|
Post by Ginger on Jul 3, 2014 10:51:27 GMT -6
Once on a family visit to Kansas City, MO, we drove into Kansas on a high way interchange and then straight back to Misery. Muh pops stopped the car so I could open the door and put my foot down so I could say I stepped foot in Kansass. Haven't been back bince. Sounds like that's a good thing. In Hutchison Kansas is the Cosmosphere. A space science museum. That was cool but I like that kind of thing. The Apollo 13 capsule is there. There was a space shuttle mock up there when we visited. If I was to go to Kansas this would be my only stop.
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Jul 3, 2014 11:11:51 GMT -6
Once on a family visit to Kansas City, MO, we drove into Kansas on a high way interchange and then straight back to Misery. Muh pops stopped the car so I could open the door and put my foot down so I could say I stepped foot in Kansass. Haven't been back bince. Sounds like that's a good thing. In Hutchison Kansas is the Cosmosphere. A space science museum. That was cool but I like that kind of thing. The Apollo 13 capsule is there. There was a space shuttle mock up there when we visited. If I was to go to Kansas this would be my only stop. That is definitely on my list of things to see and do here. While yes, the wichita school system sucks donkey balls, the areas that we would ever consider buying a house would be in a much nicer school district that isn't so inept. But you get shitty school systems anywhere. And where the fuck do all these homeless shits come from? Maybe I was far enough out in texas to rarely see them, but I see them constantly. I guess that is what happens when you work downtown in any city. And chuckles, time will tell where my wife and I end up at further down the road, but chances are the closest to iowa we would get would be KC.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jul 3, 2014 16:15:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Master Blaster on Jul 3, 2014 20:02:00 GMT -6
It is dangerous ground to put corporate religious rights over individual religious rights and to allow religious beliefs to be instituted against employees. Pretty fuck ed up actually. SCOTus got this wrong in my humble and meaningless opinion. Blah, blah, blah. You know what's way more dangerous than that? The government concocting a fucking 900 some page bill that they had to vote on before they saw what was inside the bill. Yep, pretty fucked up. Was never a fan of the add ins that made bills grow either. At some point there should be a mandated limit on the length of a bill to make it fucking comprehensible before action vice after. And you know the ideology that is being presented by SCOTUS ruling is jacked. Keep Taco Bells (or any other corporate entities ) religious beliefs out of my fucking bedroom. Add in the fact that precedent on this from the 60's struck it down and you got a fucking SCOTUS with a fucking repub agenda.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jul 3, 2014 23:19:46 GMT -6
Blah, blah, blah. You know what's way more dangerous than that? The government concocting a fucking 900 some page bill that they had to vote on before they saw what was inside the bill. Yep, pretty fucked up. Was never a fan of the add ins that made bills grow either. At some point there should be a mandated limit on the length of a bill to make it fucking comprehensible before action vice after. And you know the ideology that is being presented by SCOTUS ruling is jacked. Keep Taco Bells (or any other corporate entities ) religious beliefs out of my fucking bedroom. Add in the fact that precedent on this from the 60's struck it down and you got a fucking SCOTUS with a fucking repub agenda. It's a radical activist court vis a vis corporate supremacy. Which really should surprise nobody because that's precisely the reason and purpose for which these five fucks were appointed.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jul 4, 2014 10:42:27 GMT -6
Scalia is one of the most repugnant piles of hateful lard I've ever seen. The motherfucker is completely miserable and hates pretty much everyone and every thing. But, if it's all white, it's all right. Alito is as bad if not worse.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 4, 2014 19:03:15 GMT -6
Yep, pretty fucked up. Was never a fan of the add ins that made bills grow either. At some point there should be a mandated limit on the length of a bill to make it fucking comprehensible before action vice after. And you know the ideology that is being presented by SCOTUS ruling is jacked. Keep Taco Bells (or any other corporate entities ) religious beliefs out of my fucking bedroom. Add in the fact that precedent on this from the 60's struck it down and you got a fucking SCOTUS with a fucking repub agenda. It's a radical activist court vis a vis corporate supremacy. Which really should surprise nobody because that's precisely the reason and purpose for which these five fucks were appointed. Uh, if it was an activist court the ACA would have been nuked 2 sessions ago. Pushing through a 900 page bill that no one read with the only court loss being with respect to 4 abortofacients funded by closely held corporations owned by religious fundamentalists is pretty fucking restrained actually. The practical impact is probably at best 3 dozen companies nationwide (has to be 50+ employees, closely held, religious fundamentalists). This is liek a $50,000 issue. Honestly, the number of companies with north of 50 employees (you probably really need over 1000 employees to dictate a special insurance policy) that haven't brought in outside funds from private equity, venture capitalists or shared ownership with employees is very very small.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jul 7, 2014 0:07:44 GMT -6
It's a radical activist court vis a vis corporate supremacy. Which really should surprise nobody because that's precisely the reason and purpose for which these five fucks were appointed. Uh, if it was an activist court the ACA would have been nuked 2 sessions ago. Pushing through a 900 page bill that no one read with the only court loss being with respect to 4 abortofacients funded by closely held corporations owned by religious fundamentalists is pretty fucking restrained actually. The practical impact is probably at best 3 dozen companies nationwide (has to be 50+ employees, closely held, religious fundamentalists). This is liek a $50,000 issue. Honestly, the number of companies with north of 50 employees (you probably really need over 1000 employees to dictate a special insurance policy) that haven't brought in outside funds from private equity, venture capitalists or shared ownership with employees is very very small. A bill that nobody read? Are you fucking serious? That bill was in the sausage grinder for a year and a half. Everybody read it, everybody knew what it encompassed. It's not a difficult concept. If you're referring to the infamous Pelosi quote, be advised that the covservatrolls who use that quote are taking it out of context; she was referring to the fact that to realize the benefits (and obligations) of the law, you had to actually pass the fucking thing first. Fucking Republicunts: Everything they cling to is a goddamn fucking lie. For crissakes, they ran the entire RNC 2012 convention on the "you didn't build that" lie. That dumb little cunt Paul Ryan's nomination speech was a breathtaking clinic in pathological lying. Even the lameass mainstream media couldn't choke down all of that shit sandwich. Lying worthless fuckheap of a party. Lies, lies, lies. Dirty fucking lies. (Note: I'm not claiming by implication that Democrats have a monopoly on truth; I'm stating that Republicans are dirty filthy fucking lying monkey shit. So please save the equivalency, as I don't care.) Like Hobby Lobby's Jesusness, for example. It's a farce and a fraud. theweek.com/article/index/263225/stop-calling-hobby-lobby-a-christian-businessOh, and this impact won't be limited like you think it will. These closely-held corporations got the signal loud and clear that they're gonna be afforded all of the benefits and little of the burden of incorporation, i.e. they're essentially "separate entities of convenience," because these 5 Opus Dei crackpot corporate activists are gonna have their back and let them roam free. Hey, it's religious conviction if you really believe it (and it's super duper Christianist,) right? Religious freedom of legal fictions. Spectacular. Actually, the two concepts jive nicely, in an artificial construct kind of way. BTW, is that Uncle Tom Long Dong Silver motherfucker ever gonna ask a question from the bench, or is he just gonna let that teabagging cunt he's married to do the talking? I sometimes wonder.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 7, 2014 7:52:01 GMT -6
Uh, if it was an activist court the ACA would have been nuked 2 sessions ago. Pushing through a 900 page bill that no one read with the only court loss being with respect to 4 abortofacients funded by closely held corporations owned by religious fundamentalists is pretty fucking restrained actually. The practical impact is probably at best 3 dozen companies nationwide (has to be 50+ employees, closely held, religious fundamentalists). This is liek a $50,000 issue. Honestly, the number of companies with north of 50 employees (you probably really need over 1000 employees to dictate a special insurance policy) that haven't brought in outside funds from private equity, venture capitalists or shared ownership with employees is very very small. A bill that nobody read? Are you fucking serious? That bill was in the sausage grinder for a year and a half. Everybody read it, everybody knew what it encompassed. It's not a difficult concept. If you're referring to the infamous Pelosi quote, be advised that the covservatrolls who use that quote are taking it out of context; she was referring to the fact that to realize the benefits (and obligations) of the law, you had to actually pass the fucking thing first. Fucking Republicunts: Everything they cling to is a goddamn fucking lie. For crissakes, they ran the entire RNC 2012 convention on the "you didn't build that" lie. That dumb little cunt Paul Ryan's nomination speech was a breathtaking clinic in pathological lying. Even the lameass mainstream media couldn't choke down all of that shit sandwich. Lying worthless fuckheap of a party. Lies, lies, lies. Dirty fucking lies. (Note: I'm not claiming by implication that Democrats have a monopoly on truth; I'm stating that Republicans are dirty filthy fucking lying monkey shit. So please save the equivalency, as I don't care.) Like Hobby Lobby's Jesusness, for example. It's a farce and a fraud. theweek.com/article/index/263225/stop-calling-hobby-lobby-a-christian-businessOh, and this impact won't be limited like you think it will. These closely-held corporations got the signal loud and clear that they're gonna be afforded all of the benefits and little of the burden of incorporation, i.e. they're essentially "separate entities of convenience," because these 5 Opus Dei crackpot corporate activists are gonna have their back and let them roam free. Hey, it's religious conviction if you really believe it (and it's super duper Christianist,) right? Religious freedom of legal fictions. Spectacular. Actually, the two concepts jive nicely, in an artificial construct kind of way. BTW, is that Uncle Tom Long Dong Silver motherfucker ever gonna ask a question from the bench, or is he just gonna let that teabagging cunt he's married to do the talking? I sometimes wonder. Oh fucking please. If you think more than a few dozen ERISA lawyers in this country have read that entire fucking bill I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. And if you think the ruling isn't limited, please list the hypotheticals where it will be used. Remember, it's gotta be a federal law bince RFRA only applies to federal laws. Arizona tried to pass a law similar to RFRA in the wake of that photographer being compelled to attend a gay wedding as a condition of doing business in the state and your braindead allies made up a bunch of god damned lies to use the force of government to run roughshod over that person.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 7, 2014 9:37:19 GMT -6
"gov't running roughshod over (x)" is the phrase that pays lately Yeah, that'll happen when you hire a bunch of moron GS-13s to try to micromanage large swaths of the economy.
|
|
|
Post by The Resistance on Jul 7, 2014 9:42:27 GMT -6
"gov't running roughshod over (x)" is the phrase that pays lately Jump on in Chuck.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jul 7, 2014 9:50:00 GMT -6
A bill that nobody read? Are you fucking serious? That bill was in the sausage grinder for a year and a half. Everybody read it, everybody knew what it encompassed. It's not a difficult concept. If you're referring to the infamous Pelosi quote, be advised that the covservatrolls who use that quote are taking it out of context; she was referring to the fact that to realize the benefits (and obligations) of the law, you had to actually pass the fucking thing first. Fucking Republicunts: Everything they cling to is a goddamn fucking lie. For crissakes, they ran the entire RNC 2012 convention on the "you didn't build that" lie. That dumb little cunt Paul Ryan's nomination speech was a breathtaking clinic in pathological lying. Even the lameass mainstream media couldn't choke down all of that shit sandwich. Lying worthless fuckheap of a party. Lies, lies, lies. Dirty fucking lies. (Note: I'm not claiming by implication that Democrats have a monopoly on truth; I'm stating that Republicans are dirty filthy fucking lying monkey shit. So please save the equivalency, as I don't care.) Like Hobby Lobby's Jesusness, for example. It's a farce and a fraud. theweek.com/article/index/263225/stop-calling-hobby-lobby-a-christian-businessOh, and this impact won't be limited like you think it will. These closely-held corporations got the signal loud and clear that they're gonna be afforded all of the benefits and little of the burden of incorporation, i.e. they're essentially "separate entities of convenience," because these 5 Opus Dei crackpot corporate activists are gonna have their back and let them roam free. Hey, it's religious conviction if you really believe it (and it's super duper Christianist,) right? Religious freedom of legal fictions. Spectacular. Actually, the two concepts jive nicely, in an artificial construct kind of way. BTW, is that Uncle Tom Long Dong Silver motherfucker ever gonna ask a question from the bench, or is he just gonna let that teabagging cunt he's married to do the talking? I sometimes wonder. Oh fucking please. If you think more than a few dozen ERISA lawyers in this country have read that entire fucking bill I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. And if you think the ruling isn't limited, please list the hypotheticals where it will be used. Remember, it's gotta be a federal law bince RFRA only applies to federal laws. Arizona tried to pass a law similar to RFRA in the wake of that photographer being compelled to attend a gay wedding as a condition of doing business in the state and your braindead allies made up a bunch of god damned lies to use the force of government to run roughshod over that person. You're smart, but you're not infallible. www.bc.edu/content/bc/offices/pubaf/journalist/experts/supremect.htmlMNSBC's butch dyke is even getting over on ya, bro: www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/court-conservatives-add-insult-injury-contraceptionPolitifact doesn't share your certainty either: www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jul/02/could-supreme-court-contraceptive-ruling-affect-co/Ask yourself this: Does Opus Dei Alito seem like the kind of guy who wants his activist decisions to be limited in scope? Hmmm?
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 7, 2014 9:53:46 GMT -6
"gov't running roughshod over (x)" is the phrase that pays lately Ever since Thad Cochran won, America died.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jul 7, 2014 9:59:09 GMT -6
"gov't running roughshod over (x)" is the phrase that pays lately Ever since Thad Cochran won, America died. Goddamn uppity Negroes.
|
|
|
Post by TaterWanger on Jul 7, 2014 10:02:22 GMT -6
Ive noticed a pattern. Every time a judge or SCOTUS makes a ruling that one party seems to endorse members of the oller party call them evil activist judges. I wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 7, 2014 10:03:27 GMT -6
Ever since Thad Cochran won, America died. because ni66ers were allowed to vote Is daece so ignorant that he doesn't realize this is exactly what he's saying, thereby reconfirming his hateful bigotry? The president is black, therefore, racism doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jul 7, 2014 10:18:41 GMT -6
Ive noticed a pattern. Every time a judge or SCOTUS makes a ruling that one party seems to endorse members of the oller party call them evil activist judges. I wonder why? This is not entirely correct. Some "activism" is simply judges reflecting changing social mores and helping the law evolve to serve the society which it governs. See, for example, the (long overdue) evolution and resolution of granting equal protection to cocksuckers-by-choice. Real activism is when fucks like Scalia et al (or insert your fav hated liberal if you can cite an example) engage in striking down a law they dislike simply because it serves their personal biases, precedent and generally accepted judicial consideration be damned. This is most common on SCOTUS, where there is zero consequence or accountability. Of course what constitutes "judicial activism" does contain a subjective component, but to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it. Oh but it is.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jul 7, 2014 11:27:13 GMT -6
OBAMA'S RECESS APPOINTMENTS!! BENGHAZI!! BUT I REPEAT MYSELF!! I bet they do too:
|
|
|
Post by TaterWanger on Jul 7, 2014 11:34:10 GMT -6
Ive noticed a pattern. Every time a judge or SCOTUS makes a ruling that one party seems to endorse members of the oller party call them evil activist judges. I wonder why? This is not entirely correct. Some "activism" is simply judges reflecting changing social mores and helping the law evolve to serve the society which it governs. See, for example, the (long overdue) evolution and resolution of granting equal protection to cocksuckers-by-choice. Real activism is when fucks like Scalia et al (or insert your fav hated liberal if you can cite an example) engage in striking down a law they dislike simply because it serves their personal biases, precedent and generally accepted judicial consideration be damned. This is most common on SCOTUS, where there is zero consequence or accountability. Of course what constitutes "judicial activism" does contain a subjective component, but to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it. Oh but it is. Strike down DOMA, fuckin activist judges. Strike down portion of ADA, fuckin activist judges.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 7, 2014 12:09:35 GMT -6
Only read the first one and presume rest is a bunch of similar drivel to that. The guys who wrote that nonsense are a bunch of fucking idiots. The scope is abundantly clear - you have to be a very closely held corporation with commonality of religious beliefs among ownership. In fact, the court said "The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs." The other companies that those geniuses named would not pass the test set forth in the Hobby Lobby case. He names Cargo (presumably Cargill - gee I wonder why that fuck isn't practicing law), Koch, Dell and PwC. The first 3 of those all have PE money in them. Once PE money is in, you're not "closely held" for purposes of Hobby Lobby. PwC has nearly 10,000 partners. That ain't "closely held" for purposes of Hobby Lobby, either. These guys have spent too much time in the leftist echo chamber.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 7, 2014 12:12:16 GMT -6
Ive noticed a pattern. Every time a judge or SCOTUS makes a ruling that one party seems to endorse members of the oller party call them evil activist judges. I wonder why? This is not entirely correct. Some "activism" is simply judges reflecting changing social mores and helping the law evolve to serve the society which it governs. See, for example, the (long overdue) evolution and resolution of granting equal protection to cocksuckers-by-choice. Real activism is when fucks like Scalia et al (or insert your fav hated liberal if you can cite an example) engage in striking down a law they dislike simply because it serves their personal biases, precedent and generally accepted judicial consideration be damned. This is most common on SCOTUS, where there is zero consequence or accountability. Of course what constitutes "judicial activism" does contain a subjective component, but to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it. Oh but it is. The biggest judicial activist in history never even sat on the bench. His name was FDR.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 7, 2014 12:24:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Jul 7, 2014 12:41:07 GMT -6
Stupid fucking liberals.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 7, 2014 12:45:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 7, 2014 13:19:55 GMT -6
Is dat dis hat?
|
|