I read in the July 29 Sun Journal that Sen. Olympia Snowe is going to support the elevation of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Shame on Sen. Snowe.
Snowe claims that the nominee has "respect for the rule of law." That is demonstrably false.
Kagan barred military recruiters from Harvard University. Her explanation for doing that was utterly inadequate. Her evasive testimony to the Judiciary Committee was characterized by Sen. Jeff Sessions as "totally divorced from reality." That's a polite way of saying that she lied.
Congress had passed a law explicitly making her actions illegal. As long as Harvard received federal funds, she had no right to refuse military recruiters access to students on campus.
Beyond that, she has shown a hostility to the Second Amendment right of Americans to "keep and bear arms" for personal protection. She apparently thinks that we may safely rely on the police to protect the public from rapists and murderers. We all know that in every case, the police arrive after the murder has occurred. Through the years, thousands of women have been murdered while they were supposedly under a protection order.
Finally, we learn that Snowe is willing to elevate to the nation's highest court a person who has had no real courtroom experience as a judge, never had any business experience, never met a payroll, has been primarily a very liberal political activist, and will certainly have an enormous impact on life in the U.S.A. if confirmed.
Harvey Lord, South Paris
Report a correction
" She's been confirmed, take
" She's been confirmed, take that!"...glad to see we're still in the 5th grade with cutting intellectual debate like that!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Beats anything you've
posted lately, generally attacks and lies
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Damn, Harvey!!! Judges should have had to meet Payrolls??
Who did you want them to have on the take???
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.To Veritas....a police/gun question
I reposted this comment again in the hope you will see it. Sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused anyone.
Veritas, I know we had a *testy* exchange in a separate thread, but I actually have a question that you may be able to answer...
I know you said you are a retired police officer. It seems like a few people participating in this thread seem to think that the police are not doing their jobs and that it is up to the civilian to arm themselves and take the law into their own hands. What is your take, as a former officer, on the notion of people arming themselves as self-defense? Clearly people already do this, but I wonder how things would need to change at the police level to deal with such a shift? I know police already are overworked and underpaid, but I only see carrying guns as contributing to the obstacles police already face. I am not understanding how this could create a more stable, lawful society.
I live in Arizona, and it seems like everyone and their brother carry weapons here (I dont think you can conceal them in AZ). Was in walmart last week and this dude went to bend over and pick up something from a botton asile shelf and his handgun fell out of his sweatpants and onto the floor. Sure glad it did not go off. My fiance and I were also walking the dogs and one of my neighbors walked by and petted the dogs, and I could not help but notice his handgun (he saw that my eyes got big and explained it was a 9mm, whatever that is). I was also in a restaurant, and a man and woman had matching guns and hosters...It just scares me to think that just about anyone can carry a gun.
Just a couple of thoughts.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.WTF? Who cares
what some Talebangelical teabagger like Harvey Lord thinks? He gets his "news" from three faulty sources - the Sun Journal, Faux News, and Rush Limpbaugh.
Oh wait he's serious? Allow me to laugh harder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Well thought out and
Well thought out and brilliantly constructed comment. I'll bet it's all true, too.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.2nd Amendment
The second amendment applied to a time of war against the British and not to the present tense of America. What we have now is a failure to communicate to paraphrase Cool Hand Luke. We have the zealots of arms control in open frankness about their intentions for weaponry. All the while during the time of the second there was no such thing as full automatic sub-machine guns, assault rifles, and who can forget the sniper and school shootings. Let alone how Bush protected the black market in his ruling against suing gun makers. As the gun makers slowly sell into the black market and provide access to weaponry gee would the founding fathers have hung Bush as a traitor and made examples of his treacherous cronies such as Rove by the same examples?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Guess what guns invaders would be using....
Any invading force into our country would be using automatic/ semi automatic weapons to invade with, so why should we regulate ourselves from having arms that can stand up to these potential invaders.. With the majority of our armies currently serving in wars in other countries what would happen if our borders were invaded and the numbers to defend were not present in our borders. Our citizens would have to act as citizen soldiers much like the minuteman did until our troops could return to defend our nation in numbers capable of doing so.. As far as Bush protecting the black market.....? Simply put the manufacturers would be tied up in court so much and spending so much on defending themselves that they would all be run out of buisiness with legal costs if they could be sued.. Guns dont kill people...People kill people... No gun ever picked itself up and shot someone.... A person pulled the trigger.....A similar analogy would be if we could sue auto manufacturers for any death that occurred from a car accident.. We have rules of the road which are laws, same as we do with guns and what is acceptable use of guns... Simply because someone drove a car and died or killed as a result of a car accident or using the vehicle as a weapon is not the liability of the manufacturer it is the liability of the drivers involved since he/she is the one in control of the car... Therfore the liabilities are not on the manufacturer of guns but on the bearer of the gun.... In my opinion it had nothing to do with the black market....The black market will exist regardless of any laws from any government...Its an illegal market, Why would anyone believe that it would go away with liabilities being put on the manufacturers?... It doesnt make sense... The market is not driven by gun manufacturers it is driven by demand and the desire to straw purchase weapons to make more than the MSRP on the weapons traded and subsequently the manufacturer is not the one selling the gun to the black market broker, It is the gun dealer who makes the sale by being lied to or otherwise mislead by he purchaser... If you dont like machine guns that is A-ok with me, but while you are reloading your black powder rifle I'll be defending my homestead with my legally owned automatic/semi automatic weapons thanx..
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Invading force
You sight it like a paranoid case living a charade under the facade of American consumerism in love with the free market for illegal arms sales. This is nothing except a ploy to exploit you're own lackluster sense of self-determination within the conventional arms market. Let us see here now that you express having semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons imagine those in the hands of KKK leaders, Neo-Nazi leaders, and last but not least home grown terrorists of different inclinations and pathologies. The extreme Christian Right and other such facets of their ilk. As for protecting the gun companies you limp the company line really well, so the families of Columbine should not be reimbursed? Despite, the factors that certain marketers had sold the weapons on the black market?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Who is the paranoid one??
joe do you really think that making it illegal for law abiding citizens to own firearms would really keep the guns out of he wacko KKK,Neo Nazi or home grown terrorists hands??. Or that it would it make it better to be able to put the gun manufacturers out of buisiness by tieing them up in frivolous litigation?? REALITY CHECK!!!! The black market will exist regardles of what is illegal... Instead criminals would be buying foreign arms on the black market.. They would have the guns and the citizen would not... Does that really make anyone safer???(just the criminals) If you think so then you are out of touch with reality.. Take anything under the sun that is illegal and look into those who participate in the illegal activity.. Some still get away with it .. whether its stealing cars, committing murder,rape, kidnapping, fraud..etc the list goes on.....Just because something is illegal does not stop the criminal element from committing the crime.. OH wouldnt it be a wonderful world if it did work that way....But it doesnt .. So as long as there is a criminal element out there and the law abiding utopea does not exist, I and many others will keep our guns to protect ourselves ,loved-ones, and the innocent victims out there....Though your utopian ideals are commendable they are just not realistic and dont reflect reality as we know it.. No its not paranoia but ask yourself a question. Do you buy flood,fire,or auto insurance because your paranoid thay you will lose your home to one or the other?..No its just the smart thing to do to be prepared incase something were to happen.... Its the same thing to gun owners..I want my guns just in case someone tries to make me a statistic.. Id rather the criminal become the statistic instead..... BTW the gun manufacturer had nothing to do with columbine.... That kid had guns illegally..He did not go to the manufacturer to buy his guns...He didnt even go to a dealer....Like i said if the criminals want them they will get them regardless of whether they are illegal or not...But I will preserve my right to shoot back... Thanks for making the point for me....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.What
They went through a black market arms dealers and obtained the weapons which was well documented by Fox and even by MSNBC. Do you want to keep pulling the ruse? Even the dealer admitted he was pressured by the manufactures to sell them on the street. After having that information though President Bush stopped all investigations and signed his little bill into law to protect those in the black market and the weapons makers themselves. You took my point and spun it all like Karl Rove so enjoy these little points.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.As far as Kagan is concerned,
As far as Kagan is concerned, all we can hop for now is that she screws up so bad in the public spectrum that she is forced to resign her position and is shamed into solitude somewhere far away from the legal/political scene..
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Just a few thoughts on 2nd amendment
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson, 1803
I think Jefferson knew better than anyone what the intent of the second amendment was.. And yes it still rings true today... And our own government is not exempt from the category of foe... The more intrusive they become into our lives the more tyrannical and oppressive they become... The day we give up our guns is the day we are all enslaved by government.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.We must never forget, KD,
We must never forget, KD, everything they've been doing to us so far, they've been doing while we still have guns. Just think for a minute...about what will happen if we EVER allow them to take those guns away frum us.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Gee...sorry but it sounds
Gee...sorry but it sounds like you are CON-fused about the CON-stitution. Are you a CON-stitutional attorney? If not, were you there when the founding fathers wrote the CON-stitution? If you were you are one OLD cranky yankee. It seems the "chicken little" anti second amendment people want to paint a picture that if everyone had guns it would be the wild west all over again. Guess what, there are hundreds of millions of weapons in our society and the rampent "guns-a-blazin'" isn't happening. Just take a look at what happened in Kennesaw GA. back in the early 80's every houshold had to have a gun and subsiquently violent home burgleries when done I've read as much as 89% but as we all know statistics are only as valid as who is collecting the information. I do however believe there was a significant reduction of violent crime and The city of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation's "10 best towns for families". So sorry to CON-tradict your post but I fail to see why you are attempting to paint such a vile picture of gun owership.
One last thing...what do you derive from the name calling anyway? It is clear you are an intelligent person who could make their case with out the "Republi-CON" name calling. It detracts and debases your arguments. Maybe just notch it down a bit and make your points...I think the board and its posters would appreciate it if we all, yes including me since I tend to react to tron, SSDD, Lil, veritas...et.al. So what is it that makes you cross the line of logical argument to emmotionally driven argument? I sincerely would like to know.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Honestly, at times it is more
Honestly, at times it is more of little brothers and sisters fighting than an open discussion that adds anything to the subject matter.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Very keen observation
Very keen observation
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.the above post was in reply
the above post was in reply to cranky yankees post...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.wow
Lil, your comment really is out of line here. Just because someone has a 'school' education does not mean they are smarter then someone else. I know people with 'street' smarts that are more knowledgeable then someone with a 'school' education. Some people with street smarts are smarter then someone with a masters degree! It all starts with 'common sense'...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I agree
I agree a piece of paper does not confer intelligence, and I think you may have misinterpreted my comment. It was in reply to thinkingman's comment about how he's oh so smart, but couldn't spell graduation.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.my spelling is fine, my
my spelling is fine, my typing sucks....we've been down that road before...course some of lil's posts are so insightful.....thanks for not contributing anything to the conversation.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.rants
And your juvenile rants against tron add what?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.And your typing is an indication of your accounting
close enough, at least that's what they teach at Husson.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.yeah because all accountants
yeah because all accountants are incredible typists other than me...but glad to know your criteria for choosing an accountant...lemme guess, you choose a lawyer by how well he/she can dress a wound? you choose a barber by how well they know English literature? I hate to give away my youthful age but when I attended we hand wrote our assignments or hired someone to type for us. The computer lab was three stations keying into a DOS based system. Husson taught typing courses to people looking for a career as an administrative assistant or medical secretary, but we were never required to take typing for an accounting or any other business degree. Come to think of it, my typing didn't matter to get into grad school either....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.tabitha...the problem is
tabitha...the problem is "common sense" and "common courtesy" have dissapeared from our society as well as tolerance. Now no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions and they value their own wants above and sometimes at the detriment of others freedoms. In the course of my life, I have meet many who thought their ivy-league education made them a superior intellect only to find out they were out smarted by street smart people...so I completely agree with you on your assessment above.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If you don't want to be outsmarted by 'Street-People'
Then don't 'Play in the Street'
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."Now you know how normal
"Now you know how normal people felt when Bush put his Zealots in there."
Interesting that you consider yourself to be "normal Ralphie." Can you describe what normal is.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.So let's look at the Second
So let's look at the Second Amendment. It states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This amendment was written at a time when a standing army did not exist and was not considered. It was also at a time when towns and states did not have viable police forces. Therefore, for COMMON PROTECTION, the militia law, which was a carry over from English law, was still in place. A part of that militia law required that every able bodied male from the age of 16 to 60 must take part in the militia and that they had to provide (among other things) their own serviceable long arm or face a fine. Today the discussion NEVER includes the part about "a well regulated militia," only "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Even the Supreme Court failed to grasp the meaning and context of the second amendment and as a result they actually legislated from the bench (something that the Republi-CONS seem to think is a sin ONLY when someone else does it), that every body has the right to bear arms unconditionally.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.thank you
thank you cranky yankee. What was meant by the second amendment over two hundred years ago has changed as our society has evolved. Regardless, people will read it word for word and interpret it out of context.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.We have the right to own,
We have the right to own, bear and carry guns. Why does that require so much interpretation? Seems pretty simple; even the parrot gets it and he's a lib, as most of you should know by now.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It was written when the only
It was written when the only standing army known to this continent was the british army. And that was considered...They wanted theyre tax dollars for funding the settling of the nation..We wanted to repay the dept with only our wood but they wanted the wood and the taxes leaving us with nothing but what we could muster after we meet theyre quotas worth of wood and taxes... We deemed it as excessive taxation without representation and thus broke away from british rule and governing.. I wont even dive into the role the Masons played in this economic coup of england and the role they play today in the economics of the nation and the world...Thus we needed to have an ammendment that would guarantee that the citizens could defend they're freedom and homes from the potential invaders trying to take our lands and money until a proper army could relieve them.. As far as the courts not recognizing the "well regulated militia" side of the amendment today, they dont want the people to think they have the power to rise up against this government when the government is overstepping its powers.. This was an absolute neccessity at the time it awas written since we did not have a formal military. However it is still vital to this day to protect the sanctity and existence of our great nation.. History has shown that governments become corrupt. What power would the people have against they're currupt government if they had no right to bear arms.. God forbid this day were to come, but ask yourself, What if... Better to have a provision in place then to be powerless, wishing the 2nd amendment was intact..
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.typo above...oops..
Thank god the courts ruled as they did and upheld the ammendment as it was written and not as the government wants it enterepreted to be today.. Above should read The government does not want the people to think they have the power to rise up against this government when the government is overstepping its powers. sorry typing to fast..
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You'de better read the decision.
The court didn't uphold the Amendment as written. Scalia, in a 5-4 decision, amputated the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment.
But hey, what's the Constitution when we completely ignore a few clauses, more or less. The Framers didn't know what the flock they were wasting ink on, anyway.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.One of my favorite sayings
One of my favorite sayings with politics is:
Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo
It's referring to how, in a democracy, you have 4 outlets to change the government:
You can have public debate(soap box);
You can vote the bums out(ballot box);
You can use jury nullification to stop bad law(jury box);
You can take up arms in resistance(ammo box).
Our founders knew that, and having just fought a war of rebellion, wanted to make sure that no matter what, that the American people would have access to guns to fight off ANY tyrant, foreign or domestic.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Well put, pub....
Well put, pub....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Second Amendment Remedies.....
That's what Tea-Party Activist Sharon Angle - now Republican Senatorial Candidate in Nevada preaches as a solution to her Democratic foe Harry Reid.
Sure...like Lee Harvey Oswald exercised a 'Second Amendment Remedy' against the Kennedy Administration.
Where do these freakin' whack jobs come from????
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Second Amendment, I do have a legit question
Veritas, I know we had a *testy* exchange in a separate thread, but I actually have a question that you may be able to answer...
I know you said you are a retired police officer. It seems like a few people participating in this thread seem to think that the police are not doing their jobs and that it is up to the civilian to arm themselves and take the law into their own hands. What is your take, as a former officer, on the notion of people arming themselves as self-defense? Clearly people already do this, but I wonder how things would need to change at the police level to deal with such a shift? I know police already are overworked and underpaid, but I only see carrying guns as contributing to the obstacles police already face. I am not understanding how this could create a more stable, lawful society.
I live in Arizona, and it seems like everyone and their brother carry weapons here (I dont think you can conceal them in AZ). Was in walmart last week and this dude went to bend over and pick up something from a botton asile shelf and his handgun fell out of his sweatpants and onto the floor. Sure glad it did not go off. My fiance and I were also walking the dogs and one of my neighbors walked by and petted the dogs, and I could not help but notice his handgun (he saw that my eyes got big and explained it was a 9mm, whatever that is). I was also in a restaurant, and a man and woman had matching guns and hosters...It just scares me to think that just about anyone can carry a gun.
Just a couple of thoughts.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.America...land of the free;
America...land of the free; home of the well armed.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Well Armed - but Clueless....
Add booze and Faux-snooze and you've got a real recipe for disaster!!!!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I know...ain't it cool?
I know...ain't it cool? (paraphrasing the parrot here)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Sorry Veritas, but we are a
Sorry Veritas, but we are a nation of Nutsos.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Lets amend the constitution
Lets amend the constitution if you disagree with it, but lets not interpret it to fit our own prejudices...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Why not?? Justice Scalia had no problem with that.....
Under District of Columbia V. Heller, 554US(2008) He ruled that the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", had absolutly no bearing on the Amendment's meaning.
So he essential lopped it off.
Yep - performed a frontal lobotomy right there on the Second Amendment; in fact, basing much of his opinion on 'English Common Law' - the same Law which now forbids Britons the private ownership of firearms.
Neato!! Jurisprudential gymnastics capable of only the most activist judges. Activities Conservatives always decry - unless it benefits them.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I always vote Democrat
That's why I voted for Snowe! Keep up the great work Republican Senators. (wink, wink)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Kagan didn't bar requiters
Kagan didn't bar requiters from using the until after the 3rd Circuit court struck down the Solomon Amendment. So when she did it, it wasn't illegal.
I found this after doing a simple google search. Maybe it's just me, but maybe Snowe did a bit more homework than you did writing this letter Harvey.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."Kagan barred military
"Kagan barred military recruiters from Harvard University" Another Beck/Limbaugh sound bite. Elena Kagan followed the policies of her employer, Harvard University. Harvard's policy was that as a condition of receiving access to the Office of Career Services, all recruiters (business as well as military) must pledge not to discriminate against students, including based on sexual orientation. Because of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, military recruiters were routinely barred from access to the OCS. However, it did allow them on campus through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association, a student group. The recruiters met with students in the same classrooms, just under different sponsorship. So if Harvey still believes that Kagan barred military recruiters from Harvard's campus, then he likewise must believe in unicorns and conspiracy theories. Time to turn off Faux Snooze and do some real research on the truth-something the Republi-CONS seem to be avoiding these days.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.confirmed
She's been confirmed, take that!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.HA HA
How do you like it now!!!!! Now you know how normal people felt when Bush put his Zealots in there. Take some rolaids and wait 6 more years and MAYBE by then people will have forgot about your BUSH so you get another Bush in. Jeb could finish where W left off.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Second Amendment
Ok, strictly speaking, the Second Amendment does state the right to "keep and bear arms" like you said. It think it is apparent, though, that with time our definitions of this right has changed or at least should be re-evaluated. I have a difficult time with the rationale that everyone should bear arms for "self-defense". Have we, as a society, reverted back to the ideas so prominent in the days of the "Wild West"??? I find it disturbing that everyone has a right to bear arms and the "winner" will be the one who draws the quickest. What would happen if everyone decided to take the law into their own hands????
Is shooting people a logical solution many problems? This notion is so renegade!! I absolutely do not condone rapists (they disgust me), but isnt it hypocritical to declare someone guilty without giving one the benefit of doubt, and shooting them because we presume they are guilty?? I find this poor justification for the right to bear arms. Furthermore, police are overburdened and underpaid. Please do not blame them for all that goes wrong. It is unfortunate, but the police cannot be "Everywhere" all the time.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."What would happen if
"What would happen if everyone decided to take the law into their own hands???"...Easy..law and order would prevail. An armed society would be a polite society. How's the current system working? Do you see the national crime rate going down any?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.well...
If it was left up to people like you, well, we would have a bunch of lawless, renegade pirates!!!
Not sure what your definition of "law and order" is, but it scares the hell out of me.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.People like ME? What do YOU
People like ME? What do YOU know about people like ME? My definition of law and order SHOULD scare the hell out of you because it's what we're going to end up with if the democrats remain in power. It's called ANARCHY.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I suppose you feel that YOU
would be a better candidate, so tell us, why should you even be considered? In fact, what gives you the ability to make such a monumental decision? In other words,what credentials to YOU have to judge?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.NO surprise - dumb questions posed by tron
tron - here's another question to be asked - even if this person did answer your question - what gives you the right to judge him?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.My teachers in school always taught me, that
there were never any dumb questions, just stupid people. Guess we know which you are.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Just pointing out what a
Just pointing out what a hypocrit you continue to be on these blogs..you question someones judgement ability and then proceeed to judge them yourself. Glad to see this was your best response, but then again, only one of us gradated from high school and college, so yes we do know who the stupid one is - it would be the ones asking hypocritical questions. Whats that old line from the bible - "let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" sorry if i paraphrased, I'm not nor have ever confessed to be a biblical scholar.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.problem
Notice any problem here? "only one of us gradated from high school and college, so yes we do know who the stupid one is" And what was that about stones?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Lil, call it what you will,
Lil, call it what you will, as long as you share living quarters with tron its hard for anyone to take you seriously.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Wow....is that true? That
Wow....is that true?
That explains a whole bunch of stuff on so many levels.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I was merely asking Mr. Lord what credentials
he had to determine that Justice Kagan was unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. Ms. Snowe interviewed her for over an hour, read information about her and studied her positions. I think she is much more qualified to make a decision than Mr. Lord, or even you. And through my life I have met many stupid people who use their degrees as fancy wallpaper, nothing more. Like you.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.and i was just asking you
and i was just asking you what credentials you had to judge him. You attack him for asking and then you do the verys ame thing, which by my definition is hypocracy. My degree is more than wallpaper, its allowed me to live a very comfortable life, one that you are and always have been very jealous of as evidenced by some of your posts. Get over it!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The only attack is yours.
I merely asked questions of Mr. Lord, you assume and interpreted an attack. That's what you and your friends do, make assumptions then attack based on those assumptions. And I have no jealousy of you, in fact I pity you. Despite all your success, you feel you don't receive the respect you deserve. The irony is you have more respect then you've earned.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.