we saw your pic up on the news under the title "unstable texas man goes crazy shoots........"

ETA: Suggesting that a member of congress should be prepared upon taking the position to be a target of violence like what happened to congresswoman Giffords because of the public nature of the job is reprehensible.

and you're entitled to that opinion.

However, do you have any idea how many 'threats' politicians get all the time? How much scritiny/BS their families go through even? It's a lot more than you think or may even realize.

Political figures literally hold people's lives in their hands. If it's not reasonable to assume that their lives are also held in the hands of those said individuals, then you might as well live in a totalitarian state in which people have been fully brainwashed.

A government fearing its people is not a bad thing.

You're implying that merely having anti-government sentiment is sufficient cause to go shooting elected officials.

Despicable.

not at all what i am saying, but you can form whatever opinion you wish....

Edited February 2, 2011 by Paul and Vanessa