Guard Dog

His solution is to destroy free enterprise and have the government take control over everything. I don't fu***ng think so. My fear is that he will lead this country down a black Keynesian hole that it will take a civil war to escape from. Think about it, what did Bush do wrong? He spent too much. Obama in just two years has spent more and obligated more debt than all of the presidents of the 20th Century, including Bush, combined. He has taken a bad plan and doubled down on it. I think we need to begin having serious discussions about state secession. If 50% of the country is hell bent on following the Weimar Republics grand example I do not think the other 50% is obligated to go with them.

It would be a matter for federal court yes, not the federal government as in the legislature. So far they have had the good sense to stay out of it except for a brief moment during the Bush years that did ot amount to anything. This is a State issue I think.

I don't think he's a muslim. But so what if he was? I'm quite sute he is a natural born US citizen. If he was not, Hillary Clinton's team would have found out about it and dispatched him long before the primaries were over in '08. Of course he has only himself to balme for allowing this whole controversy to cotinue but I guess there will always be conspiracy theorists. He is a lousy President however. And no please do not bring up any sycophant ravings about the last president. He's gone and he's never coming back. Hopefully the same will be said about this fool in 2012 and hopefully he will be limited in his radical leftist agenda by the loss of the US House this November. It would be really great if they lost the Senate too, that would neuter him all together and we can have a nice quiet run into 2012 where we can get rid of him altogether.

Yep, Shryke would have closed that deal. And he probably would have talked her and her roomate into a meange to boot. But not bad though.

You sound like you overthink stuff a lot. Don't man, people in college are chill. Most people in college are fresh out of high school and someone else is paying their way. Calax has been out in the world and lived a little already. It's a lot harder to chill once you've done that.

Ok Purkake, I ordered The entire First Law trilogy from Amazon and it arrived today. If it sucks, i will hunt you down! I also got Cathedral of the Sea by Ildefonso Falcones. It is a historical fiction about a man who rises to great fortune in 14th century Spain. It was origianlly written in Spanish and I wish my spanish was good enough to read the untranslated version. But I speak a broken latin dialect of spanish (learned when I lived in Miami) and Castillan spanish has always been very hard for me to follow.

I'll sum up the HoF game last weekend in the words of one of my coworkers "It was like watching two three year olds try to play Madden 2010". Not much hope for my Bucs this year, looks like another long rebuilding season. And next year with labor strife looming it might well be a very blue season indeed.

Who cares what he looks like. The question is will be bring home beer every once in a while or is he going to mooch yours? Well.... thats what I'd be wondering anyway.

Good luck!

Now this I think is an argument that has teeth. Under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause any agreement (remember marriage is a contract in the eyes of the law) made in one state is binding in another. If a couple was married in Iowa the shuold also be married as far as CA is concerned. If they were not then they can make a compelling argument for injury under both the Full Faith and Credit clause and the 14th amendment. I wonder why this has not been tried yet? It seems like the way to go to me. Enoch and I were discussing it once and he did not think it could win. He is certainly better infomred on this kind of thing than I am but it sounds like a no brainer to me.

Yes it will and I think you will be disappointed by what happens. The question before the SCOTUS will not be "Should gay marriage should be legal?" This question will be "Does California have the right to recognize, or decline to recognize gay marriage?" And you can be sure they do. My prediction it will go 6-3 with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito ruling in favor of California. Ginsburg does not give a hoot in hell what the law says, she will do what "feels" right. Kagan is a nutjob who thinks the federal government is our God. Who knows where Sotomayor will come down. She may even join the majority. Oh, it's a conservative majority now, no doubt about it. But I want them to actually say that descrimination against sexual orientation is constitutional. There's no doubt in my mind that at one point SCOTUS would have ruled that descrimination against blacks was constitutional. The time has come, in my opinion, to make certain that constitutional rights and protections are applied to all people equally. I may not live to see it, but someday it will happen here in the USA. Also, I found something in the BBC today that better describes what I was trying to say about civil unions not giving spousal rights in most states. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10956033 If you look at the map, you'll see that only one state, Iowa, recognizes gay marriage. Three states offer full spousal rights for gay couples. The rest offer either limital spousal rights or have outright banned gay marriages. And of course, the federal government does not recognize gay couples at all. So as a society, we've got some work to do in order to end the last bastion of legalized discrimination. Di you are missing the point, it's not about discrimination. If it were there would be good chance of it being upheld. It's about state power vs federal power. The gay marriage folks will lose that argument every time in the SCOTUS. @WoD, no Breyer is a big lib but he is also a moderate supporter of the federalist concept. He has been fairly reliable in supporting states rights.

Yes it will and I think you will be disappointed by what happens. The question before the SCOTUS will not be "Should gay marriage should be legal?" This question will be "Does California have the right to recognize, or decline to recognize gay marriage?" And you can be sure they do. My prediction it will go 6-3 with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito ruling in favor of California. Ginsburg does not give a hoot in hell what the law says, she will do what "feels" right. Kagan is a nutjob who thinks the federal government is our God. Who knows where Sotomayor will come down. She may even join the majority.

Of couse, you guys are the descedants of criminals!

This will really blow your mind then Monte. Civil Unions between same sex partners are completely legal in California (and in 47 of the 50 states). So all the befefits of marriage are already there for gay couples. Prop 8 and the subsequent court fight is over a word. They are literally fighting over a word. It's not just the word really, it's the sanction that comes with it. Giving them the word marriage is in effect saying it's ok to be gay. You are not abnormal or atypical. It seems a little silly to me since what two people do with each other is their own concern and none of anyone elses. If they want to get married, who cares? As to sexuality being fixed, I don't buy that. I think this is just what they like and thats their choice to live that way. Trying to claim that sexuality is genetic is too much like making an excuse for why people are they way they are. It's a back door to aggrieved minority status that they do not need and do not deserve. You like what you like, there is no need to apologize or make excuses like "I can't help it". Seperate is inherently unequal there bub. Oh I do not disagree that it is a rotten deal. Where you and I do not agree is on the merits of the Walker decsion. Remember, Gromnir was correct when he pointed out that the court has never recognized homosexuals as a "minority" and federal government takes no position on marriage outside of the fact that it is a contract. The constitution empowers the state to enforce contracts. Plus homosexuals really cannot claim to be discriminated against because they are not enjoined from getting married, they just can't marry each other. Yes I know this is all semantics but that is what the law is. This seems like a small thing I know but the seperation of state and federal power is the single most important issue in the country today IMOP. We went to war over that once and I am convinced we will again in the future.

I bought the Witcher about six months ago, never installed it or played it. I finally did last night and have not slept since. All that time spent working on that damned book as me way behind in gaming. I haven't even bought DA yet and there is already an expansion.

This will really blow your mind then Monte. Civil Unions between same sex partners are completely legal in California (and in 47 of the 50 states). So all the befefits of marriage are already there for gay couples. Prop 8 and the subsequent court fight is over a word. They are literally fighting over a word. It's not just the word really, it's the sanction that comes with it. Giving them the word marriage is in effect saying it's ok to be gay. You are not abnormal or atypical. It seems a little silly to me since what two people do with each other is their own concern and none of anyone elses. If they want to get married, who cares? As to sexuality being fixed, I don't buy that. I think this is just what they like and thats their choice to live that way. Trying to claim that sexuality is genetic is too much like making an excuse for why people are they way they are. It's a back door to aggrieved minority status that they do not need and do not deserve. You like what you like, there is no need to apologize or make excuses like "I can't help it".

Hayes defeated Tilldale (?) back in the 1880's to win despite losing the popular vote. We've had fifty eight presidiential elections and only three has there been a dsiparity in popular vs electoral vote. Actually, I think it's only two, I'm 90% sure Kennedy won both. Anyway, this movement to eleminate the electoral college is trouble because New York, Mass, & California alone can overwhelm the rest of the country. Not exactly fair is it?

I keep harping on it bacause I am right. The mistake you are making my friend is that this case is not about whether or not same sex marriage should be legal. It was NEVER about that until Walker made it that. The question before the court was whether or not California had the right to make it illegal. And they do, right or wrong. Walker totally ignored the merits of the state power argument and found on the basis of his own "morality" that it was wrong for it to be illegal. Bush V Gore was a different animal all together. The fact that Gore had more popular vote that Bush was not relevant as to the merits of the lawsuit. Had the court based it's decision on that we would have had a real crisis on our hands. In that case the SCOTUS decided to UPHOLD law rather than overturn it because the Constitution delegates to the state the responsibility to determine how it's electors are chosen. And the decision was 7-2 so even two of the liberals refused to usurp state power to obtain a result they might have preferred.

Finished Winterbirth. I'd give it a B-. Not bad, but it looks and reads like a first novel. The complexity of the subplots gets away from him a little. I love the setting though. I'll give the next book in the series Blood Heir a look.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/0...allenges_p.html Here is a great article on this subject. It hits a lot of the points Gromnir and I have been trying to drive home to you guys. The problem with most of you is that you see a great injustice that Prop 8 does to a small group of people. The Walker decsision rectifies that and you are so happy that you are blinded to the even greater injustice the decision does to the entire state of California, the US Constitution and the seperation of state and federal power. The federalcourt is unelected and unaccountable to the people. They are without a doubt the most dangerous institution in the US because of that. At least in state courts justices must face the voters every four years. Federal appointments are for life. When a federal judge practices heavy handed activisim it is a terrible thing. Even if you are happy with the outcome you should not be happy with how it was done if you do love justice and your country. Remember, next time the decision may horrify you. What the people of California did in passing Prop 8 was stupid and wrong. But, what Walker did was destructive and, dare I say it, evil. That was not his intetion, but the precedent he set by overuling a state law decided by the people could be used for something terrible later down the road.

Gromnir is dead right on one thing allowing this to become a states rights issue was the worst thing that could happen to the plaintiffs. Now they will make enemies where they might have found allies.

I just wasted an hour with that but it was fun.

Try A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin and/or The First Law trilogy by Joe Abercrombie if you want some non-traditional fantasy I've read all of ASOIAF more than once. I agree with you, they are superb. I'm not a big fan of Fantay generally speaking but I love Martins work. I'm a little weary of WoT but I'm sticking with it.

Can't be any more horrifying than the excesses of the previous presidential administration. Or the current one, but there again we are talking apples and oranges.

Now reading Winterbirth by Brian Ruckly. It's the first fantasy novel I've read since the last WoT book came out. So far it is ok, not great. The land sounds a little like Scotland and there is a Gaelic/Viking theme to it.