Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Crabtownboy, Jul 10, 2014.
Just about on the BB are among the losers
Guess that depends on your opinion...since this article is littered with rhetoric and inflammatory language, and is obviously opinion.
Wonder what the author would think of those of us that choose to think for ourselves, but disagree with him?
Could be the author would like a good, calm, rational discussion with people disagree.
Would be nice if that happened on this BB, but sadly almost never does happen.
It may have been a big winner, but come on, not a no-hitter.
Please elaborate on that for me. Not sure what you are alluding to.
Before that, explain your nonsensical phrase, "Just about on the BB are among the losers."
None of us are corporations.
I doubt that any of us are 'fat cats'.
None of us are in the top 1%.
OK, I've answered your questions. Please answer mine. Thanks.
Covetousness and envy are sins.
God has given some people the ability to earn and accumulate great wealth.
Christians should not be envious of their wealth, nor try to use the government as their agent to steal it.
Liberal "Christians" don't seem to get it.
C.T.Boy, your grammar is atrocious. Try harder, please.
The article is not factual.
Meanwhile, racial minority groups were again reminded that the civil rights movement is a thing of the past; and women employees were told that their health care had to be subsumed to their employers' claim of a right to deny them contraceptive insurance if it offended the employer's belief system.
The first statement in ambiguous, and proves nothing. The second statement is a lie. Contraception coverage is mandated. You and your liberal cohorts need to learn the difference between contraceptives and abortificiants.
Women were punished not only by the health care decision (Hobby Lobby) but also by the abortion clinic ruling out of Massachusetts. While the latter was allegedly unanimous in the holding that the 35-foot buffer for protesters outside the clinic was too large, it was clear that there was a bitter divide between the five-man conservative side and the liberal bloc, which included the three women Justices, as to how much protection would ultimately be allowed for clinic visitors.
Freedom of speech. Women have not been punished. The statement is a lie.
The fat cats and the one percent again got what they wanted in the McKutcheon case, striking down the already liberal limits on aggregate financial limits in election campaigns, again by five to four. Under the new rules, individuals AND corporations can spend up to 3 million dollars a year to influence federal elections so long as they don't overtly coordinate their expenditures with political candidates or parties. For the 99 percent who have probably never in their lives given more than $100 to a political candidate, this ruling was just one more nail in the coffin of campaign regulation following the decision in Citizens United a few years back.
Good. Being told how you can and can't spend your money is federal overreach. Great to see sanity reign. The statement is merely whining, and some spin.
Racial minorities had their rights further curtailed in two decisions. The Shelby County case struck down Section 5 of the historic Voting Rights Act, which had allowed non-whites to enter the voting mainstream in the South for the past half century.
This is an out and out lie. Here's the real story.
“Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions,” said Roberts.
In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court evaluated which parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were still needed, which require states and local governments with a history of discrimination to get pre-clearance from the federal government before making any changes to voting laws.
That ruling was quickly followed by a rash of new voting restrictions by State Legislatures all across the South. And in the Michigan affirmative action case, the conservative majority said the University of Michigan was allowed to give preference in admissions to anyone it desired (athletes, children of alumni and donors) except racial minorities.
Spin. Again….the real story….
Holding: An amendment to Michigan’s constitution that prohibits state universities from considering race as part of its admissions process does not violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
Judgment: Reversed, 6-2, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on April 22, 2014. The Chief Justice and Justice Alito join the opinion in full. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the judgement, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Breyer also filed an opinion concurring in the judgement. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. (Kagan, J., recused)
Trade unions took their lumps in a case which all but overruled a 30-year-old decision which said a state could allow unions to collect a percentage of dues from non-members who benefitted from the collective bargaining (not political activities) activities of the union. This ruling gave new life to free-loaders who took advantage of the union's work but declined to help pay for it. Unions also suffered a setback in a case which voided President Obama's authority to make three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board during brief congressional adjournments. This was another allegedly unanimous decision which concealed a sharp divide over the extent of the ruling.
That was the 9-0 decision. Not even the commies on the court could hold their nose at that one. Great news. Statement is merely whining, with some spin.
Religionists won a second major victory (after Hobby Lobby) in a case out of the Town of Greece in upstate New York. In another split decision, the conservative majority allowed a sectarian prayer before town hall meetings, In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote: "When citizens of this country approach their government, they do so only as Americans, not as members of one faith or another.
Religionists ? Is that what you and your atheist friends now call us ? Anyways, here's another view of that one…..
"...In Greece, New York, a suburb of Rochester, the town board has, since 1999, invited local religious leaders to open meetings with prayer. The preponderance of these leaders has been Christian (there have been no calls in Greece, apparently, for the blessings of Zeus). Two disconcerted locals sued; they wished the town to demote the Christian/Jewish God to a more generic status. A federal district court said Greece was doing just fine; an appeals court asserted the reverse; this week the Supreme Court agreed with Greece, finding, 5 to 4, in favor of what Justice Anthony Kennedy called “a practice that was accepted by the Framers and has withstood the scrutiny of time and political change.”
Kennedy noted the town’s felt need “to accommodate the spiritual needs of lawmakers.” He traced precedents in the case back to the republic’s earliest years. He said under town patronage God had heard not just from Christians but from a Jewish layman, a Baha’i member and, for heaven’s sake, a Wiccan priestess. Greece worked at ecumenicity and inclusion: just not hard enough to suit the four liberal dissenters, namely, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan…."
I guess you're going to call me "irrational", now, and leave it at that ?
Oh, and I should tell you….the BOLD font is text from your O/P's embedded link.
If I already have, you're welcome.
If not, we can start with a couple of cases. The 35-foot 'buffer' at an abortion clinic being ruled too large was a good one, since an equal buffer for protesters is not wedged in at a gun show, for instance, or a fur salon. And the Hobby Lobby contraceptive case was ruled correctly, and no matter what leftists say in their propaganda, nothing about it forbids women getting and using contraceptives-- they just have to get it "on their own dime"-- a clause I've heard many times from church/state separationists about prayers and Bibles.
What is your purpose in this thread? To claim we ought to slave in the interests of atheists, humanist, unions....?