carlfense

I don't think that is a very convincing argument. If the founders wanted future generations to follow their intent (as you seem to believe) instead of writing the Constitution as a framework that facilitates a flexible discussion (as I believe on most days) wouldn't they have said so?

On what evidence do you base your belief? I don't claim absolute authority. The big constitutional questions are almost always gray areas.

So scientists put out the headline warmest year ever to get headlines with no data then a couple days later release a new report silently that well there's a 38% chance it was. Just more spin on the climate change doomsday, I don't doubt there is global warming but I do doubt the severity and agenda. This would be quite significant if the 2014 data was our only data point. As in, if the case for global warming was based solely on this one study of 2014 temperatures you'd have a point. It wasn't . . . it isn't . . . and you don't.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/holder-ends-seized-asset-sharing-process-that-split-billions-with-local-state-police/2015/01/16/0e7ca058-99d4-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html

^^^See! There is still a shred of doubt! Let's ignore this! $$$$$

You can believe and define marriage however you'd like. No one is going to force you to marry someone of the same sex . . . but it's pretty clear that you are in favor of forcing others to conform their behavior to your beliefs. Appealing to the founders is a sad little exercise. The biggest tragedy of the analytical framework that Scalia (not the founders) created is that it allows a legion of armchair internet judges to claim absolute authority. Originalism is one way of interpreting law. (I'd also add that Scalia works backwards from his desired outcome.)

You have no idea what a 'foundation of our society' actually is. Your religion is not the basis for society. Our Constitution forbids using your religion as a basis of law. Our Constitution requires at all people are treated equally. Marriage existed centuries before your religion was invented. It does not belong to you, and the real world is tired of outdated mythology setting rules in the modern world.This! And this is exactly why Scalia shouldn't be a justice Actually, we should have 8 more justices just like Scalia.lol.

Which oil spills do you give a sh#t about? If the only relevant oil spill cleanups are those of the unbuilt pipeline in question I think that we might get a skewed picture, eh? You are the one comparing a leak that was 5100 ft underwater to one that "could" be 5-10 ft underground. Big difference don't you think?Are you going to answer the question?

Which oil spills do you give a sh#t about? If the only relevant oil spill cleanups are those of the unbuilt pipeline in question I think that we might get a skewed picture, eh?

Could you elaborate? This is exactly when the SCOTUS should take the issue.

Oh, sure. But it is probably going to be the first bill that the GOP Congress gets to President Obama's desk. That tells me that it's a huge (and fake, I might add) issue for Republicans. I think that less than 20% of GOP voters disapprove.

So you don't see any problem with the taking of land against the wishes of landowners? Which oil spill cleanup projects should I study to make me believe that these for profit companies will do more than the bare minimum required by law? Last I heard BP was fighting tooth and nail to not pay for their gulf disaster.

As a nurse, do you routinely post passive aggressive articles on Facebook about how unappreciated and thankless your job is? (Kidding . . . but a pretty high proportion of nurses that I'm FB friends with do the above.)

Someone answer plz I haven't been following this issue at all Are you a party line Republican voter? If so, you support the pipeline wholeheartedly because we need the 35 permanent jobs and you might think that Canadian oil is not from a foreign country. Are you concerned about private property rights and the ability of the government to take private land against the landowners wishes? If so, you're against the pipeline because a foreign corporation is using the US government to take privately held land even if the landowner doesn't want to sell. Are you concerned about the inevitable spills of oil and the secret cocktail of chemicals that Transcanada injects into the oil? If so, you're probably against the pipeline or at least want to ensure that it is as safe as possible. Personally, I see virtually no benefit for the US and plenty of risk and trampling of property rights. That said, I do expect the pipeline to be built eventually and I wish that we would make that completion conditional on Transcanada paying a set amount into an account for each and every barrel of oil pumped through the line. That account, up to a certain dollar amount, should be held to pay for cleaning up spills. Every dollar collected in excess of that amount should be dumped into the general fund, or the highway trust, or SS, or wherever. Otherwise I don't see any reason why we should accept these risks to benefit a foreign corporation and China.

Eh?

I'd argue that it at least partially does answer your question. One major difference in how a police officer in Germany or Britain does his/her job is that they get shot at a lot less.

And their base is largely Christian, and GOP policies & the effects of those policies are the antithesis of what Christ calls Christians to do. It's baffling. I'd say that a good portion of them are probably Christianists rather than Christians. Also, if you want to be depressed read What's the Matter with Kansas. http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X

The idea was that it was going to light a fire under the Kansas economy. You know . . . the old rising tide lifting all boats myth. What it actually did was made the rich richer and now they have to cut benefits for the poor to pay for it. So basically, it's the GOP in a nutshell.

Yes. This. Exactly. Now if your business employs secretaries . . . of course they have to pay taxes. Edit: grammar

What are "pass through" businesses? OK, then I am a little confused. I know it's been quite a while ago, but, I used to own a sole proprietorship in Iowa. I am almost positive that the business didn't have to file income taxes. It was all considered my own income and we filed once just for us personally. So, what is different from that and what Brownback has going on? The bold is the difference . . . if Iowa law was like current law in Kansas your income from the business would have been completely untaxed by the state. Your business wouldn't have paid income taxes on that money. You wouldn't have paid income taxes on that money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI#t=181

But, knapplc! Both sides!

What are "pass through" businesses?

What are the major differences between how a police officer in the US does his job compared to one in Britain, Germany or Italy? For one thing the populace that they police is not nearly as heavily armed. (I just checked to make sure that I was remembering correctly . . . and wow. At least the US still leads in something? )