-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Back to Reality
Author: Scoopster
Date: 06/30/2014 11:56:30
I'll get this one started today. I saw this article yesterday and couldn't help but wonder if it'd get anywhere near as much attention in the media (or from the usual RW goons) as Bergdahl's return.
Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun, 34, turned himself in and was being flown Sunday from an undisclosed location in the Middle East to Norfolk, Va. He is to be moved Monday to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, according to a spokesman, Capt. Eric Flanagan.
....
Hassoun disappeared from his unit in Iraq's western desert in June 2004. The following month he turned up unharmed in Beirut, Lebanon and blamed his disappearance on Islamic extremist kidnappers. He was returned to Lejeune and was about to face the military equivalent of a grand jury hearing when he disappeared again.
....
It is unclear where Hassoun, 34, has spent the past nine years after disappearing during a visit with relatives in West Jordan, Utah in December 2004. Nor is it known why he chose to turn himself in now. He was born in Lebanon and is a naturalized American citizen.
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Comment by 
Scoopster on 06/30/2014 12:09:53
Holy shit.. the NY Times has a story today about Blackwater threatening to KILL State Dept. employees investigating them for a 2007 incident where their guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians.
Scoopster on 06/30/2014 12:09:53
Holy shit.. the NY Times has a story today about Blackwater threatening to KILL State Dept. employees investigating them for a 2007 incident where their guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians.
Comment by 
wickedpam on 06/30/2014 12:43:15
wickedpam on 06/30/2014 12:43:15
Morning 
Comment by 
Raine on 06/30/2014 12:58:30
Good Morning! Thank you, Scoop for the blog!
Raine on 06/30/2014 12:58:30
Good Morning! Thank you, Scoop for the blog!
Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 13:12:06
The phuck!
Raine on 06/30/2014 13:12:06
Quote by Scoopster:
Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 13:46:45
Good morning, bloggers!!
I fear that we have corporations thinking that they are nations and can declare war.
Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 13:46:45
Quote by Raine:The phuck!Quote by Scoopster:
Good morning, bloggers!!
I fear that we have corporations thinking that they are nations and can declare war.
Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 13:49:58
In that case let's declare war on THEM.
Scoopster on 06/30/2014 13:49:58
Quote by Will in Chicago:Quote by Raine:The phuck!Quote by Scoopster:
Good morning, bloggers!!
I fear that we have corporations thinking that they are nations and can declare war.
In that case let's declare war on THEM.
Comment by 
Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 13:51:07
Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 13:51:07
Morning all. How was the party?
Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 13:51:28
Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 13:51:28
On the subject of corporations, Politico ran this opinion piece by billionaire Nick Lanauer on income inequality.
The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats
By NICK HANAUER
July/August 2014
Memo: From Nick Hanauer
To: My Fellow Zillionaires
But let’s speak frankly to each other. I’m not the smartest guy you’ve ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I’m not technical at all—I can’t write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?
I see pitchforks.
At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country—the 99.99 percent—is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.
But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.
And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won’t last.
Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 13:52:01
Funny that you should mention that. See my 2nd post of the day.
Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 13:52:01
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Will in Chicago:Quote by Raine:The phuck!Quote by Scoopster:
Good morning, bloggers!!
I fear that we have corporations thinking that they are nations and can declare war.
In that case let's declare war on THEM.
Funny that you should mention that. See my 2nd post of the day.
Comment by 
BobR on 06/30/2014 13:55:29
It was a blast
BobR on 06/30/2014 13:55:29
Quote by Mondobubba:
Morning all. How was the party?
It was a blast
Comment by wickedpam on 06/30/2014 13:56:07
Company outstanding
Beer 100% awesome
Raine loses lots of cups
Skittles Vodka dangerous
Mama Cat has a shoe fetish
wickedpam on 06/30/2014 13:56:07
Quote by Mondobubba:
Morning all. How was the party?
Company outstanding
Beer 100% awesome
Raine loses lots of cups
Skittles Vodka dangerous
Mama Cat has a shoe fetish
Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 13:56:08
It was a good time! Some excellent beer of course, and excellent grub. I missed the ribs unfortunately.
Scoopster on 06/30/2014 13:56:08
Quote by Mondobubba:
Morning all. How was the party?
It was a good time! Some excellent beer of course, and excellent grub. I missed the ribs unfortunately.
Comment by 
TriSec on 06/30/2014 13:56:51
TriSec on 06/30/2014 13:56:51
Morning. Care to join me in a bag of suck?
Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 13:57:37
Not right now we're waiting for a Supreme Court meltdown. But soon, I assure you!
Scoopster on 06/30/2014 13:57:37
Quote by TriSec:
Morning. Care to join me in a bag of suck?
Not right now we're waiting for a Supreme Court meltdown. But soon, I assure you!
Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 14:03:19
That's some timing.. excellent piece too, Every so often Politico runs something truly impressive and meaningful.
Scoopster on 06/30/2014 14:03:19
Quote by Will in Chicago:Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Will in Chicago:Quote by Raine:The phuck!Quote by Scoopster:
Good morning, bloggers!!
I fear that we have corporations thinking that they are nations and can declare war.
In that case let's declare war on THEM.
Funny that you should mention that. See my 2nd post of the day.
That's some timing.. excellent piece too, Every so often Politico runs something truly impressive and meaningful.
Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 14:03:20
Raine on 06/30/2014 14:03:20
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by TriSec:
Morning. Care to join me in a bag of suck?
Not right now we're waiting for a Supreme Court meltdown. But soon, I assure you!
Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:04:15
Let's say that I hold little hope in this court. We may have to get Congress to clean this mess, but this Congress is barely capable of changing a light bulb.
Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:04:15
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by TriSec:
Morning. Care to join me in a bag of suck?
Not right now we're waiting for a Supreme Court meltdown. But soon, I assure you!
Let's say that I hold little hope in this court. We may have to get Congress to clean this mess, but this Congress is barely capable of changing a light bulb.
Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:07:42
I shared the piece on Facebook. People are restless and will for now go to the ballot box. However, I fear that people like the Koch Brothers view the Hand Maiden's Tale as an instructional guide.
Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:07:42
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Will in Chicago:Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Will in Chicago:Quote by Raine:The phuck!Quote by Scoopster:
Good morning, bloggers!!
I fear that we have corporations thinking that they are nations and can declare war.
In that case let's declare war on THEM.
Funny that you should mention that. See my 2nd post of the day.
That's some timing.. excellent piece too, Every so often Politico runs something truly impressive and meaningful.
I shared the piece on Facebook. People are restless and will for now go to the ballot box. However, I fear that people like the Koch Brothers view the Hand Maiden's Tale as an instructional guide.
Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:09:04
Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:09:04
BREAKING from SCOTUSblog: In Harris, the Court refuses to extend Abood. These employees can't be required to contribute to unions.
The Court does not overrule Abood. That opinion has questionable foundations, so we reverse to extend Abood to the situation here
The Court does not overrule Abood. That opinion has questionable foundations, so we reverse to extend Abood to the situation here
Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:10:27
Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:10:27
So, the Supreme Court wants to put nails in the coffins of public unions. Time to fight back. By the way, anyone for 10 to 20 year term limits on Supreme Court justices?
Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 14:10:54
Scoopster on 06/30/2014 14:10:54
First decision up is Harris v. Quinn (Union dues for non-union employees).
5-4 against, but it's a mixed decision. They didn't outright rollback prior accepted rules allowing the dues, which is a good thing, but they didn't extend it.
5-4 against, but it's a mixed decision. They didn't outright rollback prior accepted rules allowing the dues, which is a good thing, but they didn't extend it.
Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:22:21
Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:22:21
Hobby Lobby Case in. Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage.
Comment by wickedpam on 06/30/2014 14:23:30
wickedpam on 06/30/2014 14:23:30
So basically Fuck You to all women
Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 14:25:04
Raine on 06/30/2014 14:25:04
SHIT SHIT SHIT.
Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 14:27:08
Raine on 06/30/2014 14:27:08
From SCOTUSBlog: It is extremely likely that the Obama administration will by regulation provide for the government to pay for the coverage. So it is unlikely that there will be a substantial gap in coverage. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.yaEwnW4w.dpuf
Comment by wickedpam on 06/30/2014 14:27:43
wickedpam on 06/30/2014 14:27:43
Time to prepare for the holy wars while we decide which version of God we're gonna be ruled under.
Comment by wickedpam on 06/30/2014 14:29:42
Sure cause with dickbag Boehner bending to the tea party and the crazy christian conservative will that's gonna happen.
wickedpam on 06/30/2014 14:29:42
Quote by Raine:
From SCOTUSBlog: It is extremely likely that the Obama administration will by regulation provide for the government to pay for the coverage. So it is unlikely that there will be a substantial gap in coverage. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.yaEwnW4w.dpuf
Sure cause with dickbag Boehner bending to the tea party and the crazy christian conservative will that's gonna happen.
Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 14:32:20
Scoopster on 06/30/2014 14:32:20
The whole majority opinion is based on that stupid fucking RFRA law... we need to get rid of that thing it's just as bad as DOMA.
Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 14:37:56
What is RFRA?
Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 14:37:56
Quote by Scoopster:
The whole majority opinion is based on that stupid fucking RFRA law... we need to get rid of that thing it's just as bad as DOMA.
What is RFRA?
Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 14:38:35
1993 Restoration of religious freedom act
Raine on 06/30/2014 14:38:35
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by Scoopster:
The whole majority opinion is based on that stupid fucking RFRA law... we need to get rid of that thing it's just as bad as DOMA.
What is RFRA?
Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 14:39:32
Raine on 06/30/2014 14:39:32
Here you go: The federal version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act dates back to 1993, when it was passed by Congress after a controversial Supreme Court decision in 1990 angered liberals and conservatives. But after Congress passed RFRA, the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the Act couldn’t be applied to states.
Currently, at least 22 states have their own versions of RFRA laws, as a response to the 1997 Supreme Court decision.
Here is the back story: In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), two American Indians who worked as private drug rehab counselors ingested peyote as part of religious ceremonies conducted by the Native American Church, and they were subsequently fired. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the firing, with Justice Antonin Scalia saying that using a religious exemption in conflict of a valid law “would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.â€
Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 14:39:52
Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 14:39:52
So, 5-4 on Hobby Lobby?
Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 14:43:28
Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 14:43:28
The Roberts court is without a doubt the worst iteration of the Supreme Court since Robert Tawney was the Chief Justice.
Comment by TriSec on 06/30/2014 14:46:49
TriSec on 06/30/2014 14:46:49
Allahu Ackbar, y'all. Welcome to American Sharia!
Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:55:20
I believe it may be time for relocation. Mars could use a little work.
Hmm, almost as barren as what the SCOTUS left for us today.
Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:55:20
Quote by TriSec:
Allahu Ackbar, y'all. Welcome to American Sharia!
I believe it may be time for relocation. Mars could use a little work.
Hmm, almost as barren as what the SCOTUS left for us today.
Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 15:03:13
Raine on 06/30/2014 15:03:13
Once again, women are treated as fodder for the regious right.
Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 15:03:53
This is from the Salon.com article about the ruling. If I am reading that correctly this does limit the scope somewhat.
Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 15:03:53
The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.
This is from the Salon.com article about the ruling. If I am reading that correctly this does limit the scope somewhat.
Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 15:09:34
It's not that limited at all.
From SCOTUS BLOG:
Raine on 06/30/2014 15:09:34
Quote by Mondobubba:The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.
This is from the Salon.com article about the ruling. If I am reading that correctly this does limit the scope somewhat.
From SCOTUS BLOG:
On a quick read, the Hobby Lobby decisions raises two important follow-up questions for future cases: (1) Whether HHS has the legal authority to now extend the non-profit exemption regime to closely held corporations (if it doesn't, that would suggest that the women employed by those companies may end up without coverage); and (2) whether RFRA protects objecting corporations from even certifying their objection (thereby triggering alternative coverage for the employees), which is the question that is pending in other cases working their way to the Court in the context of non-profit companies.
Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 15:13:14
Raine on 06/30/2014 15:13:14
Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 15:13:40
Ehh it does but not as much as it's being portrayed in the media. Most of the businesses in this country are family-owned and not publicly traded, which means if the owner(s) want to refuse to pay for little things like contraception coverage, or say vaccinations (OH GAWD YEAH THAT) they don't have to and the insurance company/HMO can bill it piecemeal to individuals.
Was about to post that quote from SCOTUSBlog too but Raine beat me to it. Doing the tag team thing here is pretty awesome!
Scoopster on 06/30/2014 15:13:40
Quote by Mondobubba:The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.
This is from the Salon.com article about the ruling. If I am reading that correctly this does limit the scope somewhat.
Ehh it does but not as much as it's being portrayed in the media. Most of the businesses in this country are family-owned and not publicly traded, which means if the owner(s) want to refuse to pay for little things like contraception coverage, or say vaccinations (OH GAWD YEAH THAT) they don't have to and the insurance company/HMO can bill it piecemeal to individuals.
Was about to post that quote from SCOTUSBlog too but Raine beat me to it. Doing the tag team thing here is pretty awesome!
Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 15:23:21
Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 15:23:21
Scoop & Raine, thanks for that. BTW, the NOW site has crashed. I wonder why.
Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 15:25:20
:parry, reposte: Then by that logic they don't hit the employee threshold for ACA employer mandate. Then their employees are going to get coverage on the exchanges.
Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 15:25:20
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Mondobubba:The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.
This is from the Salon.com article about the ruling. If I am reading that correctly this does limit the scope somewhat.
Ehh it does but not as much as it's being portrayed in the media. Most of the businesses in this country are family-owned and not publicly traded, which means if the owner(s) want to refuse to pay for little things like contraception coverage, or say vaccinations (OH GAWD YEAH THAT) they don't have to and the insurance company/HMO can bill it piecemeal to individuals.
Was about to post that quote from SCOTUSBlog too but Raine beat me to it. Doing the tag team thing here is pretty awesome!
:parry, reposte: Then by that logic they don't hit the employee threshold for ACA employer mandate. Then their employees are going to get coverage on the exchanges.
Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 15:25:51
Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 15:25:51
Comment by 
trojanrabbit on 06/30/2014 15:26:56
trojanrabbit on 06/30/2014 15:26:56
Did anyone REALLY expect anything different today?
Not that it still doesn't suck immensely.
Surprises me even more that the ACA wasn't totally struck down, just because.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) I never shopped at Hobby Lobby, so I can't stop shopping there, but I'm sure there will be other cheap bastard owned "corporations" that will try to use this excuse, and maybe I can boycott them.
Not that it still doesn't suck immensely.
Surprises me even more that the ACA wasn't totally struck down, just because.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) I never shopped at Hobby Lobby, so I can't stop shopping there, but I'm sure there will be other cheap bastard owned "corporations" that will try to use this excuse, and maybe I can boycott them.
Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 15:29:23
Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 15:29:23
Excuse my needless debate. The brain is whirling this morning.
Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 15:35:09
No, as I trust this Supreme Court as far as I can throw planets.
Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 15:35:09
Quote by trojanrabbit:
Did anyone REALLY expect anything different today?
Not that it still doesn't suck immensely.
Surprises me even more that the ACA wasn't totally struck down, just because.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) I never shopped at Hobby Lobby, so I can't stop shopping there, but I'm sure there will be other cheap bastard owned "corporations" that will try to use this excuse, and maybe I can boycott them.
No, as I trust this Supreme Court as far as I can throw planets.
Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 15:35:49
Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 15:35:49
I tried quoting from the Think Progress story and had mismatching s tags although the only tags I hit were quote tags. Any ideas?
Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 15:47:55
Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 15:47:55
Great piece from Think Progess about why HL ruling isn't good for religious freedom.
“The New Testament never—not one time—applies the ‘Christian’ label to a business or even a government,†he writes. “The tag is applied only to individuals. If the Bible is your ultimate guide, the only organization one might rightly term ‘Christian’ is a church. And this is only because a church in the New Testament is not a building or a business, but a collection of Christian individuals who have repented, believed on Christ, and are pursuing a life of holiness.â€
“The New Testament never—not one time—applies the ‘Christian’ label to a business or even a government,†he writes. “The tag is applied only to individuals. If the Bible is your ultimate guide, the only organization one might rightly term ‘Christian’ is a church. And this is only because a church in the New Testament is not a building or a business, but a collection of Christian individuals who have repented, believed on Christ, and are pursuing a life of holiness.â€
Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 15:50:50
It doesn't take away the employer mandate tho. It only makes an exemption for companies to not pay for a specific part of the coverage, in this case contraception. They still have to provide comprehensive insurance.
The problem now is what the owners of these companies see as a violation of their religious beliefs. Contraception? Stem cell therapy? Vaccines? Extraneous fertility examination & treatments like IVF? Surrogate pregnancy? Transgender operations?
It kinda reminds me of an early episode of Babylon 5 - a family from an alien race comes to the station seeking medical treatment for their child, who has a terminal neural disease. The doctor uses all his traditional methods and nothing provides a substantial difference. The doctor then suggests gene therapy which would involve minor surgery, but the parents refuse because their religious beliefs go against opening the body for any reason to prevent the soul from escaping the body and the body becoming a 'lowly feed animal'. The doctor eventually goes behind the parents' back - and the station captain - and does the treatment which works. The parents are appalled, then become docile and accepting of the child's fate... which by their belief system means they have to commit a ritual killing to end the child's suffering.
Scoopster on 06/30/2014 15:50:50
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Mondobubba:The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.
This is from the Salon.com article about the ruling. If I am reading that correctly this does limit the scope somewhat.
Ehh it does but not as much as it's being portrayed in the media. Most of the businesses in this country are family-owned and not publicly traded, which means if the owner(s) want to refuse to pay for little things like contraception coverage, or say vaccinations (OH GAWD YEAH THAT) they don't have to and the insurance company/HMO can bill it piecemeal to individuals.
Was about to post that quote from SCOTUSBlog too but Raine beat me to it. Doing the tag team thing here is pretty awesome!
:parry, reposte: Then by that logic they don't hit the employee threshold for ACA employer mandate. Then their employees are going to get coverage on the exchanges.
It doesn't take away the employer mandate tho. It only makes an exemption for companies to not pay for a specific part of the coverage, in this case contraception. They still have to provide comprehensive insurance.
The problem now is what the owners of these companies see as a violation of their religious beliefs. Contraception? Stem cell therapy? Vaccines? Extraneous fertility examination & treatments like IVF? Surrogate pregnancy? Transgender operations?
It kinda reminds me of an early episode of Babylon 5 - a family from an alien race comes to the station seeking medical treatment for their child, who has a terminal neural disease. The doctor uses all his traditional methods and nothing provides a substantial difference. The doctor then suggests gene therapy which would involve minor surgery, but the parents refuse because their religious beliefs go against opening the body for any reason to prevent the soul from escaping the body and the body becoming a 'lowly feed animal'. The doctor eventually goes behind the parents' back - and the station captain - and does the treatment which works. The parents are appalled, then become docile and accepting of the child's fate... which by their belief system means they have to commit a ritual killing to end the child's suffering.
Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 15:53:35
Scoopster on 06/30/2014 15:53:35
Just mentioned to Raine - has the RFRA itself been challenged in federal court? Because, you know, it's an act of Congress regarding the free exercise of religion in this country. First Amendment, folks.
Okay we need to find some more coffee and maybe a few strips of bacon.
Okay we need to find some more coffee and maybe a few strips of bacon.
Comment by trojanrabbit on 06/30/2014 16:00:30
trojanrabbit on 06/30/2014 16:00:30
I think we need a "closely-held corporation" death penalty.
Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 16:11:40
Can the penalty be impalement, as that can last a week?
Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 16:11:40
Quote by trojanrabbit:
I think we need a "closely-held corporation" death penalty.
Can the penalty be impalement, as that can last a week?
Comment by trojanrabbit on 06/30/2014 16:13:21
Well, in keeping with the supposed ban against "cruel and unusual", we can probably get away with lethal injection of whatever someone can put together. I nominate the Three Stooges for that job.
trojanrabbit on 06/30/2014 16:13:21
Quote by Will in Chicago:Quote by trojanrabbit:
I think we need a "closely-held corporation" death penalty.
Can the penalty be impalement, as that can last a week?
Well, in keeping with the supposed ban against "cruel and unusual", we can probably get away with lethal injection of whatever someone can put together. I nominate the Three Stooges for that job.
Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 16:14:22
Works for me.
Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 16:14:22
Quote by trojanrabbit:Quote by Will in Chicago:Quote by trojanrabbit:
I think we need a "closely-held corporation" death penalty.
Can the penalty be impalement, as that can last a week?
Well, in keeping with the supposed ban against "cruel and unusual", we can probably get away with lethal injection of whatever someone can put together. I nominate the Three Stooges for that job.
Works for me.
Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 16:28:15
Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 16:28:15
In Responsible Gun Owners in the News. Firearms dealer accidentally shoots woman while demonstrating concealed carry safety
Comment by 
livingonli on 06/30/2014 16:43:44
livingonli on 06/30/2014 16:43:44
Good day, folks. Felt I needed to sleep this morning. Do have a doctor's appointment at 2 PM. No surprise on Hobby Lobby because the Fascist Five as Thom Hartmann has pointed out are judicial activists.
Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 17:23:29
Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 17:23:29
Comment by BobR on 06/30/2014 17:53:15
BobR on 06/30/2014 17:53:15
Ruth Bader Binsberg's dissent contained this very concise observation: "the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities"
Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 18:46:14
Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 18:46:14
Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 19:05:07
Raine on 06/30/2014 19:05:07
The last of our guests is en route home…. I am officially an empty nester. 
Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 19:18:36
I wonder if some of the justices believe that artificial legal entities have other characteristics of natural persons. If so, will Justice Alito order someone to create a corporations only restroom at the Supreme Court? Also, for Justices Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy, would you need Supreme Court bathrooms for male and female corporations?
Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 19:18:36
Quote by BobR:
Ruth Bader Binsberg's dissent contained this very concise observation: "the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities"
I wonder if some of the justices believe that artificial legal entities have other characteristics of natural persons. If so, will Justice Alito order someone to create a corporations only restroom at the Supreme Court? Also, for Justices Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy, would you need Supreme Court bathrooms for male and female corporations?
Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 19:25:30
I was listening to the oral arguments, and I cannot tell you how many times it seemed that Roberts and Scalia said, *So, the corporation, as a person...* as a way to telegraph their argument.
Raine on 06/30/2014 19:25:30
Quote by BobR:
Ruth Bader Binsberg's dissent contained this very concise observation: "the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities"
Comment by TriSec on 06/30/2014 19:51:00
TriSec on 06/30/2014 19:51:00
So, a new joint opened up in Worcester, called "Bar FX". Being downtown, there are not good sight lines. From certain angles, the signage reads "BARF".
Fail.
Fail.
Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 20:00:46
I'll hafta look that place up next time Im there (which will be the end of July).
Im on the Amtrak mosheen now.. got worried for a sec because the 2pm train going the same way was an hour and a half late!
Scoopster on 06/30/2014 20:00:46
Quote by TriSec:
So, a new joint opened up in Worcester, called "Bar FX". Being downtown, there are not good sight lines. From certain angles, the signage reads "BARF".
Fail.
I'll hafta look that place up next time Im there (which will be the end of July).
Im on the Amtrak mosheen now.. got worried for a sec because the 2pm train going the same way was an hour and a half late!
Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 20:08:51
Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 20:08:51
Hey kids, do you realize if your employer is a Jehovah's Witness the Supremes have opened the door to you getting blood transfusion.
Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 20:14:18
Oh good! you got the train! Safe travels!
Raine on 06/30/2014 20:14:18
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by TriSec:
So, a new joint opened up in Worcester, called "Bar FX". Being downtown, there are not good sight lines. From certain angles, the signage reads "BARF".
Fail.
I'll hafta look that place up next time Im there (which will be the end of July).
Im on the Amtrak mosheen now.. got worried for a sec because the 2pm train going the same way was an hour and a half late!
Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 20:19:12
getting or preventing?
Raine on 06/30/2014 20:19:12
Quote by Mondobubba:
Hey kids, do you realize if your employer is a Jehovah's Witness the Supremes have opened the door to you getting blood transfusion.
Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 20:30:51
Mondo regrets his typing error. THe text should read, "...not getting blood transfusion."
Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 20:30:51
Quote by Raine:getting or preventing?Quote by Mondobubba:
Hey kids, do you realize if your employer is a Jehovah's Witness the Supremes have opened the door to you getting blood transfusion.
Mondo regrets his typing error. THe text should read, "...not getting blood transfusion."
Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 20:32:49
No prob. I thought you meant the latter.
Raine on 06/30/2014 20:32:49
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by Raine:getting or preventing?Quote by Mondobubba:
Hey kids, do you realize if your employer is a Jehovah's Witness the Supremes have opened the door to you getting blood transfusion.
Mondo regrets his typing error. THe text should read, "...not getting blood transfusion."
Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 20:55:00
Raine on 06/30/2014 20:55:00
Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 21:27:05
The Notorious RGB's dissent as song.
Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 21:27:05
The Notorious RGB's dissent as song.
Comment by TriSec on 07/01/2014 01:06:03
TriSec on 07/01/2014 01:06:03
I think maybe I should take down my Stars & Stripes again.
Comment by Raine on 07/01/2014 03:24:37
It is now.
Raine on 07/01/2014 03:24:37
Quote by Mondobubba:
The Notorious RGB's dissent as song.
It is now.