PastaJoe

You're free to kill anyone you want. Just be prepared to face the legal consequences.

Chrysler needed the financial backing of Fiat to remain viable, the gov't loans were dependent on getting additional private backing.

Fair enough. I hope you and others, such as politicians who support that position, make that view clear when discussing the issue in public forums, so the voters are fully informed what making abortions illegal will mean from a legal standpoint.

I turned the radio on last night and it was on a station that plays one of the right wing commentators, Bill Cunningham. I listened for a couple of minutes to hear what he was ranting about, and every time he said the judge's name, he called her Judge SotoMANURE. Nice.

I'd like to hear from those that believe abortion is murder, how far are you willing to take the issue legally? If I assume correctly, you would like to make abortion illegal. So given it being illegal, would you want to charge a doctor performing an abortion with murder? And if you do, then logically you would have to charge the expectant woman with accessory to murder, since she is the one to request and pay for the murder. I don't see how you could be consistent and charge the doctor but not the woman.

Unbelievable that some here trivialize, if not justify, the fact that a person in America was shot in their church because someone disagreed with their LEGAL profession.

Yes, the 2nd amendment as it pertains to Heller is settled law. But the type of weapon (automatic, semiautomatic) is still open to interpretation.

She is Catholic, so I wonder if the right would mind if she used her background and experiences to rule against Roe v Wade. But it was reported that she told Obama that she believes in leaving "settled law" alone.

Ted Olson, the staunch conservative Republican lawyer who was Bush's lawyer in Bush v. Gore, is now working to overturn Prop 8 in Calif. because he believes it violates the 14th amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. "The constitution protects individuals' basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote. If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution. We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy…I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation." http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...--46137917.html

Supreme Court Justice Alito's own words during his confirmation: ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. ... And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. [...] And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/a...k_n_208531.html Is Alito a racist because he would use his ethnic background to help decide?

I would argue that they have the same in common; a war at this point would end in destruction of both sides. And I think it's stereotyping to think that most Israelis and most Arabs hate each other. The majority would be happy to just go on with their own lives without anyone else bothering them. It's the few extremists on both sides that stir the pot, just like the political discourse in our country.

So you only think an agreement is possible when people like each other? We lived for half a decade with an uneasy agreement with the Soviet Union, always working to reduce tensions and agree to arms control, while not liking each other and not completely trusting. Your black and white view of the world is an impediment to progress, not a step forward.

"Deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney

Obama is the president of the U.S., not Israel. Therefore he wants to do what is in the best interest of the U.S., which in this case would also benefit Israel in the long run. Middle East leaders, including moderate pro-U.S. leaders like Hussian in Jordan and Mubarek in Egypt, all agree that a resolution to the Palestinian issue would do the most to insure a lasting peace with Israel, and would give them more moral justification for speaking up against Iran.

Smart move, marry the money. In a few years after the divorce he'll be set financially for life, and can hook up with the real hottie, Sabrina the witch. There was a Jughead issue in the past year where Jughead and the gang went to the Buffalo Wing Festival. http://www.buffalonews.com/101/story/408110.html

I liked all of them, but if I had to rank them it would be: 1. Star Trek 2. Watchmen 3. Terminator 4. Wolverine I felt satisfied that I got a full story with the first two, but with Terminator it ended with too many open questions (which isn't unusual), and Wolverine didn't make enough use of the supporting characters.

And how many of them staying open contributed to Republicans instead of Democrats? It's not surprising that business owners would contribute more to the party that typically favors the owner over the worker with tax breaks and deregulation.

I can't say, I don't know the details of the case or the basis of the ruling. In general, I don't care if gays get married in civil ceremonies, I've yet to be convinced as to how it adversely affects my marriage.

Why is this an issue, I thought Bush's tough "Axis of Evil" talk and allowing other countries to negotiate for us eliminated nuclear weapons in North Korea. Guess not. Now the genie's out of the bottle. Get the broom Obama, another mess to clean up on aisle 4.

I'd call her moderate-left. The important issue to me is that she view the Constitution as a living document, to be interpreted with consideration to the current culture and prevailing beliefs. To be consistent, a strict constructionist should argue the right to bear arms should only apply to the weapons of the time the Constitution was created, thus only single shot rifles and pistols should be allowed. But as we know they say they're strict, but are not. I'd rather have someone who backs up what they advocate with their decisions. In the end the conservatives will use her nomination for some fundraising, but unless she is found to have bought Rush some Oxycoton in a parking lot. she will be approved by the Senate by a large majority.

I look forward to conservatives publicly voicing opposition to a Hispanic woman who grew up in the projects, was previously appointed to the bench by George Bush I, and was previously approved by a number of Republicans in the Congress for her appointed court positions. The war of words between the Hatch/McCain/Powell moderate Republicans and the RNC (Rush/Newt/Cheney) conservative Republicans will be interesting. Conservatives don't like activist judges unless they're active in cases such as reversing Roe vs Wade, Terry Schivo, blurring the lines between church and state, and torture. Keep shrinking that Republican "big tent".

Eliminate field goals in overtime, force a team to score a touchdown. It would be more exciting.

The Bad Management Division Buffalo Cincinnati Detroit Oakland The Good Management Division Indianapolis New England NY Giants Pittsburgh The Carpet Bagger Division Arizona Baltimore St Louis Tennessee The Too Much Media Attention Division Dallas Green Bay NY Jets Washington The Warm Weather Division Houston Tampa Bay New Orleans San Diego The Former Glory Division Miami Denver Philadelphia San Francisco The 'C' Division Carolina Cleveland Chicago Kansas City The Leftovers Atlanta Jacksonville Minnesota Seattle

It's not useless to people like Dick Cheney who was willing to get false information as long as it was what he wanted to hear, namely a terrorist saying there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq so he could use it to support the administration's false claims. But if you want true information, it's useless, as has been stated my many military and CIA veterans who are familiar with the results.

The U.S. is not going to invade Pakistan in an Iraq-type occupation for the simple reason that we don't have the resources to do it. A more likely scenario is that the Pakistan military stage a coup with a wink from the U.S. if the Taliban appear to be in a position to overthrow the civilian leadership, and if needed a small force of U.S. troops would be brought in at the Pakistani's request to help secure the nukes, or the U.S. would even take the nuclear material out of the country. I wouldn't be surprised if this is an existing planned contingency.