"Do a flat tax with no deductions, and allow everyone to make up to poverty with no taxes."

Um, wouldn't that then be a deduction? And I hope we set the level of poverty up, because right now, noone can live on poverty level income. Government defined poverty level is actually below actual poverty level.

I want to say right now that anyone who supports Rick Perry is a moron. The man is a hypocrite. He took stimulus money just like everyone else, including Michele Bachmann.

The only real choices for the GOP nod are Ron Paul and Herman Cain.

your choices are retarded. herman cain is a fucking business man with no political background and lacking a rudimentary concept of foreign policy. The man is not even capable in economics beyond a personal business model. Ron paul is everbodys lover but the man is insane as well. hes a libertarians delight and a freaking idiot. He wants to put america on a gold standard. A global economy cannot go on a damn gold standard.

"A global economy cannot go on a damn gold standard." lol qft

@Draugnar:
I thought that would be an exemption, but...we can rephrase it to only that exemption/deduction.

This whole bit about "judicial activism run amok" is a complete BS straw-man the repubs use to justify anti-gay legislation. Draug, can you please give us a recent example of judicial activism to support your claim? Because all of the ones I'm aware of look like the justice system doing exactly what it's supposed to do: protecting the constitutional rights of individuals.

Translation. An activist judge is one that makes a ruling that you don't like.

imho, a flat tax is a good idea. But even as a self-described conservative, I personally have very little issues with others' decisions so long as the impact on my life is minimal. For instance, Gay marriage, not something I'm a fan of, but I see no problem in allowing it, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, it's not like they're marrying me against my will. Abortion, I think should be reserved for cases where the mother's life is at risk, also, if there has been a healthy baby born past a certain date of gestation abortion after that point is infanticide. The child could have lived, and you killed it. Before that point, not really alive in my books.

"Translation. An activist judge is one that makes a ruling that you don't like."

+1

I hear those Brown vs. Board of Ed judges were activist too...

and if we go on a gold standard im creating a free silver party just to be an ass hole

"Translation. An activist judge is one that makes a ruling that you don't like."

Yes and no. I might not like a judge who lets a child pornographer off when the case against him is weak (tonight's SVU episode) but that makes him the complete opposite of activist.

Name me a case that in your opinion was an activist judge with an outcome that you like.

I don't think you can.

This is not to say that it doesn't happen (however rarely). But the term is so massively overused that its effectively lost meaning, and now just expresses sour grapes at the outcome.

lol @ free silver party

what was that one guys name

william jennings bryant right? he ran for president like 10 times

William Jennings Bryant indeed. Wizard of Oz is based around his 1896 run against McKinley. He also participated in the Scopes Trial, strangely enough. I don't think he ran as often as Eugene V. Debs, though.

Marbury v. Madison

.@ Jack......''now just expresses sour grapes at the outcome.''

Is this the kind of thing you mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
''What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.''

In my view ''the rule of law'' often has little to do with justice, but when it comes to the crunch much more with the preservation of the status quo. If I should ever be called for jury service I will vocally quote the precedent provided by Mr Bushell and his case!

gameID=62164

William Jennings Bryant was one of those guys, like debs that has his fingerprints all over american history. He was on the scopes trial because he was an ardent creationist. His opponent Clarance Darrow was a nationally renowned celebrity lawyer as well for participating in the leob trial among many others. That was a true trial of the century.

@Santa ''He was on the scopes trial because he was an ardent creationist.''
I rather like Bryant for this:

''No one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair compensation for the services No one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair compensation for the services which he renders to society. If he secures more it is at the expense of some one else. It is no injustice to him to prevent his doing injustice to another. To him who would, either through class legislation or in the absence of necessary legislation, trespass upon the rights of another the Democratic party says "Thou shalt not."

And this on WW1

''It is not likely that either side will win so complete a victory as to be able to dictate terms, and if either side does win such a victory it will probably mean preparation for another war. It would seem better to look for a more rational basis for peace.''

But then again the man was an ''ardent creationist'' so how could he possibly say anything sensible? :-)

Kelo vs. City of New London

The Supreme Court expanded local governments authority to seize land that was *not* blighted for private use, *not* public use as the Fifth Amendment *requires*. Thanks to their activism, any land owner, even who takes care of their property, is at risk of a shopping mall developer bribing local authorities to force the owner to sell. It's as good a reason as any to keep a rifle so you can keep the government wolves at bay.

You asked. I answered.

That is your example of an activist judge that you <b>agreed</b> with?

I posted mine...Marbury v. Madison.

CoffeeBean didn't ask for one I agreed with. I have seen plenty of decisions I disagree with but wouldn't call them activist decisions. Just because you disagree with a decision doesn't mean it *isn't* activism.

How is this "judicial activism"? It seems to me that your example just
backs up Jack Klein's point that judicial activism means a decision you disagree
with. In that case the court was asked to clarify the extent of eminent domain,
and they decided in favor of the government over the individual. I'm not saying
I like the decision, but they had to decide one way or the other, and either decision would have had long-term legal implications (i.e. would have changed the law, essentially). There was a gray area in the
law, the court was asked to clarify the gray area, and that's what they did. This is what the court is there for, no?

He (and the rest of his party) dislike big government and regulation, yet he wants to have the federal government set regulations on marriage and abortion?

I have a hard time seeing Marbury v. Madison as judicial activism, because that term is defined in a way that implies the justices are pushing a personal agenda, and I, personally, can't see overriding (effectively) a contract that you yourself issued (in a very strange situation, Chief Justice Marshall was also the Secretary of State who issued Marbury's contract) as pushing a personal agenda. Yes, it gave more power to the courts, but that power was then what empowered all future uses of judicial activism...I don't know, maybe if you (Tantris) defined what you mean by judicial activism and also why you agree with this use of it, it might help.

What is so grey about "public use"? How is building a private development "public use"? They so totally stretched the meaning of the phrase as to bend it into an entirely different animal.

@ clausowitz, yeah him debs, and imo daniel webster were everywhere but were never president

@SacredDigits:
I would describe judicial activism as the judiciary overstepping their power and doing something from the bench that isn't necessarily a personal agenda (though you could argue that Marshal had an agenda.) This case expanded the power of the judiciary greatly in a huge power grab that had no real basis in the Constitution. It is implied, they say. You say it lead to future judicial activism, but technically, after this case there hasn't been a huge increase in their power. They have declared laws unconstitutional, and then said...they are (and by inference all future laws will be if made as such) unconstitutional because of the following.

Henry Clay as well. Who may have been legitimately president if not for a wacky bargain.