Thu, Apr 24 2008
GET OVER *YOURSELF*, FUCKWIT
GodAMN these pissants are making me mad today!
"...about the court's role in deciding the 2000 Florida recount case in favor of George W. Bush and against Al Gore.
"Get over it. It's so old by now," he said."
We CAN'T get over it, asshole. Thanks to you, Dubya has ruined this country, and we have to live with the fallout. So pardon the hell out of us if we can't simply "get over" losing our jobs, losing our wealth, losing our home, losing our standing in the world, losing our civil liberties, losing our basic freedoms, losing our moral compass, losing everything that used to make America Pretty Damned Great Thanks.
"Get over it." Fuck YOU, fatboy.
Scalia: I'm conservative, but not biased
WASHINGTON, Associated Press - The Constitution doesn't prohibit abortion any more than it allows it, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says in a television news interview to be broadcast Sunday.
Scalia told CBS News' "60 Minutes" that he may be conservative, but he is not biased on issues that come before the court. "I mean, I confess to being a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases," Scalia said in excerpts released Thursday.
"On the abortion thing, for example, if indeed I were ... trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe versus Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the anti-abortion people would like to see adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion," Scalia told correspondent Lesley Stahl.
"And you're against that?" Stahl asked.
Scalia replied, "Of course." He said "there's nothing" (in the Constitution to support that view.)
The interview is tied to the publication on Monday of a new book, "Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges," that Scalia, 72, wrote with legal writing expert Bryan Garner.
At an appearance Thursday afternoon in Baltimore, Scalia told students from the University of Baltimore School of Law he opposed the concept of a living constitution that changes as society's standards change. Interpreting the Constitution to ban things such as abortion, for example, denies citizens to right to decide such matters for themselves, Scalia told the students.
"Why should the court have the power to remove this from the democratic process?" Scalia said of the abortion debate.
[Really? Like not letting the people actually decide who should lead them, you mean THAT democratic process?]
The justice described himself as an originalist who gives language in the various amendments the meaning it had when adopted. While some may argue that construing the Constitution as a living document can lead to greater freedom, Scalia said that concept is a two-way street that could also lead to the elimination of certain freedoms.
The living constitution is seductive to judges, who can craft it to their tastes, but that has also politicized the selection of nominees to the high court, the justice said.
"It's a mini constitutional convention every time you select a nominee today," because of the potential for the nominee to shape the Constitution to their views, Scalia said.
When asked about the future makeup of the court, Scalia joked he thought the next nominee would be "a female Hispanic Protestant, if there is one out there," prompting laughter from the crowd.
The "60 Minutes" segment also touches on Scalia's oft-repeated advice to Democrats who are still sore about the court's role in deciding the 2000 Florida recount case in favor of George W. Bush and against Al Gore.
"Get over it. It's so old by now," he said.
Stahl asked Scalia to respond to the contention that the court's decision in Gore v. Bush was based on politics and not justice. "I say 'nonsense,'" Scalia said.
Scalia said Gore was the one who said, "'I want this to be decided by the courts.'"
Bush's legal team, however, was the first to go into federal court in November 2000 to try to block by-hand recounts in some Florida counties.Thu, Apr 24 2008
...BUT HALF A TRILLION TO BUSINESS IN *NOT* A "BAILOUT"
Not that I agree with the dumbocrats, but - Bush, what a total asshole! Okay to bail out business fatcats that made the mess and deserve to fail, but helping Americans is bad bad bad! I HATE THAT HYPOCRITE! THAT LYING, STEALING, WARMONGERING TWO-FACED BASTARD!
AAAARRGGGH!!!
Bush administration opposes Democrats' housing rescue plan
WASHINGTON, Associated Press - A top housing official said Thursday that the Bush administration "strongly opposes" Democrats' housing rescue package, calling it a bailout that would expose taxpayers to excessive risk.
['excessive risk'!? What about the $30 billion we handed to JPMorgan to buy Bear Sterns with!? That's okay, huh!]
Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Roy A. Bernardi also indicated that President Bush would veto a bill sending $15 billion to states for the purchase and rehabilitation of foreclosed properties.
[As opposed to what - the HUNDREDS of BILLIONS already doled out to Big Business at the Fed's auction windows!? And more hundreds of billions to come - that's okay too! Fucking-A!]
Seriously fucked-up bullshit here --->
The comments, in separate letters to lawmakers, were the most forceful rejection yet by the Bush administration of Democrats' housing aid plans. And they were the clearest indication to date that the White House intends to put up a vigorous fight against a bill to let the Federal Housing Administration take on as much as $300 billion in new mortgages for financially strapped homeowners.
They came as the House Financial Services Committee began work on the bill by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the panel chairman. It would substantially relax the FHA's standards to reach struggling borrowers who otherwise would be considered ineligible for a government-backed mortgage.
Homeowners would have to show they could make payments on a refinanced mortgage, and lenders would have to agree to take hefty losses on the existing loans.
"We're not talking here about murderers or muggers or arsonists. We're talking about people whose misdeeds were to try too hard to find housing for their family," Frank said. "What we hope to do today is to diminish the cascade of foreclosures."
The Bush administration has previously questioned the scope and structure of the plan, although it backs the central concept: adjusting FHA's rules so more homeowners can refinance into government-backed loans.
An administration program, called FHASecure, made similar changes, but it is limited to borrowers who have good credit and histories of making their payments on time. It also doesn't require lenders to accept losses on existing mortgages.
Doing so, Bernardi wrote, would "significantly limit lender participation."
Frank has been working to draw Republican support for his plan, which he says has a good chance of becoming law this year.
But first, Democrats will have to deal with strong GOP philosophical objections to any measure that inserts the government into the housing maelstrom — especially one that could help people who are victims of their own irresponsible decisions.
"It will unfairly benefit a few homeowners and many investors and speculators at the expense of millions of careful borrowers and renters," said Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala. "The message that we risk sending to financial institutions and individuals is that when they willingly take on excessive and ill-advised risk, the government will ride to their rescue."
The panel rejected, 34-23, a Republican alternative that included steps to protect consumers from fraudulent or unscrupulous lending practices, an overhaul of the FHA, and stiffer regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage guarantors and financiers. Many of its elements have already passed the House by wide bipartisan margins and are stalled in the Senate.
Frank called the measure "a pale imitation" of what the House has already done to head off a deeper housing crisis.
The committee made a number of minor changes to Frank's bill, which is to come to a final panel vote next week.
The most significant change, offered by Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Ill., beefed up to 50 percent the share of profits homeowners would have to share with the FHA if they refinanced again or sold their property.
House leaders plan votes the week of May 5 on a broad housing package including Frank's FHA plan and the measure — approved by the committee Wednesday — to send loans and grants to states for buying and fixing up foreclosed properties.
Bernardi called the $15 billion fund "a costly bailout for lenders and speculators" that could lead to even more foreclosures. He noted that Bush's advisers had recommended he veto a similar bill earlier this year.
Thu, Apr 24 2008
RAGING HORMONES = JUST SAY YO
This abstinence shit has to have been thought up by a bunch of dysfunctional, guilt-ridden tight-assed virgins (or quasi-virgins). Nobody who has ever actually gone through an honest case of puberty could possibly forget how sex was on your brain pretty much all the time.
Pretending that "just say no" works, and refusing to educate on practical solutions, is to condemn generations of kids to unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, life-long poor self-esteem and other psychological problems. Thank you, organized religion!
Experts say sex abstinence program doesn't work
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Programs teaching U.S. schoolchildren to abstain from sex have not cut teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases or delayed the age at which sex begins, health groups told Congress on Wednesday.
The Bush administration, however, voiced continuing support for such programs during a hearing before a House of Representatives panel even as many Democrats called for cutting off federal money for so-called abstinence-only instruction.
"Vast sums of federal monies continue to be directed toward these programs. And, in fact, there is evidence to suggest that some of these programs are even harmful and have negative consequences by not providing adequate information for those teens who do become sexually active," Dr. Margaret Blythe of the American Academy of Pediatrics told the committee.
These programs, backed by many social conservatives who oppose the teaching of contraception methods to teenagers in schools, have received about $1.3 billion in federal funds since the late 1990s. Currently, 17 of the 50 U.S. states refuse to accept federal funds for such programs.
Experts from the American Public Health Association and U.S. Institute of Medicine testified that scientific studies have not found that abstinence-only teaching works to cut pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases or the age when sexual activity begins.
The American Psychological Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also issued statements to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform criticizing the abstinence-only programs.
Comprehensive sex education programs should emphasize abstinence as the best way for a teenager to avoid pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease (STD), Blythe said.
"Those adolescents who choose to abstain from sexual intercourse should obviously be encouraged and supported in their decisions by their families, peers and communities. But abstinence should not be the only strategy that is discussed," Blythe said.
HIGH STD RATES
Lawmakers cited government statistics showing that one in four U.S. teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease and 30 percent of U.S. girls become pregnant before the age of 20.
Republicans said even if some abstinence-only programs do not work, others do, and it would be wrong to end the funding.
[Ed note: republicans are full of shit.]
Rep. John Duncan, a Tennessee Republican, said that it seems "rather elitist" that people with academic degrees in health think they know better than parents what type of sex education is appropriate. "I don't think it's something we should abandon," he said of abstinence-only funding.
Charles Keckler of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the Bush administration believes abstinence education programs send the healthiest message.
Stan Weed, director of the Institute for Research and Evaluation, a Utah-based group that researches abstinence programs, disagreed with the other health experts, saying research cast doubt on the effectiveness of broader, comprehensive sex education programs.
Panel chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, said, "We are showering funds on abstinence-only programs that don't appear to work, while ignoring proven comprehensive sex education programs that can delay sex, protect teens from disease, and result in fewer teen pregnancies."
"Meanwhile, we have no dedicated source of federal funding specifically for comprehensive classroom sex education," Waxman added.All news articles and images provided under the Fair Use Notice.