News of the Day

[jdhebner]

Originally Posted by ChaseSpace

This went viral quick.

I agree with the message but the organization itself is somewhat shady and I also find it somewhat moronic to mobilize the population of a country to catch one criminal when we have so many problems of our own here. Some of our own problems are also similar, young kids being pushed into gangs for protection just because of where they live and the only way out is to run or die.

I guess what I'm trying to say is fix your own house before you help the neighbor.

This is quite perplexing. From some news reports this appears to be related to mental illness (in my opinion). I do feel sorry for the young man.
Mental illness is very tough to deal with....

[Hoek]

That was pretty messed up.

To me the most appropriate criticism of the whole Kony thing is the fact that to get at that guy we're supporting corrupt, dictatorial governments whose armies are accusing of doing the exact same things, only in greater numbers!

Sorry for the source, but I could not find this at any other media site.

A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."

A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1r20E81QO

Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was "referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect ... that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress."

"That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."

Smith ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.

All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1r20vywwL

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...rks-on-health/

[BurnTHalO]

Yeah that didn't read right. I think what he was trying to point out was striking down a bill in this context is unprecidented, but I'm not sure. I couldn't really figure out what he was pointing out, but then again, I didn't look to closely at it, cause I didn't care what he said trying to defend the bill. We know it's probably getting striken down, and we are going to dick a bunch of people over. At any rate, the biggest problem to me is that the Supreme Court was designed to take politics out of one branch of the checks and balances. It really feels like the Supreme Court is as political as Congress.

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO

At any rate, the biggest problem to me is that the Supreme Court was designed to take politics out of one branch of the checks and balances. It really feels like the Supreme Court is as political as Congress.

It's always political to the losing side. Seems like very few sit down and try to find the real answer........is this constitutional? Just because a law is past by a majority of Congress does not make it constitutional. Just because a law would help many, and parts have sure helped my family this past year, does not mean that the law is constitutional.

If stuck down the good parts of the law should be placed back into a bill and passed. I also feel that if you want to help reduce the costs of health care then you have to allow for the selling of insurance policies over state lines.

If struck down we do need reform and we need to find a way to cover all. But we also will need a bill that we all know what is in it prior to passage.

[Sotnos]

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO

Yeah that didn't read right. I think what he was trying to point out was striking down a bill in this context is unprecidented, but I'm not sure. I couldn't really figure out what he was pointing out, but then again, I didn't look to closely at it, cause I didn't care what he said trying to defend the bill. We know it's probably getting striken down, and we are going to dick a bunch of people over. At any rate, the biggest problem to me is that the Supreme Court was designed to take politics out of one branch of the checks and balances. It really feels like the Supreme Court is as political as Congress.

Yeah, it's terrible. Might be another 20 years before anyone attempts to do anything with health care again. Too bad we can't be like other western countries.

Originally Posted by Sotnos

Yeah, it's terrible. Might be another 20 years before anyone attempts to do anything with health care again. Too bad we can't be like other western countries.

If struck down it's too bad that our "elected" leaders are not smart enough to write a law that is constitutional.

And yet now there is more spending uncovered. This time the GSA spent over $820,000 on a Vegas conference.

In the wake of the report, the White House accepted the resignation of General Services Administration chief Martha Johnson. Johnson also dismissed two deputies and suspended other career employees over the affair.

The employees at the conference dropped thousands of dollars on luxury items and convention giveaways -- including more than $6,000 on commemorative coins, $8,000 on a "yearbook" and $3,200 for an in-house mind reader.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1r4tgg3H5

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...est=latestnews

[the_narrow_way]

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO

It really feels like the Supreme Court is as political as Congress.

Yep, it's a complete farce at this point. When you can accurately predict the SC votes based soley on which President appointed the member-in-question then you know the system is fubar.

[Sotnos]

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way

Yep, it's a complete farce at this point. When you can accurately predict the SC votes based soley on which President appointed the member-in-question then you know the system is fubar.

They don't even pretend to be impartial either.