Comments
3,161 - 3,180 of 8,048 Comments Last updated 23 hrs ago
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#3444 Jan 26, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
Heller also inadvertently pointed out the logic that permits the ownership of semiautomatic weapons.
-- As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”
You should be able to have what the police has, for when they can't get there in time.
You need to learn to discern between passages in which an author of an opinion is discussing historical background, and those in which he/she is issuing a holding.

Scalia clearly discussed (in dicta) that regulations that are reasonable would pass constitutional muster.

woof
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#3445 Jan 26, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
Relating to the NLRB, yes
Normally the party of the president by tradition gets three of the five seats on the board.
In 2007, when the Ds took the Senate, they refused to confirm Bush nominees. Since then there have not been five NLRB members.
After the decision to block the Boeing plant in SC, the right wanted the two remaining Bush appoitees to quit so the NLRB would not be able to enforce decisions and the courts would expedite the decision.
They did not resign and the Rs filibustered the new nominees, Obama then recess appointed when the Senate was not in recess.
Now they have found that this was illegal, presumably the NLRB decisions will be knocked down.
The board should be abolished, it is an executive agency making judicial decisions.
And it is not titled "UCMJ" therefore it is unconstitutional.
Actually, the senate was in session (although a pro forma or formality session) when Obama made his appointments and according to the court, it doesn't matter because the constitution only allows recess appointments for vacancies that happen when the senate is in recess. It goes on to declare that one certain recesses are capable of being considered as the constitutional recess too.
titonton divaunte pants

United States

#3446 Jan 26, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand the presidents make their choice..., which, in my mind, is as it should be. I would want to make my own choice of personnel.
But why then, was this found to be unconstitutional because he bypassed the senate? Did he not avoid them in order to 'stack the deck' with like minded, manipulable appointments without encountering any opposition? As I said, I have not been able to follow this on the news, nor on this forum, step by step. I'm neither a lawyer nor consitutional scholar.
do you think mary jo white was a good appointment? Not me. If she is supposed to be the ball and chain on wall street her history seems to show she has been corrupted.
" White currently serves as an attorney at law firm Debevoise & Plimpton, where she defends “companies and individuals accused by the government of involvement in white collar corporate crime or Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and civil securities law violations.” The client list at the firm includes some of the most predatory banks in the country —JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank Of America, Deutsche Bank. "
If she currently defends the same fat cat bankers who obama says she will be tough on, then she will probably not enforce the Dodd-Frank http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/g... legislation on them or use any of the evidence gathered in the audits to prosecute. Don't you think? Tarp was supposed to by up all the default mortgages right? Well audits found money went to foreign banks in secret loans http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry...
using FOIA.
Here's another example of how they use dirivitivves to make millions of dollars from people starving..

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3448 Jan 26, 2013
6was9 wrote:
<quoted text>
here ya go......
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/19/wo...
Thanks for the quick response.

Hmm...what I take away from that is the men are being discriminated upon if Valarie Jarrett being paid the top salary and provided 24 hour SS agents and being transported everywhere on federal, taxpayer funded planes and helicopters. How do I get her job? Nevermind. I don't want to know.
titonton divaunte pants

United States

#3449 Jan 26, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to learn to discern between passages in which an author of an opinion is discussing historical background, and those in which he/she is issuing a holding.
Scalia clearly discussed (in dicta) that regulations that are reasonable would pass constitutional muster.
woof
so wouldn't it be more reasonable to outlaw and regulate things that kill more people tan my pistol with a ten shot clip? Like highschool football, automobiles,and this.. http://m.youtube.com/#/watch...

Since: Jan 13

Returning with a vengeance

#3450 Jan 26, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know why. Woman's intuition? I have just suspected she was a woman for the last week or so.
No, Che has never shown much of an interest in 'women's issues.' But then, fairly, I have never championed women's rights either. I simply do not believe there is any war on women. I've never experienced anything I would call discrimination or favoritism because of my gender.
I'd like anyone to give me one example where women are 'oppressed.'
You don't champion women's rights?

I disagree with that, most of right in this country supported the war in Afghanistan, which held the benefit of allowing girls to go to school.

Or have you commented on the sexual assaults in Egypt and the rest of the Islamist world?

Opposing the MB, is support of the rights of women.

----

Too often the western bias towards "women's rights" is abortion-centric, when abortion is often targeted at women via sex selective abortions. Or it is sidetracked into issues of a mythical pay gap, which only exists because this country does not have paid maternal leave (paying people to not work) which interrupts promotion timetables. Women that don't have children, do not have a pay gap.

Though I would generally agree, that by and large there is no oppression of women in the West, excepting sex-selective abortions amongst Asian descent communities.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3451 Jan 26, 2013
titonton divaunte pants wrote:
<quoted text> do you think mary jo white was a good appointment? Not me. If she is supposed to be the ball and chain on wall street her history seems to show she has been corrupted.
" White currently serves as an attorney at law firm Debevoise & Plimpton, where she defends “companies and individuals accused by the government of involvement in white collar corporate crime or Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and civil securities law violations.” The client list at the firm includes some of the most predatory banks in the country —JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank Of America, Deutsche Bank. "
If she currently defends the same fat cat bankers who obama says she will be tough on, then she will probably not enforce the Dodd-Frank http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/g... legislation on them or use any of the evidence gathered in the audits to prosecute. Don't you think? Tarp was supposed to by up all the default mortgages right? Well audits found money went to foreign banks in secret loans http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry...
using FOIA.
Here's another example of how they use dirivitivves to make millions of dollars from people starving..
"Takes a thief to catch a thief" mentality? Same reason so many criminal prosecutors, when they hang up a sign for private practice, specialize in criminal law?
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#3452 Jan 26, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Heller had absolutely nothing to do with the right to bear arms as a member of a militia. Nothing. That issue has not been addressed. Everything the Court discussed about it is dicta.
Look up the definition of the word. You're not gettin it.
woof
You are completely wrong. The court actually discredited the position of the second amendment being about a militia and several claims along those lines. It is more then dicta and is binding as far as it went.
titonton divaunte pants

United States

#3453 Jan 26, 2013
Btw ankle biter, by that I don't mean bann remote controll airplanes for law obeying citizens because criminal obama killed a bunch of innocent children and women with them. Much like I don't think we should ban a ten shot clip because some criminal illegally obtains one. http://m.youtube.com/#/watch...

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3454 Jan 26, 2013
titonton divaunte pants wrote:
<quoted text> do you think mary jo white was a good appointment? Not me. If she is supposed to be the ball and chain on wall street her history seems to show she has been corrupted.
..
Ah, did some research and see the appointment was just made today. No, I don't think it's a particularly good choice. But I think it's 'Chicago style.'
What good choices has Obama made?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3456 Jan 26, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the quick response.
Hmm...what I take away from that is the men are being discriminated upon if Valarie Jarrett being paid the top salary and provided 24 hour SS agents and being transported everywhere on federal, taxpayer funded planes and helicopters. How do I get her job? Nevermind. I don't want to know.
Hi SL....
Again, the title of the article is.......
Women in Obama White House earn less than men, amid 'equal pay' debate

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/19/wo...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3457 Jan 26, 2013
Haynes v. United States

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United...

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3458 Jan 26, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't champion women's rights?
I disagree with that, most of right in this country supported the war in Afghanistan, which held the benefit of allowing girls to go to school.
Or have you commented on the sexual assaults in Egypt and the rest of the Islamist world?
Opposing the MB, is support of the rights of women.
----
Too often the western bias towards "women's rights" is abortion-centric, when abortion is often targeted at women via sex selective abortions. Or it is sidetracked into issues of a mythical pay gap, which only exists because this country does not have paid maternal leave (paying people to not work) which interrupts promotion timetables. Women that don't have children, do not have a pay gap.
Though I would generally agree, that by and large there is no oppression of women in the West, excepting sex-selective abortions amongst Asian descent communities.
No, no. I was speaking strictly about women's rights/oppression in the US.

Of course I am appalled at the oppression, in so many areas, and atrocities, that occur to women and girls in other coutries. You know me better than that. Their view of women is barbaric.

Abortion, although I am opposed except in some circumstances, is not my soap box. I am however, horrifed at the sheer number of abortions performed here every year and I disagree with taxpayer's funding it.

I simply do not believe there is a war on women in the U.S., and for decades they have been labeled 'minorities' and given special treatment.(You note I say 'they' and not 'me.')

i.e. My cousin's union HAD to take a 'quota' woman ironworker into their apprenticeship. Not her fault, but she does not have the upper body strength of any man and cannot do the job and puts other's in danger. To me, that's stupid.

It will be interesting to see how many women can physically do the military training required to be in combat. Female jockeys cannot outride male jockeys of equal skill. They just do not have the upper body strength to control the horse in the same way.

I can lift 70 to 80 lbs without a huge problem. But I can't do it for 8 hours.

I have known men that took the 'maternity leave' when a couple had a baby because the wife had the higher salary. With the advanced abilities to work from home, that will become less and less of an issue.

I really have little patience with 'whiners' that can help themselves and change their situation, and don't, whether it be male or female.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3459 Jan 26, 2013
6was9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi SL....
Again, the title of the article is.......
Women in Obama White House earn less than men, amid 'equal pay' debate
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/19/wo...
I read it. The MSM lets this hypocrite get away with more than anyother public figure in history. If you disagree with him, you're 'racist.' And between you and me, I think the whole damn country is getting fed up with the race card.

Hey, I know you're on Pacific time, but I'm EST!

Since: Jan 13

Returning with a vengeance

#3460 Jan 26, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no. I was speaking strictly about women's rights/oppression in the US.
Of course I am appalled at the oppression, in so many areas, and atrocities, that occur to women and girls in other coutries. You know me better than that. Their view of women is barbaric.
Abortion, although I am opposed except in some circumstances, is not my soap box. I am however, horrifed at the sheer number of abortions performed here every year and I disagree with taxpayer's funding it.
I simply do not believe there is a war on women in the U.S., and for decades they have been labeled 'minorities' and given special treatment.(You note I say 'they' and not 'me.')
i.e. My cousin's union HAD to take a 'quota' woman ironworker into their apprenticeship. Not her fault, but she does not have the upper body strength of any man and cannot do the job and puts other's in danger. To me, that's stupid.
It will be interesting to see how many women can physically do the military training required to be in combat. Female jockeys cannot outride male jockeys of equal skill. They just do not have the upper body strength to control the horse in the same way.
I can lift 70 to 80 lbs without a huge problem. But I can't do it for 8 hours.
I have known men that took the 'maternity leave' when a couple had a baby because the wife had the higher salary. With the advanced abilities to work from home, that will become less and less of an issue.
I really have little patience with 'whiners' that can help themselves and change their situation, and don't, whether it be male or female.
I generally find myself in agreement with your sentiments.

I consider abortion as one of the moral absolutes where society has tremendously failed.

Victory in eliminating the 90+% of abortions done for conveinece is my primary goal, but doing anything will not be possible as long as the media can demagogue the issue.

Therefore I see as the main issue I focus on acheiveing is getting people on the right to removing MSM influence.

Interesting information about quotas, I didn't know it existed like that.

I understand not to question you regarding overseas (middle east) treatment of women, though you would sometimes be surprised at the amount of people that do not care about what goes on over there, because of their anti-war sentiments.

Scratch the Huffington Post or Daily Kos, and they consider the US right-wing as morally equivalent to the Taliban.

And they are serious about it.

http://www.booksmith.com/event/markos-daily-k...

Read the comments of the four celebs on it, and you will quickly realize why we are headed for civil war.

Here is the right wing counterpart to it

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-America...

I also like this one

http://www.amazon.com/Arguing-Idiots-Small-Mi...
Artifice FK as Karl

Columbus, OH

#3461 Jan 27, 2013
Karlie, you never disappoint. Each and every post is more ignorant than the last one. It is as though your paltry intellect is being drained each time you squeeze out another brain fart.

Please realize before your brain case becomes a total vacuum that no one other than 4 or 5 wingnut minions cares one whistle what aliens such as yourself believe as you wage a phoney war upon your own country.

There is nothing remotely resembling "Artist" about your screed.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#3462 Jan 27, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You are completely wrong. The court actually discredited the position of the second amendment being about a militia and several claims along those lines. It is more then dicta and is binding as far as it went.
No, I'm not wrong. An individual and collective right both may be subsumed within the 2A. They're not mutually exclusive.

Heller's discussion about the collective right is there solely to differentiate between the two, to provide context for and define the individual right of self defense.

woof
WiseAmerican

Columbus, OH

#3463 Jan 27, 2013
Oh, Republicans come out to plaaayeee!

Is it not the firm belief of the GOP and their supporters that the liberal POTUS, taughts and pushes his cohorts in Congress to pass progressive agendas? With that knowledge being universal in belief from both parties, seeing that Obama and company wants stricter laws on certain rifles is not a 'why is he doing that' kind of moment.
Now, let's hop in the time machine to Ronnie 'Ray gun' Reagan and his stance on 'assault weapons', and what he did to limit or band them in the US. Let us take a walk through time and see if the illustrious, steadfast, principled demi-god was as 'conservative' and constitutional as the modern day talking heads on radio and Fox channel,( news would be too generous of a description) as well as Topix posters nation wide believe he was.

Control, Barack Obama or Ronald Reagan?
Ronald Reagan's statements on gun control would shock the current Republican party, who hold him up as a standard bearer.
By Brad Kava | January 16, 2013

"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.''---Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.

On the day President Barack Obama outlined his plan to make the country safer from crazy people with assault weapons, Ronald Reagan has been invoked in the debate by both sides.

Obama cited Reagan's opposition to military-style weapons.

“And by the way, so did Ronald Reagan, one of the staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment, who wrote to Congress in 1994 urging them — this is Ronald Reagan speaking — urging them to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of military-style assault weapons."

Reagan, who was shot while president in March, 1981, backed a ban on assault weapons and the Brady Bill, proposed by an anti-gun group formed by the family of Reagan's press secretary, Jim Brady, who was also shot.(See video here.)

Obama Wednesday signed executive orders to strengthen background checks on gun sales, research the causes of gun violence, encourage mental health providers to report patients who own guns and may be prone to violence. Complete list here.

He also encouraged Congress to ban assault weapons, step-up background checks on secondary sellers and purchasers and hire a director of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms department, which has gone vacant for six years.(see full text of his speech here.)

You people have some splaning to doooo!
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#3464 Jan 27, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>That's sort of irrelevant. The court did make determinations on it and did have something to say about it and those determination and saying will have weight in any other case concerning it. To pretend that the DC heller case was resolved and only reached as far as Washington D.C.'s ability to forbid handguns is missing everything in the ruling.
Is it sort of irrelevant. That's what dicta is. The operative part of the Heller ruling could be boiled down to about one sentence.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#3465 Jan 27, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, moron...we're speaking of Congress conducting pro forma sessions.
Yeah. That's a good point. What other Senate has held pro forma sessions to obstruct recess appointments?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 14 min xxxrayted 30,473
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 31 min Neutral Party 3,208
Where are all the original legacy posters? 37 min Duke for Mayor 101
Orange barrels, gas price hike await Labor Day ... 54 min WALK NOT DRIVE 1
Feds say Pakistan unlikely to return fugitive O... 58 min NAIVE JUDGE 2
Was Bergdahl Planned ALL ALONG?? 4 hr gibdig 16
Almighty God OR rabid allah??? 4 hr gibdig 11
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 14 hr Disgraced 2,282
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••