?

Log in

My tweets

Read more...Collapse )

Tags:

My tweets

Read more...Collapse )</lj-cut

Tags:

My tweets

Read more...Collapse )

Tags:

My tweets

Read more...Collapse )

Tags:

hi I'm back

New Freepathon is on.

I know for a fact they made that last quarter. That's right, Free Rebuplic makes about $350,000 a year on fundraisers. Most of the money goes to paying JimRob's family to run the thing. Very little goes to buying servers (which are dirt cheap these days) or funding campaigns. Alllll that money goes to JimRob... who also gets Disability from the government he hates.

I wish I could make this shit up.

The Imortal Life of Henrietta Lecks

So, like always, I'm about three years late. Still, this is a really good book, about the woman the first (and most prolific) immortal cell line was taken from. Anyway, I'm not going to review this because I'm really only good at reviewing horrible shit or silly romances. I just want to say this is a really good book and if you haven't read it check it out!

New York Times Review
In case you've been living under a rock the Affordable Care Act was upheld by the Supreme Court 5 to 4 ruling. The swing vote, strangely enough, was Chief Justice Roberts who is one of the conservatives on the bench. Naturally the Free Republic has been imploding. So get out your popcorn, because it goes great with Freeper Tears.

Roberts Has No Consecince (sic)

Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:51:25 PM by originalbuckeye

Has the SCOTUS EVER taken an unConstitutional law and changed the original premise to make it Constitutional? If the new 'wording' (TAX) had been in the original Bill, it NEVER would have passed!
TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: judicialactivism; mandate; scotus; vanity
Has this EVER happened? Why didn't they send it back to the House and Senate for a revote? Has the SCOTUS ever been able to order a Tax on the People all by themselves?? What is happening to our once great country? RIP, late, once great USA.
1 posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:51:31 PM by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
To: originalbuckeye

I’m with ya brother. Hard to be as PO’d as I am right now.

2 posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:55:23 PM by RatRipper (Obama, YOU LIE!!! . . .again and again and again and again, ad infinitum. . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: originalbuckeye

I have no idea. As far as I’m concerned I wish the GOP would just ignore it. Screw it. Obama enforces only the laws he wishes to enforce. We should do the same.

3 posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:55:53 PM by CommieCutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: originalbuckeye

Most of the Supremes decisions of late merely serve to reinforce and expand government power. Kelo?

The original concept of the court being there to defend the constitution and interpret laws based on it has been lost.

And this has been lost because Congress has never impeached a Supreme to maintain the primary goal of the Judicial.

4 posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:57:06 PM by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: originalbuckeye; moder_ator

Please spell conscience correctly in the title. Thanks.

5 posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:57:26 PM by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Those are literally the first five comments.

Actually, Justice Roberts Demolished Obama In His Supreme Court Ruling

Ahh, cognitive dissonance at it's finest.

To: little jeremiah

The court majority also gave conservatives a major victory by giving states more rights to not participate in parts of the law as well.

That restricts federal power, as does the overwhelming victory on the Commerce Clause that will resonate for decades to come.

The overall outcome IS BAD....IT’S AWFUL THE BILL REMAINS.

But, in the long run, this very well could end up being good for us and the country so long as we can get the law repealed.

12 posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:20:46 PM by rwfromkansas ("Carve your name on hearts, not marble." - C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: little jeremiah

I can’t seem to find inthe Constitution where the chief unJustice of the subPreme court is licit in defining what is a tax when the Congress has passed a bill and it is signed into law wihtout being defined as a tax. Can you help me out here? If it is a tax, then little barry bastard commie (Roberts’ boss, obviously) cannot unilaterally exclude whole groups and industries from the lawfully passed tax, so little barry should ne impeached and removed for violating his oath to the Constitution. If it is not a tax then the fool pirate Roberts should have rejected the entire freakin’ monstrosity based upon what he opened with. The man is about as sound as gummy bears.

13 posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:20:56 PM by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


I swear, Freepers are third graders. Actually, I'm pretty sure your average third-grader is more mature than that.

Oh god leave his kids out of this: Roberts Flashback: NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE'S CHILDREN
To: biggredd1

Blackmail. It’s the Chicago way.

3 posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:32:41 PM by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
To: biggredd1
So where does this go? Illegal adoption? Obama or dems had something on Roberts?
4 posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:33:21 PM by Bronzy (No more RINO's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
To: jimbo123
Rush said something about a paper he had that suggested someone used "pressure" on Roberts to uphold the massive Obomatax bill? He didn't say what paper he had, though.

I wonder if there was a problem with his childrens paperwork? I'm sure he loves his kids dearly , and definitely wouldn't want to lose them because of a technicality.
5 posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:35:57 PM by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: concerned about politics

I think it had something to do with questions the country of origin of his adopted children.

6 posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:40:11 PM by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
To: Bronzy

The adoption may be quite legal but if the birth parents showed up claiming they wanted the children back you can find yourself in quite mess.

7 posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:40:40 PM by Harmless Teddy Bear (Demons run when a good man goes to war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


*stares*

Anyway, there's more there if you want to go digging. I can't seem to find the original thread about the decision but I'm sure it was full of much wailing and nashing of teeth.

I've turned off comment notifications

I've only turned off notifications for comments I make, not comments made to my journal or posts. It's just temporary, because I don't want to deal with being dogpiled over at sf_drama. Make one bad joke and they hate you forever. Sheesh.

Anyway, if you followed me here from there in order to dig up dirt talk to me, feel free to comment in this entry or the previous one, but not the others, thank you. I'd really appreciate it.

In the mean time, here's Ellen Degeneres doing a dramatic reading of Fifty Shades of Grey.



I think I might have to review this book as the next in my Horrible Books I've Read series. Oh god *stares in horror*

milk=rape

Yes how dare I make a joke about people who think milk=rape. Obviously I am a horrible person.

/finishes her cup of rape