America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Come on Rick. You know better than to talk like that. If you are going to refer to a "vagina" don't use the word. Just call it her "private place" or "honey hole", etc...

Cunning linguist.

As bad as this year's GOP crop may look, I will be voting the ABO card come election day. (Anybody But Obama, for those who don't know the acronym )

I figure it's like Monty Hall in Let's Make a Deal: You have a feeling that doors 1 through 3 are just tin-can eating goats. But it's a hell of a lot better than having Monty empty YOUR wallet at a pace that would make an angry Langolier blush.

So, drilling jobs don't count..?? Any idea where that drilling equipment comes from..??

RickaLimbaugh???

Yeah we can't manufacture without government ran corps and unions.

Really?

This is what it has come to. I have to say that I am disappointed by this juvenile, pointless post.

And Rick, wanting to kill ourselves is how the 99% of Americans right now (that is the ones that think that the current president is a steaming pile of s**t) feel all the time.

Hopefully this election will fix that.

At this point, I would vote for anyone who is not obama.



J

Dude...you got some serious issues. Do ANY of your family members know you possess such twisted "logic".

A ultrasound is a violating invasive procedure now?

I assume the procedure he's referring to comes once a year in the middle of April.

I thinks it intrusive. No.



But I don't condone murder either.

I certainly do,,,
Killing a baby is murder.

God forbid if a woman would decide not to kill her baby after seeing it on an Ultrasound...

It's a great law...

In addition to paying for liberal sluts birth control, i'll offer up another fiver if any of them want to lick my balls...

Ah, I thought you forgot the ? in the first sentence and meant something like do I think it's intrusive? no.

Then ok, no support. So you think it's non-invasive, but intrusive so a bad law.

How is he 'celebrated' for being the son of a black man?

Non evasive was directed at Ricks comment as to shoving a metal devise up a moist crevasse. That isn't the law its a ultrasound. Simple as that.

I support that states rights but I don't like that decision.

I might read this later, but based on the link name it's aimed at Virginia so I don't really care.

If you'd like to offer the cliffs notes version, I'd happily offer a more informed decision.

Hey Fuzzy since were asking eachother questions, how do you feel about this :


The Obama administration believes that executive branch reviews of evidence against suspected al-Qaeda leaders before they are targeted for killing meet the constitution’s “due process” requirement and that American citizenship alone doesn’t protect individuals from being killed, Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech Monday.

“Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security,” Holder said. “The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

Broadly outlining the guidelines the Obama administration has used to conduct lethal drone stikes overseas, Holder said the U.S. government could legally target a senior operational al Qaeda leader who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans if the individual (1) posed an imminent threat of violence; (2) could not feasibly be captured; and (3) if the operation was conducted in line with war principles.

Such a use of lethal force against that type of individual, Holder said, wouldn’t violate the executive order banning assassinations or criminal statues because such an act would be in “self defense.” In remarks delivered at Northwestern University Law School in Chicago, Holder also said that targeted killings are not “assassinations,” adding that the “use of that loaded term is misplaced” because assassinations are “unlawful killings” while targeted strikes are conducted lawfully.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has so far refused to release a copy of a legal memorandum justifying the targeted killing of the U.S. born Anwar al-Awlaki, who allegedly inspired several attacks or attempted attacks on the U.S.

While not mentioning Anwar al-Awlaki by name — Holder said he “cannot discuss or confirm any particular program or operation” — he arguably referenced his killing by using the example of a U.S. born al Qaeda leader. Holder said that “citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted.”

Holder also argued that the due process clause of the Constitution did not mean that federal judges had to review decisions to kill individuals the U.S. government claimed were terrorists.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that the Due Process Clause does not impose one-size-fits-all requirements, but instead mandates procedural safeguards that depend on specific circumstances,” Holder said.

“In cases arising under the Due Process Clause - including in a case involving a U.S. citizen captured in the conflict against al Qaeda - the Court has applied a balancing approach, weighing the private interest that will be affected against the interest the government is trying to protect, and the burdens the government would face in providing additional process,” Holder said. “Where national security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities of combat.”

Holder said that any decision to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen is “among the gravest that government leaders can face” and that the American people deserve to be assured that actions taking place on their behalf are consistent with values and laws.”

Holder said that the “imminent threat” evaluation had to take into account what would happen if the U.S. missed its window of opportunity and said the Constitution did not require the President to “delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning.”

The question of whether the capture of a terrorist is feasible is “a fact-specific, and potentially time-sensitive, question,” said Holder, adding that the “nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide” meant capture wasn’t always possible.

Holder also said that the administration informs members of Congress about counterterrorism activities and the legal framework for targeting individuals for killing, which he said was part of a system of “robust oversight”

“The Constitution’s guarantee of due process is ironclad, and it is essential - but, as a recent court decision makes clear, it does not require judicial approval before the President may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war - even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen,” Holder said.

Hina Shamsi of the ACLU said ahead ahead of Holder’s speech that the question was whether Holder would offer “meaningful transparency both about the legal standards that the Obama administration uses to determine who can be killed as well as basic facts about who can be targeted.”

Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First called the question of whether al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen “sort of a red herring.”

“You cannot arbitrarily kill individuals that you decided secretly are your enemies, even if they are U.S. citizens,” Eviatar said. “It’s not as if due process only applies to U.S. citizens. The bigger question is what made al-Alwaki targetable, was he an operational leader of al-Qaeda with whom were were at war?”

Well than see we found some common ground today......

Cone disillusion!

No, Fuzz, he is EXACTLY what you wanted.

You want a guy who is going to "even the playing field." Well, you don't do that by taking stuff away from one side of the playing field, and depositing it in the other. And in order to do that, you need to violate or both sides of that field.

Your only regrets are that a) you weren't bright enough to figure that one out, and b) couldn't realize that the had that gives is also the hand that takes things away.

You special brand of idiocy causes millions to suffer needlessly.

Cliff note version:

What are you gonna do when a Death Panel comes to you?

And this is how grown up Dems respond :

Third female lawmaker introduces bill to limit men’s Viagra access By Liz Goodwin | The Lookout - 17 hrs ago

Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner is the third female lawmaker to introduce a bill that would limit men's access to Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs to make a statement about the dozens of anti-abortion bills that have passed statehouses around the country over the last year.

Turner is opposed to a proposed bill that would prohibit abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can happen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. The Dayton Daily News reports that Turner's bill would mandate that men seeking Viagra be "tested for heart problems, receive counseling about possible side effects and receive information about 'pursuing celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.'"

Turner said on MSNBC Monday that the bill is about showing "men as much love in the reproductive health arena as they have shown us over the years. My Senate Bill 307 is all about the love and making sure we look out for men's sexual health."

Rep. Lynn Wachtmann, the heartbeat bill's sponsor, told the Dayton Daily News that the comparison between Viagra and abortions isn't valid.

Turner is one of several female Democratic state lawmakers who are wielding the power of sarcasm to protest a wave of anti-abortion legislation.

In January, Virginia state Sen. Janet Howell introduced an amendment to the state's controversial ultrasound bill, which required women seeking abortions to first undergo a vaginal ultrasound. The amendment, which failed, said that all men seeking Viagra would have to first get a rectal exam. The ultrasound bill passed after Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell successfully requested that the vaginal ultrasound requirement be removed. Women seeking abortions will still have to receive an external ultrasound under the new bill.

Earlier this month, Illinois state Rep. Kelly Cassidy introduced an amendment to another bill that would require women to get ultrasounds before being allowed to get abortions. The amendment mandated that men seeking Viagra watch a graphic video about the drug's potential side effects. "If they are serious about us not being able to make our own health care decisions, then I'm just as serious about them not being able to make theirs," she said.

Missouri state Rep. Stacey Newman, a Democrat, introduced legislation that would allow men to get vasectomies only if their life depended upon the procedure, which was similar to Georgia state Rep. Yasmin Neal's bill. "In determining whether a vasectomy is necessary, no regard shall be made to the desire of a man to father children, his economic situation, his age, the number of children he is currently responsible for, or any danger to his wife or partner in the event a child is conceived," the tongue-in-cheek Missouri bill reads.

According to the abortion rights group the Guttmacher Institute, a record-breaking 92 new abortion-restricting laws were passed in 2011. Two of those laws mandated that women have ultrasounds and look at the images before being allowed to get an abortion.