yyz28

Yeah, I have to agree here. If he is caught in a battle and killed in the action, I'm OK with that, as he had actively taken arms. ...but to target any US citizen for assassination without due process, no matter how horrific the person or their crimes are, is not right. ...find him, try him, revoke his citizenship under the rule of law and execute him for his crimes if he is convicted.

I started a telecommunications/networking company 10 years ago, which I'm still running, and a custom car shop about a month ago. ...if that helps, I'm happy to help out a fellow UNT'er. Let me know if I can help you out.

...some things that aren't being considered here. 1. Riley is still here. He IS capable of playing as QB in a pinch. ...so he IS the 3rd string/emergency QB, no need to bring in another. 2. He can still be used as a running threat at QB. Picture the play where he's lined up as a RB next to the QB. Who's gonna get the snap? He only has to throw out of that formation once in a while to keep the other side honest. I fully support whatever is best for his health, and if he can't make it through a season, the team is better off with a QB who can. Let Tune and Thompson battle until the first game for the starting slot and then hopefully they both can get some time this season.

Snicker.

As a car guy, I don't see how this prank was at all funny. Not cool. You don't mess with a man's car.

Nice Win, Rangers!!! 5-4 in a tight game. Was fun to listen to.

ROTFLMAO!!! That's F'in classic. ...now, the article is sorta silly, acting like a typo is going to get the party faithful all pissed off. Doubtful. Mistakes happen. ...and the ONLY reason Mike Madden is mentioning Pete Session's fundraiser is because he wasn't invited. That was the BEST friggin' party I've ever been to, at least the parts I remember. Thanks Pete!

Nor should it get picked up. It was just for comic relief, not really political commentary.

CBL, You attack Rick, yet you don't address the points raised by him or the article he posted. Is he or the author of the article right? ...or are you and the people who are saying this will work as advertised by the administration right? Who knows? I don't. You don't. Rick doesn't. ...but there is room for questioning our government - Frankly, I think it is quite wise to do so - and I don't really trust what our government tells us, regardless of the party, until I check it out for myself. This appears to be a bone as Rick's article describes, but we won't really know (and that's you included) until we see it in action. The name calling, quite frankly, is getting a little old. I'm all for debate and disagreement, but stooping to name calling is a bit uncalled for.

I made no commentary on the man's comments. I simply posted it up for folks to see here. Even if he meant it as hyperbole, which he probably did, it was so slow and oddly laid out and delivered that it makes for comedy. ...the name calling is an interesting tactic, though. Wow. I DID get my degree from the same place you did. ...just sayin'.

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/04/01/your-morning-jolt-hank-johnson-and-a-capsizing-guam/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway ...my fear is that the website might tip over, and capsize.

Privatize social security or disband it all together. We should pay for seniors and people who are currently, say 40 and younger, have to pay in with the understanding that we'll never get anything out, and then we have to be responsible for taking care of our own retirement. I would not be for screwing seniors who are close enough to retirement to have been counting on Social Security, but I'm willing to sacrifice so that my kid and grandkid's generation don't get stuck in the same boat we are. Social Security was doomed the minute that Congress and Politicians of both parties started putting Social Security tax revenue into the general fund. Look at unemployment vs the number unemployed. Unemployment is going down largely not because private jobs where people pay into Social Security are on the rise, but rather because A. they are no longer searching for work or have run out of unemployment benefits and thus aren't being reported (like folks under 65 who are looking for work and WANT a job, but just aren't counted because they are old enough to retire) or B. are taking government jobs which are the only type of job on the incline. Government employees by and large don't pay into Social Security, rather into their own private pension funds.

This plus 1000.

That's a fair and honest question, but you answered it yourself. State governments have their own constitutions and as such have different rules about what they can and can't impose on their citizens. Moreover, Car insurance and health insurance are very different products. 1. Driving a car is a privilege. 2. Driving a car is regulated directly by the state. 3. State governments can mandate that if you engage in a certain behavior that may risk others property and life that you must have financial responsibility. 4. State governments set the rules by which you can be licensed to enjoy the privilege to drive. In fact, states have different insurance requirements they place on their drivers. ...in the case of the health insurance mandate, you will be forced to have health insurance, even if you never go to the doctor. Simply for living. Simply for being born, you have to purchase health insurance, and not any health insurance, but rather insurance that meets a specific standard set forth by the Federal Government and enforced by the IRS. You don't have the option to just pay the doctor out of your pocket. You must have insurance, or you will face a fine.

Interesting perspective, however, if a tax is levied because you don't buy a product, it is a fine, and will be seen as a fine by a court as it is a fine in practice. By his logic the Federal Government could mandate almost any action on the basis that failure to act may impose a cost on society. Also, I don't see how one could invoke the commerce clause where the affected individuals are not even engaging the the commerce supposedly covered. Finally, the most basic right that an individual has is the right to not participate, to be left alone. Also, you have the false "right to privacy" precedent set by Roe v. Wade, which could be blown apart by this measure. How is this individual mandate not a violation of the right to privacy? Consider: This individual mandate says that we as private citizens have to do the private behavior of buying a certain type of private commodity coupled with this tax penalty for not engaging in this private behavior. I have seen some argue along the line that this is just the power to tax, in that government has the right to say, "OK, we're going to hit you with this tax, but if you engage in this private behavior that we tell you to do, then we'll wipe out the tax." I claim that this argument is subterfuge. Therefore, some questions: Why the subterfuge? Why not just tax us openly and in return give us a government service like oh, say, a strong public option? If this is held up as legal, then what's to keep government - including a future George Bush or president you Don't like - from using the power to tax as a subterfuge for violating our right to privacy without end? How the courts will decide is anyone's guess (and anyone who claims to know with certainty one way or the other is blowing hot air), but it is an important constitutional issue and a legitimate argument can be made that the mandate exceeds the scope of the Commerce Clause and that other parts of the measure violate the 10th amendment.

They may have a moral right to expect people to pay for that up front, but I'm talking about the Constitution. What part of the constitution allows the federal government to mandate that a private citizen purchase a product simply for existing. Beyond that, there is a strong article 10 argument as much of this is going to be put on the back of states and violates state sovereignty as protected by the 10th.

This quote is sig worthy.

All this back and forth aside, I'm looking for the constitutional basis to force citizens to purchase a product simply for existing? We can have the good-idea/bad-idea discussion until we're blue in the face, but if the bill isn't legal under the constitution, isn't all the rational for doing this just pointless?

I totally agree. The team never quit today and they had a fantastic run this season! There is nothing but positive things to be said about this group! GOOD JOB! Thanks for playing so hard for our University. GO MEAN GREEN!!!

Ugh... no. The quick response would have been IMMEDIATE. A recall in November would have been a quick response. A recall before you began to get political and media pressure would have been a quick response. They didn't issue recalls until the PR pressure was huge. Sorta like Tiger being remorseful not because he's sorry he did it, but rather because he got caught? People who have been involved with Toyota have been interviewed in the automotive media in mass, and this, by all accounts, looks to be a "we don't really care what the US Government and NTSA have to say about us - we're above the US Government" move. It is a part of the culture of Japanese business that is actually well known to folks who have dealt with the Japanese in their business careers. There is a documented history and several reports of not liking the crash results of a car and ordering more and then burying the original reports. This is the history, and doesn't give them much space to be given the benefit of the doubt. ...all that being said, I believe Toyota Jr., the current CEO and Chairman, is a good guy and loves the car business and is in it for the right reasons, unlike the folks who have been running Toyota for the past 10 years. The company is back in Family hands and I think he'll make right on this situation and get the Quality image built back up for Toyota.

Here is the text of the GM recall - The recent GM recall isn't a result of any reported deaths or injuries. It has not precipitated multiple recalls that should have happened long ago but was hidden by management. GM's recall was voluntary, as opposed to the first Toyota Recall. I heard about GM's recall twice on the radio the day it was announced and then on the Internet and TV. It wasn't hidden. It wasn't swept under the rug. It has been publicized to the degree is should be. This is NO WHERE NEAR the size and scope of the Toyota recall. To attempt to compare the two is either A. GM bashing or B. a lack of understanding of the facts and obvious differences between the two. ...no car company is perfect, but the more we find out about what's been going on culturally at Toyota, the more systemic this problem appears to me.

I've been so plugged into this debate I haven't really found the energy to blog about it myself, because so many are doing such a good job. ...however, I don't have faith in the Supreme Court to do what is right in this case. I would like to think they would, but I'd rather see this stopped before it became law. This move they are making is both unconstitutional and unprecedented. If the maneuver is made and Obama signs the bill into "law" he will be doing so using dictatorial fiat, and not the Democratic process, and they will be doing so against the will of 2/3rds of the people in this nation. The outrage is building by the day as the people on both sides of the debate who have legitimate disagreements about the substance of the bill are seeing what the leadership is trying to do to make it happen. Many who support the bill, don't support the procedures being used to make the bill law. IF they attempt to use the Slaughter Rule to pull this off, Republicans will win both houses of congress in the Fall, and I believe no matter what happens between here and November of 2012, Obama will be a one Term President, as this will stick with him. ...the corruption and outright attempt to dismantle the founding of this country on display here is unprecedented. This makes Watergate look like Romper Room.

Rick, One hoaxter who's looking for 15 minutes and a payday doesn't change the fact that Toyota has admitted that they have issues, and that outside engineers have looked at this issue and found fault with more cars than Toyota has admitted. You don't recall MILLIONS of cars unless there is a legitimate problem. ...now, the MEDIA has now taken it upon themselves to bash Toyota at every turn, including buying this guys story hook line and sinker with no skepticism, but there are some real problems with Toyota.

K State Johnny's sig totally confused me. Is this a Basketball or a Rastlin' thread? ...that dude looks like someone from the WWE about to "open a can of whoop ass" on someone.

...and that, my friends, is the $64,000 question.