" I could give a shit what your leftist opinion rags have to say. All *I* need is what THE JUDGE said. "

ROFL. Wait, now the hill is a "leftwing rag"? It was the same judge who granted the stay. It's quite clear what the stay entails, he said the law remains in force while the appeal process is going on. I enjoy your continued blood vessel burst rants though.

"UNWANTED ideology"

Yeah, check out the poll numbers on your union busting law in Ohio. Oh and check out the latest news on efforts to recall your supposedly popular Republican legislators in Wisconsin.

One word - Overreach.

My wife watches The Talk everyday and, being as I'm at home (still unemployed but today's interview went well), I sometimes have to listen to their blather. One of the dumber ones today (I think it was Holly Robinson Peete) asked who was going to take care of all the animals at the zoos across the nation if the government shut down and all of the stupid twits nodded their heads in agreement! I was aghast at the stupidity. They don't even realize that most zoos have their own budgets and funds and get only a pitance form the federal government. They think the zoos are like the naitonal park systenm and all the employees are government workers. And we wonder why the general populace is so fucking stupid!

@krellin:

I wasn't relying on the government for the job, I was just saying with those workers out of work for a while, that means more competition, and sas they have job experience adn I don't (not much to speak of, anyway), that makes it all the harder for me to crack in...

"r. One of the dumber ones today (I think it was Holly Robinson Peete) asked who was going to take care of all the animals at the zoos across the nation if the government shut down and all of the stupid twits nodded their heads in agreement!"

You do realize the Smithsonian runs our national zoo right? The money for that zoo comes overwhelmingly from Congress, with a small portion being provided by a private foundation.

So who is stupid, again?

@Putin - you hve no argument. All you have is left Wing talking points. You ignore established legal precedence. You ignore EVERYTHING that goes against your emotional desires. you are pathetic. i won't read or reply to you any more, because you are, simply put, a child, if not in age, then certainly in intellectual capacity. OVERREACH, by the way, is a description of what Obama, Reid and Pelosi did...and the American people BY A VAST MAJORITY rejected it. Get a clue, asshole.

@GOLD -- Yes -- the Repubicans have been overconfident in the past. The *REPUBLICAN* party is STILL overconfident. Thank God that the Republican Party is ALSO on the firing line as incumbents were swept out in the last election primaries, and, God willing, many more RINO incumbents will feel the wrath of working Americans in the next round of primaries for 2012. the Republican party is a disaster, due to the old-school, unprincipled leadership that turns a deaf ear to the American working people. But the Democrat party is 100 times worse than the Republicans in terms of hearing the wishes of the constituency...and they will pay *dearly* for it in 2012. I mean...Bush was hated for 2 wars....so Obama STARTS A THIRD?!!?! How can any principled Democrat support this murderer?

@OBI - you HAVE a job - self-employed, if I recall. So...GROW IT. Get MORE students until you have too many to tutor...and then hire other tutorers to fill in for you and TAKE A CUT like a damned good capitalist! THAT is how you make it. Ever hear of Mathnasium? There are private tutoring businesses popping up ALL OVER. Why can't YOU be the NEXT great tutoring business??? FUCK the government. MAKE your own way. You are a smart guy - I've seen you enough on here to know that - so TAKE your talent and DO something with it!

@Putin - She said "all the zoos" and she also seemed to not have a concept between non-essential and essential. One would imagine the caretakers of innocent animals at the national zoo qualify as essential. I think, at one point, she thought the elderly wouldn't get their social security checks even though everyone has made it clear that is considered an essential service.

first @Putin, I believe what Draug said was that the interviewer thought EVERY zoo was run by the federal government. I believe the San Diego Zoo is run by a private company, and most others are by state or local governments I believe. they may get federal funding that I don't know about, though. The Washington Zoo you're right about, though. Its run nominally by the Smithsonian and gets substantial funds from the federal government.

@krellin You bring up a good point. I'm not saying the democrats are better than the Republicans. I still identify much more with the ideals of the Republican Party than with the Democrat, and I agree further with you that the Republican leadership is a disaster. But you have to have compromise in government - not everyone will see things your way and this is everyone's nation, not conservatives. You have to own up to the fact that liberals live here too, and the have as much of a say in government as we do. Its just the partisanship in government that is angering everyone in the nation. A government that doesn't get anything done is about the worst thing possible, and the unbending will of the newly elected Republicans is preventing progress, and we can't afford to be the party of stalwarts! If the Dems offer compromise, we should take it as a step forward and leave it at that. Politics is not a zero-sum game, it isn't just winning and losing.

About Libya, to be fair, Obama didn't start it, France and Britain did, and we owe them for their contributions in Iraq and Afghanistan. On top of that, we earn brownie points with the Arab world for protecting Libyans from Ghadaffi's troops and mercenaries.

"You ignore established legal precedence."

You can continue to rant all you want, the fact remains that the law is still in force. Accept that you're wrong here and stop embarrassing yourself.

@ krellin

While I appreciate not being the only (somewhat) conservative voice on this thread, you need to be more civil. Putin33 is doing a remarkably good job of remaining civil despite your relentless ranting.

@ goldfinger0303

You took the words right out of my mouth. I agree with almost everything you said above.

@ Gunfighter06 ditto

@ krellin: While I sympathize with your frustration with the liberal crowd and how they hoodwink so many independents, they aren't worth losing your cool over.


@ two points to the "raise taxes to be fiscally responsible" crowd: our tax rate for corporations and the wealthy is so high already that they are leaving this country in droves. When they leave, they take their money with them and the jobs they provided with that money. Raising taxes drives the money away resulting in less total net revenue over time. Lowering taxes (to acceptible levels) actually raises revenue by attracting corporations and the wealthy to America. If they pay less in America than in other countries, guess what, they come here and hire people. More corporations with higher profits and paying more salaries to more workers means less people unemployed, more money exchanging hands and thus more net tax revenue.
Point number 2: What do we need to raise revenue levels to fund? Cowboy poetry? A solar panel covered parking lot at the local VA in my town that the contractors who are building it know that the plans forgot to include electrical wires under the parking lot to connect the panels to anything, but don't want to say anything for fear of getting fired? or lets consider the stimulus. How much of that went to "evil" corporations like GM and the financial industry? Part of that was under Bush's watch but he's no fiscal conservative, and the Pelosi Reid congress and even Obama himself agreed with that. Surely there has to be something that can be cut from the budget that is "unnecessary". In addition, the programs that are "necessary" (medicare, social security, etc.) are unsustainable. Do we want to keep funding them anyway until the country collapses or try to deal with the problem before then?
And lastly, if Obamacare is so desparately needed? why are so many coroprations being given waivers? Like McDonald's which because they had a waiver from obamacare now has enough of a financially stable future that now they feel confident in hiring some 50,000 people in one day. Until they were exempted, they were going to have to cut health benefits altogether. Yes, believe it or not, McDonald's actually gave health benefits and was considering have to reduce them drastically as a result of the "money saving, improve everyone's access to health care" Obamacare plan.

The fiscal conservatives in Washington are asking to return to spending levels of pre 2008. Were old people dying in record numbers then? Was the government impotent then? Other than the housing collapse and bad mortgages having saturated the financial markets (at the behest of the government no less) things were pretty good when the government spending levels were less. What's so bad about returning to those spending levels?

I remember the last time I got to "talk" with Krellin. He ranted about how Prop 8 in California was passed by a "super majority" when it was actually passed with 52% (before a judge struck it down).

Krellin left that conversation and didn't come back. It was the best Christmas ever.

Its amusing how little he really understands about the American legal system. Cherry picking bits of information, and then claiming that the parts he picked are a representative picture. I'm not sure if its outright lying, but its definitely intellectually dishonest.

@Jack - yawn....funny, if I didn't come back, why am I here? As for whatever conversation you refer to...what? Are we supposed to stay in every forum discussion forever???

For the record, I have never been in any conversation about "Prop 8" in California...so your sad attempt to slander me falls short. If you can find an actual link to my input into that conversation, I will retract this, but otherwise, you are simply a lying asshole.

As far as Putin as his **opinion** regarding wether or not Obamacare is still in force, he is simply wrong. The fact that the Obama administration continues to implement it is simply another strike against a belligerent, rogue administration that openly disdains the Constitution. But the fact remains, the law has been struck down in it's entirety, and it is NOT the law of the land. It is illegal to shoot someone, and yet people do it every day; I hardly think that, because people ignore a law that it is suddenly legal. Obamacare has been struck down. There is simply no debate on this, and those that continue to implement it are operating outside the law. In the same way that Obama ignored a Federal judges ruling on the drilling moratorium and will not allow his various departments to issue permits, etc. he is a rogue, anti-American President. I rest confident that he will go down in history as worse than Jimmy Carter by a wide margin...

Of course, Jack_Klein is a leftist lawyer by trade, so of course he pretends to be the final say on anything legal. I have also watched lawyers proclaim loudly and frequently that Quami Kilpatrick, ex-mayor of Detroit, was 100% innocent and....he's in prison. In fact, judging by court cases, I'd say...hmmm....50% of all lawyers are wrong 100% of the time...Jack, sadly, is on the wrong side of that statistic, as he allows his political ideology to stand before legal precedent. He knows I am correct, but is simply hoping that a President and a wayward Congress can still push through and implement Un-Constitutional "laws" because he believes they are "morally" correct, despite being illegal. It is the way of the leftist.

@Leif - Point taken. I appreciate you saying that. You are correct - I was belligerent and it is not useful. But fools like Putin are destroying this nation that I love and it truly angers me. That being said, being rational makes no difference with these people either. A lawyer that doesn't understand what it means when a Federal Judge strikes down a law is just pathetic, and is someone that can not be talked rationally to. Especially when he does things like link to an article on March 3 saying a judge issued a Stay for *1 WEEK*...and implied that therefore the law was still in force, when in fact, by pointing out that the striking down of the law had been stayed for one week, he in fact has thereby admitted that, AFTER that one week (which has passed) the law is in fact struck down. It's just a pathetic display by a desperate leftist.

Sigh.
I haven't read this entire thread, and honestly, I don't feel like devoting the time and energy it would take to do so. Internet arguments are usually pretty pointless. You're not going to convince each other of anything, you're just going to harden your stances.
That said, from what I have skimmed, please quit it with the hyperbole and demonizing. The whole left vs. right culture war is a classic divide and conquer strategy employed by the exceptionally wealthy few, and it's disheartening to see people who are clearly so otherwise intelligent fall prey to it.

6 Aug 2010: Re: Prop 8 OVERTURNED!
@Jack - The MAJORITY of the people voted on a thing....by a *super-majority* because it was a ballot prop....and the will of *one* man overturned them all. THAT is tyrany...DUHHHHHHHHHH! Fucking moron...You can disagree with ideology, but to deny that the few dictating to the many is tyranny just shows you are ignorant and/or STUPID (willfully).
---------------------------------------------------
6 Aug 2010: Re: Prop 8 OVERTURNED!
First of all, Krelin, you're an idiot.

Second of all, to back up my first point, it wasn't a supermajority. It was 52.24% in favor, and 47.76%.

A supermajority is 66 percent of the vote (or 60, depending on the jurisdiction.)

And it was struck down because it VIOLATED the Constitution. So I assume you don't think the Constitution is a good idea, right?


-------------------------------

Your post, and my reply.

I win. I'll accept your apology immediately.

@ krellin: The point isn't to change Putin's mind. Getting worked up by his "cooked up facts" and lack of rationality doesn't do any good. Present the facts as they are, and refute his "facts" calmly. You win against types like Putin when observers realize he is wrong. You don't win against against him by changing his mind. The facts are that Judge Roger Vinson declared the entire law invalid. Putin can say whatever he wants about Obama's attempts to continue to implement the law, but the facts are there.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-03/u-s-defends-obama-health-care-law-as-constitutional-in-appellate-brief.html

See, the difference between me and you is that

1. I can make a coherent legal argument.

2. I'm not going to slander Judge Vinson for his ruling. I'm going to support an appeal, but I'm not going to rant about how much he's an "activist judge" just because I don't agree with his ruling.

3. Unlike other Robin Hoods I have an authentic English Accent

God, if only. Despite my love of Doctor Who, I've not been blessed with either the ability to do a RP accent or a hot redheaded "companion"

@ jack_klein

Prop 8 was a slim majority attempting to enforce their will on a minority, no?
How can this be despicable, but the fact that the bottom 50% of American wage earners paid only 3% of all tax revenue and the top 50% paid 97% of all taxes in 2007 be acceptible? The current administration and the previous congress seem to think this acceptible. With the median annual income in America at around $50k and less than 2% of americans making over $250k per year, the 48% of americans that are considered to be the middle class are responsible for close to 60% of the taxes, at the will of the bottom 50% with almost no tax liability. How is it fair that the middle class pays for the entitlements for the bottom half of america, but it's depsicable when 52% of californian's vote a certain law into existence (regardless of the constitutionality of that law).

Because that law violates equal protection?

There is an amendment that makes a graduated tax system constitutional. You're attempting to connect two issues that have next to nothing to do with each other.

I'm just pointing out that Krellin, who in this conversation apparently loves the legal system when it agrees with him, is somewhat less than consistent in his view of the legal system.

From a purely legal standpoint, I'll agree that the issues are vastly different. But when it boils down to it, a graduated tax system when the majority has no tax liability and can tax the minority into submission can hardly be considered equal protection.

I don't support that kind of legislating morality, but I'm trying to make the point about fiscal irresponsiblity destroying america.

clarification: "that kind of legislating morality" being prop 8

If you're making the case that the unfortunate, powerless wealthy in this country are being screwed over by the powerful unwashed masses....

That approaching clinical insanity. If anything, the concentration of wealth and power in this country in the hands of the few does not bode well for the average person.

I'm talking about the 48% middle class, not the top 1 or 2%, if you read my posts correctly

Well, I dispute your numbers, for one. I mean, example: Warren Buffet, supercapitalist guy, pays less as a percentage of taxes than his secretary does. You're playing some games with numbers, defining them as you choose.

So yeah. The middle class is being screwed. Big shock.

And as I said before, are you making the case that the people with money are the ones that are powerless before those that have no money(you know, the poor?)? I'd make the opposite case... the middle class is being screwed by the wealthy, and the wealthy are trying to make the middle class blame the working poor.

The wealth in the United States, was about $66 trillion in 2007. (wikipedia)

In that year, the bottom 50% of America owned $1.61 trillion (http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/03/07/billionaires-own-as-much-as-the-bottom-half-of-americans/)

That means that the bottom 50% owns 2.4% of the wealth in the U.S. in 2007.

I totally agree the fact "that the bottom 50% of American wage earners paid only 3% of all tax revenue" is ridiculous. They should be paying less.