Open Thread: Sen. Rand Paul's Debt Ceiling Filibuster
With the deadline for raising the debt ceiling looming less than a month away, there are mixed feelings about raising the debt ceiling among debt-conscious politicians who are hesitant to give more spending power to the government. The Treasury Department has given August 2 as the estimated date on which the U.S. will no longer be able to meet fiscal obligations if the debt ceiling is not raised, though.
Sen. Rand Paul explained on Sunday that Republicans would be more in favor of raising the debt ceiling if there were a balanced budget amendment in the Constitution to obligate the federal government to balance its budget each year and prohibit it from running a deficit.
Check out a video of Paul's remarks after the break, and let us know what you think in the comments.
From C-SPAN's 'Newsmakers,'
(video via the Blaze)
As Paul explains,
“[W]e will actually vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling next week if we can, but it will be contingent on passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution,” he said, adding, “I’m not completely without the sense that we may need to raise the debt ceiling. But I will only do it if we have significant budgetary reform, and to me that means you have to balance your budget every year.”
The process of actually passing an amendment is a burdensome one, however, requiring a two-thirds vote in Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. This also calls into question the feasibility of passing a balanced budget amendment any time in the near future.
What are your thoughts on raising the debt ceiling on the condition of a balanced budget amendment?
- NB Staff's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Pity on Thailand ( and other musings.
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 11:42am.
Thailand has elected a woman as Prime Minister. I don't have a problem with her being a woman. She came from nowhere and has NO political experience. We all know what that has got us.
SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE. NEA endorses Obama. Why was this even news worthy? Bite me went there and bashed Republicans telling them if they voted for a Republican they could expect no help from the WH. There was never any danger of that.
Just a few observations on the Anthony trial. I couldn't believe her defense attorney telling the jury that the prosecutor had tried to paint her as a slut, party girl and a liar. A short time later he said that Casey Anthony had been brought up to lie. With that statement he admitted she was a liar.
Biden to NEA: The Gumnt spends more wisely
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:32pm.
Biden's money quote: "They [Republicans] believe that one percent of the wage earners controlling 24 percent of the wealth in this country is a vehicle by which you can spur economic growth, because those with the wealth… will know best to do with that wealth."
In other words -- only the o'bama administration knows how to spend your money wisely. That must be because the dumb-ass wealthy people didn't have enough sense, nerve, energy, intelligence, or know-how to make money. "Don't know how they got all that wealth -- all we know is it's illegal. Must be. 'Cause we don't know how to do that" -- entire o'bama administration.
And with that -- the NEA ups and endorses the wise and benevolent o'bama administration.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
TnT
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:34pm.
I know it did surprise you either that they endorsed Obummer.
A short, but true, story
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:44pm.
I live in a town that, until 3 years ago, didn't have a grocery store; pharmacy, bank, etc. Had to drive 15 miles to buy groceries. Unitl our resident millionaire got tired of it. So he -- and he alone -- bought some land, went to the town to make his case, and funded the development of a supermarket. Employs lots of people; is very convenient; and has even resulted in an increase in tourist traffic.
It took a wealthy person to do this. No one else could. I dont know the particulars, but I imagine the town gave him a break on taxes and zoning. And who knows -- maybe he gets free beer for life from the supermarket. But it's an example of free enterprise, and of individuals making things happen. The town government could never have done this. But at least they know it.
If o'bama was our town manager, he probably would have punished our wealthy citizen, or driven him away. And then try to convince us all that it was for our own good. That's how much of a turd that man is. A completely, detestable, jackass.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
I think he is a dick, too!
Submitted by jdhawk on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:13pm.
I think he is a dick, too!
Anthony verdict to be read at 2:15
Submitted by IgnatzJFahrquar on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 1:45pm.
Pretty quick ... would think that's bad for Casey.
I've always heard a fast
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 1:52pm.
I've always heard a fast verdict usually means GUILTY. I think the jurors are tired of the whole thing. All the BS they lawyers were spouting in their closing arguments were getting to them. If they vote guiltily and for the death penalty they got to come back and go through a trial on that. I believe guilty with life imprisonment. Too there were 7 different charges they had to decide.
Paul
Submitted by kinijane on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:32pm.
what does what Paul said have to do with Casy Anthony?
By the way, what he is stating is the reason I voted for him.
opening salvo against raising GOP/ Dem debt
Submitted by lrgon on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:15pm.
The logical assertion by constitutionalists concerning our nation's debt crisis is to rein in federal spending and to return to the constitutional form of government that was originally intended by the Founding Fathers — which could and would operate on a low budget, and therefore not require such drastic measures as the addition of an amendment or raising of the debt ceiling.
Of course, that would mean the elimination of a plethora of unconstitutional federal agencies, such as the Department of Education and the Department of Homeland Security.
With the exception of Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul, GOP Senate hopeful Sharron Angle, and a handful of others, very few Republicans have been willing to make such drastic proposals. Most GOPers would rather posture as "fiscal conservatives" and then vote to raise the debt ceiling.
Balanced Budget
Submitted by kilrod on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 11:44am.
Balanced Budget Amendment - Yes
Raise Debt Ceiling - NO
kilrod "the Birther"
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
Raise Debt Ceiling - NO
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 11:52am.
Balanced Budget Amendment - No. It will be used to justify more spending. For example, since we need to increase spending by 10% we have to raise your taxes by 10% to balance the budget.
Red Jeep
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 11:58am.
I think I saw something about tying the total Federal Budget to 18% of GDP. The GOP has also proposed super majority required to raise Federal taxes. I assume these are separate entities, but put them all together and I think it's a pretty reasonable plan.
You're right though, minus some key elements, the Amendment alone could cause problems.
Like that combination!
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:36pm.
.
True. Without a tax rate
Submitted by robert108 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 1:13pm.
True. Without a tax rate cap, a balanced budget amendment becomes a mandate to raise tax rates, especially by Dem administrations. With a tax rate cap and a balanced budget amendment, all administrations would have to encourage economic growth to get more money for their "programs".
The Constitution is ignored by the GOP/ Dem faction now
Submitted by lrgon on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:19pm.
and it will be ignored after a balanced budget amendment too!
I agree with you on the misnamed "BB amendment." It won't do anything but expand government and taxes.
OMB Watch lists a number of reasons to oppose such a solution:
A Balanced Budget Amendment swaps fiscal responsibility for a one-size-fits-all approach to a constantly changing economy.
The judiciary would likely become an integral part of the budget process (in order to enforce government adherence to the amendment).
Budget “balance” can only be determined after the fiscal year ends.
A balanced budget amendment could require super majority votes on many seemingly non-budget-related bills, frustrating other areas of lawmaking.
Congress could simply increase spending by hiding it in the tax code.
Will He?
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 11:52am.
Rand threatened to filibuster the 2011 budget resolution deal too, but caved in. I have my doubts about him following through this time. I'm sure the Democrats do too.
______________________________________________________________________________
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
"Why are Republicans so stupid?"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 11:53am.
TIME unveils the "Nine Epically Wrong Politician History Flubs." Judging is as even-handed as expected. In order of stupidity:
1 Bachmann
2 Palin
3 Cain
4 Biden
5 Santorum
6 Ron Paul (not to be confused with that other stupid Paul)
7 Obama ("US invented the auto" - epic?)
8 Bachmann AGAIN
9 Romney
i saw a piece where a
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:03pm.
I saw a piece where a history professor said that Palin was right about Paul Revere. I think he was from Boston U but now sure. He was from a school in Taxachusets.
Wow...I knew Obama and Biden
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 9:03pm.
were guilty of some pretty dramatic flip-flops, but to actually switch parties...that's got to piss off the base.
Jer
Balanced Budget Amendment
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 11:55am.
Super majorities in both Houses, plus 3/4 of States must ratify. And yet he Dems are holding out on this one. You can't get 3/4 of the people in a football stadium to root for the same team, and yet the Dems are holding out on this one. Recent polls have shown 65% in favor (May, Mason/Dixon) and 72% in favor (June, Fox) but the Fox poll was decimated when the issue of cuts to entitlements was included.
So, I'm wondering, why wouldn't the Dems use this as a negotiating compromise? Let the vote take place, or even guarantee Dem support in both Houses; it's still left to the public and they can certainly sway them enough to make sure 13 states don't ratify. They don't even have to worry about being perceived as flip-flopping; they could come right out and say "Yeah, we voted for it, but only to get them to remove the oil subsidies. We have no intention of trying to convince you to support this crap-sandwich. Ha ha, we got those GOP bastards!" and Dem voters will eat it up. It's not like integrity is a virtue in the Democratic Party. Seems silly on their part to oppose this.
You can't get 3/4 of the
Submitted by dmntd1 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:26pm.
You can't get 3/4 of the people in a football stadium to root for the same team....
Sure you can. Hold it in California. Between a U.S. team and a Mexican team. Three-fourths will cheer for Mexico...
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/26/sports/la-sp-0626-plaschke-gold-...
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
End Dependence Day
Submitted by wizardjr on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:11pm.
Vote conservative November 6th, 2012.
or
Look to Greece and Zimbabwe for your future.
YES ... a balanced budget amendment
Submitted by Bodini on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:17pm.
YES ... a balanced budget amendment with a repeal of the income tax and passage of the Fair Tax. Hold spending levels to 90% of revenues and use the 10% in overages to pay off the national debt!
I am a baby-boomer who would gladly accept cuts in SS and medicare entitlements so my 4 children and 9 grandchildren aren't saddled with an unbearable tax burden to support me!
No way
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 9:43pm.
The good old Unfair Tax...a 23% sales tax on top of the 8.25% I already pay, coupled with a transfer payment scheme where the government hands out allowance money to people every month.
Screw that.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
A Balanced Budgety Amendment?
Submitted by Bourbeau on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:18pm.
In our dreams. Rand Paul has to be part of the solution and stop injecting this
pie in the sky crap that has no possible way of being accomplished in the next
few weeks. If he wants to introduce legislation to consider tadding a balanced
budget amendment to the Constiution - go for it; put the time and effort into,
get your supporters lined up, and bring it up for a vote. To add that to this current
mess we are dealing with is stupid and needs to stop. Get focused on what is
happening now, has consequences now, and either support it, or oppose it. All
this other stuff save for after we have resolved the immediate problem.
Bourbeau: Agreed - Forget the “Grand Schemes,” Rand!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 1:29pm.
Just do your DUTY and stop with the "I know best" grandstanding!
I apologize for directing an unacceptable four letter word towards a politician.
- Grump :o)
Stimulus: $278,000/job
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:49pm.
I say: "Tax the stimulus". It's one of the richest amongst us. And BTW, that's the price for every new and saved job. Imagine the real price if creative accounting wasn't used and we actually had the real jobs-created number!
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Oil above $96
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:21pm.
Well above the price when o'bama said "release the barrels". I still can't figure out his motive on that. Like the stimulus -- just another wasteful, ineffective effort by a complete turd of a president.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
The problem with an amendment
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:34pm.
The problem with an amendment is there will be creative accounting like we see right now with jobs created or saved as a benchmark. What we really need is an intelligent informed electorate and honest patriotic legislators, judiciary and President.
The NC constitutions requires
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:02pm.
The NC constitutions requires that the state have a balance budget. How do we know if it is balanced on June 30? The new budget goes into affect July 1. I believe it is all about creative accounting.
lots of hope and wish in his
Submitted by jkwtrading on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:41pm.
lots of hope and wish in his comments..
Re: Rand Paul
Submitted by BW222 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:59pm.
It's nice to see a Republican senator with balls. They are an "endangered species."
OWL GORE ARE YOU LISTENING?
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 1:15pm.
Reports are out now that global warming ended in 1998.
They are still skiing in Utah.
Grumpy may not agree with this. He is basking in 120 degree temps.
Speaking of Global Warming.....
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 1:31pm.
China's Coal Burning May Have HALTED Global Warming.
It's not shaping up as a good day for ManBearPig.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde – Thanks for the link!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:26pm.
Just goes to show that the climatologists don’t have a clue about what’s happening.
But the story is a great justification for BBQ!! - LOL
- Grump
Rick: I must report a severe cold wave has hit my area!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:08pm.
- Many changes in the weather here since Saturday:
- Temperature is currently only 93 degrees with an expected high of 109 (Brrrrr…)
- Humidity is through the roof at 34% (It’s sweltering here – Almost Louisiana style SWELTERING!)
- Thunderstorms expected later this afternoon.
- My new coffee pot works great!
- Grump :o)
budget
Submitted by jessieH on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 1:35pm.
If the Congress can't balance the budget, what good are they? Why are they in office, if they aren't smart enough to do the job they were elected to do, that they campaigned about? They took an oath and they broke that oath, the day after they were sworn in. Why keep any of them? Except for the newly elected, they all need to go. A balanced budget is an easy thing to do. WE do it all the time, in the real world. How about putting an incompetent clause in the Constitution, to make it easier to get rid of the lazy, stupid polititians who can't or won't do their jobs.
jessieH: "Incompetent Clause" … I like it!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:44pm.
I have long advocated term limits for Federal Judges (less the Constitutionally created one Supreme court). Every Federal judge should have to go through a “reconfirmation" process every nine years and those whose verdicts have been overturned at least 33% of the time should not be eligible for reconfirmation.
- Grump :o)
Latest on Fast and Furious
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 1:37pm.
Mexico would like to get their hands on the person(s) that authorized Fast and Furious.
Rick: Thanks for the update on "F&F"
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:34pm.
I can understand the Mexican anger... but the article was correct about not extraditing any suspects to Mexico for trial. Although, what do you want to bet we are about to pay-out billions in reparations to Mexico?
- Grump :o)
Grumpy.
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:07pm.
Wouldn't paying reparations accept guilt? I know he is not going to throw Holder under the bus but some low level supervisor there in AZ or TX is going to get the blame for the whole mess.
Go enjoy you coffee of a cold one.
Rick : I don't know if paying does mean admitting guilt.
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:19pm.
I just don't know... but I'm pretty sure that if reparation are made - most of the monies will wind-up in the hands of corrupt Mexican officials and the drug dealers.
- Grump :o)
There was an NB blog entry
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 1:40pm.
Shortly after his arrest, there was an NB blog entry mocking NBC for putting out a theory that DSK was a victim of a conspiracy, and that he feared being framed by a political rival. Michael Savage had said the same thing on his show the day before. Everything is now pointing to his being set up and falsely accused. Will we see a follow-up blog entry?
Why don't you start your own blog
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 1:44pm.
.....you know, take a little personal responsibility....instead of incessantly whining here.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Who cares, apparently there
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 1:53pm.
Who cares, apparently there are more victims coming out of the woodwork. The problems is not with the idea DSK did the deed, it was with the victims credibility. Besides who cares if it is French political intrigue.
How can you say "more"
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:05pm.
How can you say "more" victims when this maid wasn't a victim? And yeah, to say the problem is her credibility is an understatement.
sure she was a victim....
Submitted by wizardjr on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:14pm.
the little ho didn't get paid.. ha ha ha ha ha
2:15 Anthony verdict to be announced
Submitted by IgnatzJFahrquar on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 1:54pm.
Pretty quick.
Unlike Obama, Right On Time
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:14pm.
Nice.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Whoa!
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:28pm.
Not Guilty?!?
I figured guilty of manslaughter (accidental killing) at the very least. I know that wasn't the charge, but it could be construed as such, like accidental overdosing someone.
But guilty of lying to the cops? That's all she's found guilty for.
Whoa.
-Jon
It's not surprising.
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:29pm.
It's not surprising. Government bungled this one from the start.
Unfortunately,
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:37pm.
....the prosecution's case fell far short of the level required to convict her.
Even her parents believed she did it, as do most of us. But that doesn't make it so under our system of jurisprudence.
It will be interesting to see what the judge does in regard to her lying to l.o. convictions. I think he'll kick her with time served.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
After tonight,maybe tomorrow
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:42pm.
After tonight,maybe tomorrow nigh, watch Nancy Grace's rating drop fastest than a 12 ounce lead weight.
She'll bring on a bunch of the jurors and they'll say the same thing, reasonable doubt.
Prosecutorial Overreach
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:05pm.
I also think going for Murder 1 was an overreach.
I find it interesting that the jury ignored the "mistake gone horribly wrong" by not finding guilty on a lesser charge of manslaughter.
Also, I suspect Cindy Anthony may now be facing perjury charges.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
MSNBC is going nuts
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:30pm.
MSNBC host: "It's been an hour now, and the jurors aren't talking to us. This is NOT the answer we wanted from them."
Then saner MSNBC heads took over. "That's ok, we'll break them down later when we get their names".
Ain't the MSM just wonderful?
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Totally Disgusting
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 4:01pm.
I don't know who the lady at the "court" presser was, but I LIKED her!
When asked if the jury members might change their minds (about talking to the press)...she replied. "No. Unequivocally Not".
When asked why...."They have absolutely no desire to talk to you". Ouch!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Nancy Grace still has a show?
Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 4:21pm.
"After tonight,maybe tomorrow nigh, watch Nancy Grace's rating drop fastest than a 12 ounce lead weight."
You mean her head didn't explode when they read the verdict?
12 oz?? What the heck are u
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 5:44pm.
12 oz?? What the heck are u fishing for ... whales? Of course its been a while since I have fished, but I seem to remember we used 1 oz weights until we got the right feel. 12 oz is nearing the anchor range.
Dan---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 8:28pm.
16 ounce "Diamond Jigs" in the Gulf of California (Sea of Cortez) to go deep for the 100 pound plus groupers in the rocks off of Tiburon Island.
They also worked for catching white sea bass (in season) on the way down.
Arms get tired from jig fishing, go trolling with feathers for the dorado hiding out under floating patches of kelp. No floating seaweed, throw some newspaper over the side and swing back by in a few minutes.
Terrific fishing, great catching, fantastic eating.
MD
Children should be frightened.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:29pm.
This woman got away with killing her daughter.
At the same time we should be
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:31pm.
At the same time we should be thankful that the system worked. Government has an enormous burden to meet before denying someone their life, liberty, and property, and it failed. We should be thankful the burden is so great.
Not grateful at all when a child is murdered.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:35pm.
The burden of proof is beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Many juries now seem to think the burden is beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is no reason to doubt this woman killed her daughter when the evidence is studied.
Obviously there was
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:37pm.
Obviously there was reasonable doubt.
Not obvious at all.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:41pm.
The world is full of people who do not have the skills to evaluate evidence and make an informed decision. Obama's election is a case in point.
I'm sure you said the same
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:50pm.
I'm sure you said the same about Gary Condit.
Then you would be wrong.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:56pm.
As you always are.
Oh, of course. So let's see
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 4:13pm.
Oh, of course. So let's see you list all of the direct evidence that the jury was just too stupid to analyze.
Rad?
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:08pm.
Oddly enough, I was one who didn't necessarily buy into the media hype- for some reason when so many talking heads line up on one side, I tend to line up on the other. I also didn't follow this case too closely, though I did catch a bit of it right near the end.
Here's my question about the evidence: My understanding is that the duct tape was used to smother the child- three pieces, one over the mouth, the nose, and one between. They also claimed chloroform was used. I also understand that the child's body was found decomposed; the man who found it claimed to see something that looked like a skull in August, then picked up a skull with a stick in December. Was the tape found on the skull? Stuck to the skull? Or was tape found near the skull? I was under the impression it was found on the skull. If so, how can that be? I also understand they found no evidence of chloroform. [Sidebar: I wasn't sure how to spell "chloroform". I want it on record that I googled the word "chloroform" just to see how it is spelled. Get that detectives? It was a spell check! I just hope NB doesn't go through another rebuild and lose all the comments...)
Personally, I think the State believed she was quilty but was never able to find definitive evidence and was under pressure to bing a trial- after all, they couldn't hold her forever. And then I think they over reached on the charges.
If she didn't do it, I'm happy for her- though I think she needs some very serious emotional hope. If she did do it, she'll be judged again by a higher power someday.
I wonder if Jose Baez gave away a bit during his statement moments ago though. He said this is proof the death penalty doesn't work. Is he saying that's why the jury couldn't/wouldn't convict?
That's the thing, BK
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:18pm.
They didn't have enough forensics to prove any of what you wrote. While there was trace chloroform in CA's trunk, there wasn't any on the remains. The tape (from what I understand) was found "on" the skull, but not adhered to it.
Furthermore, their forensic examination was somewhat sloppy re: autopsy, and this "sniffer" thing is unproven.
As for Baez's statement, he's obviously anti-death penalty. Had things fallen differently in this case (body recovered earlier, for example...with better forensics), I think Ms. Anthony would be staring at Old Sparky today, and rightfully so.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Wasn't Dr. G the medical
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:28pm.
Wasn't Dr. G the medical examiner? She testified in the trail. She seem to be very thorough on her TV show.
J
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:49pm.
Not sure how familiar you are with that part of Florida but the tape thing bothered me from the first time I heard about it. There's no way the body could have decomposed down to the bone and the tape remain in place. Two, it's not even likely that the tape would have been even "on" the skull. If the body was in the woods for all, or most of that time, it's hardly likely the bones would even be found together due to weather, the rise in the water table, and animals. And it seemed like the State was relying on this evidence.
I did hear Baez claim that if the jury believed the crime scene -being the recovery scene- was staged, none of what was found there could be admissible. I don't know if that squares with Florida Law, but the prosecution didn't object to the statement when he said it, repeatedly in his closing arguments. The bones, the bag, the tape, etc. seem to me to be staged. Again, I didn't hear even 10% of the evidence, so I certainly can't come to a reasonable position, but the recovery scene seemed to be the crux of the State's case.
I just heard Judge Jeanine on FoxNews say "duct tape still stuck to the skull." Followed by a State's witness who said "...still attached to the face..." How? Can't happen.
edited
You know what I found odd, BK?
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 4:15pm.
That the prosecution's forensics were so damned bad!
Just up the road from Orlando is the University of Florida...where they have a whole museum section devoted to forensics! And years ago, I did some consulting out in Arizona, where I met an elderly lady doctor who was interested in forensic examinations. She had some interesting books on the subject, which I read....one was by a professor at UF, which of course, stuck in my mind.
Also, I know that the University of Tennessee actually has a "death lab".....where they create all sorts of scenarios regarding human decomposition. So it would have been more than possible to recreate the duct tape and the coincident level of the body's decomposition. Why didn't they do that?
That area of Florida gets droughts, and rainy seasons.
Of course having not seen the evidence, (thankfully)...who knows? I just don't know what to think about the grandparents....their behavior was puzzling to say the least. Casey did was responsible for her daughter's death, that I am sure of, but we'll never know what happened.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You find it odd that
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 4:36pm.
You find it odd that government was inefficient and not up to the task?
What did I just write you reading deficient troll?
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 4:56pm.
Try again.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
"You know what I found odd,
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 5:02pm.
"You know what I found odd, BK? That the prosecution's forensics were so damned bad!"
Ergo, you find it odd that government was inefficient and not up to the task. How anyone could find government inefficiency to be odd is beyond me.
Um, no, cherry picker
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 6:55pm.
Last I looked, the staff of the University of Florida were part of the State of Florida. What confuses you there, Pervmo?
Why don't you QUIT TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN OTHER PEOPLE'S MOUTHS (or on their fingertips, as the case may be)?
Keep trolling though, Incestmo....I'm sure the results will be exactly the same as the last time you got booted.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I didn't put any words in
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 7:36pm.
I didn't put any words in your mouth, nor did I cherry pick your comments.
Actually, SatchelMouth, you---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 8:36pm.
did exactly that.
You are one thick skulled moron.
The Black Knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail" is either your hero, or was copied after your persona.
MD
bothered me too
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 4:19pm.
The tape thing bothered the hell out of me. I kept thinking if the body decomposed, the tape would have fallen off and become brittle, useless, especially if exposed to the environment like the body. Duct tape is strong, but not that strong to stay attached to something long after living tissue went away. That just does not happen.
There's still something damned odd about this whole thing, several actually, and lots of it is just plain messed up. There's no question in my mind that Casey Anthony is mentally unstable even though they declared her as fit for standing for trial. I mean, what kind of mother parties like it's 1999 even though her daughter was missing for a month before being reported? That's an unfit mother.(I have known a few like that)
One thing for sure, even if Casey were to go home, she could never go out in public ever again, not without a full security detail. And her relationship with her mother and father is pretty much on the rocks. Any hope of reconciliation? I doubt it.
Either way, truly messed up.
-Jon
Chlorophorm
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 4:15pm.
I don't know how long chloroform would take to break down in nature, where it was exposed to the elements. But why was it in CA's car? Why was iit being searched on the Internet? Why did she lie about her daughters disappearance? How did that little girl end up in the woods? Who else could have done it and what their motive be? Why is it impossible that the duct tape is still on the body?
I still believe the preponderance of the evidence proves CA guilty.
It's all circumstantial
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 4:38pm.
It's all circumstantial evidence. Nothing tied her directly to the death, otherwise there would have been a different verdict.
It's not the "circumstancial" nature of the evidence
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 5:02pm.
It's the failure of (a) overcharging and (b) connecting the dots and (c) shoddy forensics (autopsy) and (d) defense establishing a reasonable doubt.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Rad
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 4:59pm.
Yep lots of questions for sure. I certainly can't answer them. But like I said above, the tape seemed to be the crucial evidence and there is just no way the tape could have been placed over a living, breathing mouth and then found 6 months later attached to the bone beneath where the tissue decomposed. That's just an impossibility that the State presented as evidence by multiple witnesses.
ABC has a video that Drudge is linking that shows Casey's reactions to the prosecutor's specific statements regarding her mother and father. As the prosecutor says (paraphrasing), 'Casey would have you believe that her mother is at fault for leaving the ladder down' Casey is shaking her head and seemingly says, 'I never said that.' Then when the prosecutor says, 'Casey would also have you believe her father was at fault...' (again, paraphrasing) Casey seemingly says, 'because it is his fault.'
Certainly not enough to render judgment from, but I would -were I defending Casey- suggest that the mother did try to protect her daughter in some ways during the trial while her father was curiously defensive of himself, much moreso than of his daughter. The grandparents cannot bring their granddaughter back, but they stood to lose their daughter as well, and dad seemed more worried about his role in an alleged affair.
Much has been made about the parents leaving the courtroom immediately following the verdict. Most surmizing that they were disappointed in the result -for some un-godly reason. I think that was the media projecting their own disappointment. Maybe mom and dad were overwhelmed and felt it better to leave than express their emotions in the room. Maybe they had planned to leave immediately following the reading from the get go, figuring that regardless of the jury's decision, it would be overwhelmingly emotional for them.
What I saw following the verdict was a punditry that was thoroughly rebuked and pretty pissed at how wrong they were in assessing this case. They were visibly and audibly angry. They were all thinking -OJ- no doubt, and I think that has clouded their assessment. Then, after the shock had begun to wear off, they began talking about how shoddy the State's case really was. Funny, it was a slam dunk guilty, at least on a life sentence, then suddenly the State had a flawed case. This is why I don't align with the preponderance of talking heads on much of anything.
BK
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 6:48pm.
I wasn't entirely puzzled about the parents' abrupt exit, consider the history of problems between Casey and them. I mean, even her father tried to commit suicide(forgot how, was it an overdose?) and there's definitely a lot of emotional issues between them. It'll be a miracle if that relationship will survive.
One of the charges was aggravated manslaughter which she wasn't found guilty of, and based on the presentation of the prosecutor, I would have been hard-pressed to believe aggravated manslaughter was provable. Might have been easier to go with involuntary manslaughter or whatever an accidental death of a child through neglect or something of that nature. The question is, who was around when it happened, was it her father or was she around?
Maybe Doc Sam could shed some light on this, but when she was saying she needed some mental help and three psychologists(psychiatrists? I always get those confused) said she was competent to stand for trial, was she really? She certainly seems like someone deeply disturbed, especially with that mania reaction that was attributed to her by Dr. Keith Ablow on Fox News, and even though he didn't directly say it, he says he's seen that in abuse patients. And she did claim some abuse right from the outset of the beginning of the trial as per her defense.
Either way, this shows that in this case, there are more questions than answers.
But that thing with the duct tape, that's just patently absurd. I talked about it with some of my co-workers and walked them through why it couldn't be that way and in the end, their reaction was "Oooooh, ok, yeah."
-Jon
True jon_*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 7:12pm.
Liked your post. That was a list of very good questions. Just my opinion. When she released information about being an abused child, what I knew about this young woman and the charges against her, she does indeed appear to be an abused child/adult. However, being nutty doesn't mean you are "legally insane". The issue of her mental status should have no bearing on "conviction" once she was determined to be "sane".The issue of her being abused as a child should have no bearing on the "conviction" phase of the trial. That information is sometimes significant when determining "sentencing" and ask for "mercy" by the court.
Note: Prisons are filled with men and women who were abused as children. The abuse left them with difficulties and damage that led them to a "dysfunctional" lifestyle. The majority of abused children go on to have "normal" lives and are not generally abusive parents. The problem with this young woman is that, as an adult in a dysfunctional family, she did not leave to seek independence and safety. Instead, she remained a part of this dysfunctional family. If her father and brother allegedly abused her, one could assume either of them may have abused the child. This young woman knew that possibility yet remained a part of this household. That decision to remain is an example of "grooming" that I have mentioned here at NB several times where perpetrators manipulate their victims as children and as adults. From my experience, I saw how difficult it is to find a woman guilty of killing her own child, unless there is absolute forensics/eyewitness. Juries just seem hesitant to find a mother guilty of murdering her own child. Probably the same people who have strong support for a woman's "right" to choose abortion.
Jon
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 7:13pm.
I saw that segment with Ablow- that was interesting. He seemed to indicate that her behavior after the child went missing was completely consistent with someone who'd been abused, and then said her father's behavior was consistent with a killer. "An accident that snowballed out of control."
I just saw another report on Fox from a Fox reporter in the courtroom who said Casey's mother was smiling ear to ear when she and the father left the courtroom, the father was stoic and looked somewhat stunned. Could he be worried now?
BK
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 7:11pm.
The behavior of the father could be somewhat explained by CA accusing him of abuse in the past. I would imagine that put him on the defensive.
I feel that CA's lies when her daughter went missing say a great deal. She has no motivation to lie other than to cover up a crime she committed.
Hi Rad
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 7:21pm.
I was just commenting on this to Jon above. Here's a piece Ablow wrote today after the verdict which addresses this. Certainly I don't know if this is possible, but Ablow thinks it is.
BK
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 9:34pm.
Interesting, but I'm not buying it at this point. They are one messed up family, but quite frankly, I see it as another wild story concocted to free Casey. Where's the proof?
Not really any proof to show
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 9:52am.
It'd be safe to say that it would be anecdotal but based on observation. A body language expert might be able to explain it better. You said it yourself, it's one messed up family, which I also have said and I'm sure people would be hard-pressed to think otherwise. Hell, the father tried to commit suicide over this, definitely not normal!
I've seen it myself that her behavior could be an escape from reality after something traumatic and I knew a woman a long time ago that did something similar and she was a victim of abuse by her father as well. Except in this case where she was wild, she used guys(was involved with 6 of them, even pretended to be engaged) and she did the similar thing about lies upon lies until it was too much to keep up with and she started lashing out at everyone, even did some "cutting" which she blamed on "accidents." Physically speaking, she was as striking in her looks as Casey, but in her head was about as messed up. Things got so bad for her that she ended up moving out of the state and changing her name.
I'm not saying she's innocent, but I think there's more to the story than we know and I think she was a victim as well.
-Jon
Another view
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 9:58am.
I saw another judge on Fox this morning who said pretty much what I believe. The prosecution doesn't need to prove how Caylee died, they've prosecuted cases without bodies and succeeded. Juries can take "reasonable doubt" to extremes. There is no objective standard for it, so it can move many degrees.
If this was an accidental drowning, why on earth hide it? The family, particularly the dad, would know this happens far to often, and that it would be much easier to deal with that type of investigation than that of a missing child, who eventually turns up dead.
Rad
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:38am.
The father would also know that accidental drowning could be charged as negligent manslaughter. What if Caylee died in Dad's car while he was at the home of another woman? Wild theory, I know, but cause of death was never determined. I guess what I'm saying is that Casey's father, and mother for that matter, didn't come off as all that stable themselves. It's not like Casey was the black sheep, this whole family is dysfunctional. It would seem unfair to attribute irrational acts to Casey and assume her mom and dad were reasonable and helpful players.
I'm guessing that was Judge Jeanine Pirro on Fox this morning; I've seen her interviewed several times over the last 18 hours and she's said that on each occasion. The CSI thing. Only, there must be circumstantial evidence cases resulting in jury convictions every day; it's just that they're not on tv. Why would this jury be suseptible to that and others not?
BK again!
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:48am.
I think the whole family has a lot of problems. But I still think it's more reasonable to assume the child died at the hands of the mother than accidently with her grandfather.
Sometimes the most obvious scenario is the correct one.
Rad
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:39am.
In addition to what Jon just noted above- the father was not on trial. He was not charged with anything. Neither was the mother. The defense isn't required to present proof of anything, and in fact, no one was looking -deeply- for evidence that her father did anything wrong. NOT because he didn't do anything wrong, necessarily, but because the police determined their investigation would center on Casey.
I get the feeling that the media has essentially Palinized Casey. She may be entirely guilty, but the media never really entertained any other option; she was convicted on television and in print long before the trial ever started. I'm sure that has had an effect on the casual observer. And I suspect they will not give up the chase regardless of the sentence rendered tomorrow. Casey may ultimately wish she was given another year behind bars.
As for the article- I agree, it is interesting. I never used to put a lot of faith in head docs and their capabilities since they relied entirely on what their patient is able to relate to them. I figured they could be easily mislead as a result. But there is a commonality among afflictions and years of historical record and treatment to reflect upon; what a person says can be readily distinguished from their less-scripted actions. Casey's actions after her child went missing seemingly mirror those of other abuse victims who've suffered traumatic events later in life. I'd guess that these actions are somewhat out of her control -IF, in fact- she had been victimized in such a way.And I think that was the point behind Ablow's article- not to pass judgment, but to suggest that her behavior doesn't necessarily infer guilt; it can also infer a history of abuse. Now, you'd have to assume that Casey was aware that her behavior was similar to victims of abuse and then concocted that scenario to rationally explain it if you don't believe it's true. Like Baez said in closing - She would have to be incredibly brilliant to outsmart Orlando area law enforcement, the States Attorney's Office, the medical examiner, and the FBI crime lab personnel to get away with murder. You'd have to add her in-depth knowledge of psychology to that list, I suppose.
BK
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:45am.
Casey's actions also are similar to those of a sociopath. She killed her daughter because Caylee was in the way of her party life style, she threw her family to the wolves to try to get off, she lies pathologically.
I'm guessing that the police looked at the entire family in this case. That's usually what they do, the mother isn't the first person they suspect in the death of a child unless her behavior gives them reason to.
Not everyone who commits crimes has been abused. Some people are just evil.
We may never know
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:09pm.
We have our own reasons (in some cases some personal experience) for believing what we believe about this case. No need to re-hash all that. But unless there are more answers than there are questions, we may never know what actually happened.
I read a link from Drudge about the jurors' reasons for the not guilty verdict and they laid it out pretty well and I can't really dispute it. (jurors' decisions)
Regardless of what we might think of Casey herself, the prosecution really screwed up this case.
-Jon
Have you sat on a jury recently?
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 5:34pm.
Reasonable doubt. Reasonable. The judge instructed the jury on this at the start of the case, during the trial, and prior to deliberations. To find a defendant guilty or not-guilty requires a unanimous vote. Are you saying 12 jurors all got together and decided to ignore the judge's instructions misinterpreting as shadow of a doubt? I'll state the obvious: unless you were sitting in the jury box you are not qualified to pass judgement on the decision.
Mr. Brain,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 5:40pm.
are you implying that you have recently been on jury duty? Hmmm?
No,
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 5:49pm.
I'm implying nothing. I'm stating facts and asking questions pertaining to the post above detailing a complete misunderstanding of our legal system.
And I prefer Mr. Zombie.
Hmmm. OK, Mr. Brain, you go on about your business for now.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 5:54pm.
But there's something awfully familiar about you...
I see
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 6:10pm.
Is it my eyes or my ass? I have a nice ass.
No Mr. Brain, it's not your ass, or your eyes.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 6:34pm.
Now go about your business.
That might explain, Mr.Brain, why your head is always---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 8:41pm.
up there.
MD
Try again
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 6:53pm.
Actually, people can Monday morning quarterback as much as they damn well please, your barking orders to the contrary.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Barking orders?
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 7:01pm.
Pray tell.
Zombie
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 7:06pm.
You have proven your vast ignorance of the legal system when you said a copyright owner could give away his work for a politician to use with no consideration for campaign finance laws. So go away and don't show your ignorance any more.
Proclamation of Superficiality
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 7:27pm.
1) I was right about the song's owner.
2) I'm right about this too.
3) Disprove me in either case. Until then your conclusive means nothing.
So it is now Satchmo-Incestmo-Pervmo-Zombie Brain---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 8:48pm.
saying, inexorably, "I am right and you are wrong".
That's my "conclusive" anyway.
MD
Another incest joke?
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 9:57am.
This is the second or 3rd time my name has been used in the same sentence as incestmo. Is there some relation between the two of us that I might have missed?
Yeah, Mr. Brain---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:38pm.
you and Satchmo-pervmo-incestmo make about the same amount of sense.
Which is to say, not a whole hell of a lot.
MD
Zombie
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 9:18pm.
Why don't YOU prove something for a change.
Limits on campaign contributions can be found in the table here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#Hard_...
wikipedia?
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 9:56am.
Show me on that page where it states that an artist may not permit a candidate to use a song for free during campaign stops. Furthermore, help me understand that while an artist is not required to charge even a penny for such usage such a practice is in violation of campaign finance laws.
Really now?
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 9:49pm.
You are right, you ARE issuing a proclamation of superficiality.
Your word here is NOT the Holy Writ.
Link or slink.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Still waiting
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 9:58am.
Where did I bark orders?
Another reason the U.S. media sucks
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 4:41pm.
If ANYTHING shows that the U.S. media is pure, total crap, it is this trial. Back in the day, this trial would have been covered in a blip on a VERY slow news day. Now, Headline News (which I am subject to at work) goes wall-to-wall coverage with it.
No way in hell we could consider the joys of, oh, I don't know, news from other parts of the globe, is there? I guess this nice real-life soap opera is a good way for the Left to avoid talking about the happenings in Syntagma Square and more importantly, WHY they are happening. Or why Portugal's long-term bonds are now "junk".
There's a freaking verdict in this trial? Good. Let's talk about ANYTHING ELSE.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
NO on raising the debt ceiling!
Submitted by Mary Louise Turner on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:37pm.
Earth to Congress:
It's l-o-n-g past time for you idiots to stop the "Crazy Eddie" spending spree (because it's insane!). It's time to say NO to any increase in the debt ceiling. The trouble is: does anybody (especially the Republicans) have the backbone to say no?
When you're holding a hammer
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 2:39pm.
everything looks like a nail.
Bachmann Slams The Moonbat Messiah “
Submitted by im41 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:10pm.
“In a Michele Bachmann White House there won’t be any teleprompters”
Nearly Nobody: Don't know who runs that blog, but...
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:29pm.
Whoever thinks that pasting a disgraceful picture of Obama sitting on a toilet is going to "help" Michele Bachmann's cause is plain nuts!
I like Bachmann and Cain and despise Obama... But teenaged bathroom humor is no way to help the conservative cause.
- Grump
I don't know, Grump---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 8:57pm.
showing Obama doing for a very short time in private, what he is doing the rest of the time to America in public, should at least merit a hat tip to some sort of consistency; good OR bad. :o)
MD
Oh, but the benevolent
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 4:40pm.
Oh, but the benevolent Bachmann will allow us peasants to buy whatever lightbulb we want! Thank you for giving us your permission!
"President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want,”
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/167169-bachmann-blasts-ligh...
Don't feed it.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 4:55pm.
.
Contradictions in Global Warming
Submitted by dmntd1 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:09pm.
A recent CNN article has the headline blaming China for Global Warming. Seems they've built so many powerplants, that they're now a huge reason. However, as you read through the article, the contradictions within the article itself should have made the editor pull his hair out. Since it didn't, maybe NB can make him blush. Or resign.
So, which is it, Gerard Wynn? Will we warm up or cool down if we reduce emissions? Is it unclear as to the reasons behind global climate change, is it is all China's fault?
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
No to a BBA but get the FairTax in place ASAP...
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:34pm.
...because the current illegal federal income tax system is untenable regardless of how it's done, and is going to do us in as a nation if we don't soon get rid of it completely.
I want the government the hell out of my paycheck so when/if they do raise taxes, I will at least have a choice as to whether or not I am going to pay them.
Right now, I have no say.
As to raising the debt ceiling, not only no, but HELL NO!
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
The guys at This ain't hell have it right
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:41pm.
Mexico wants to try someone for sending a thousand so so gun across the border then we get to try the person(s) that allowed millions of weapons of mass destruction in human form to cross the border
Meanwhile, back at Rancho Obama,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 4:03pm.
El Exigente is trying to save a mexican murderer's worthless azz.
Strange times indeed.
SOL
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 4:25pm.
Just wondering if this, or any of the other murderers, are illegals.
Rad:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 4:34pm.
Yeah, big surprise, he was here illegally. Since age two. Of course, these days, that practically makes him a citizen.
Pound sand
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:15pm.
Given the description of the girl's body (really made me sick) when found by the police, I'm glad Texas is telling them to go pound sand. I wouldn't want that bastard to have a chance to get off free for anything. I don't care if he's an illegal or not, what he did to that poor girl.....bastard should be drawn and quartered.
-Jon
Jon
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 12:21pm.
The reason I asked about the status of the guy was because of the irony (stupidity) of our federal government. We can't ask them if they're illegals unless they commit a crime so we can have them contact their government for help. This makes no sense at all, but what does anymore?