Does that mean we’ll find out that his name isn’t Frank, he’s not a firefighter, and is concerned about tax issues even though he doesn’t pay his taxes?

Hence my gun collection. :-)

I am always surprised that most Americans America is FDR on steroids. Then, they get glassy-eyed and talk about freedom.

Guess we in CA didn’t get that memo. I spent $10 for my workout pants, and about the same for a mat. Got ‘em both @ Target.

It’s these kinds of comments that give aid and comfort to the bureaucrats. Feh.

If anything is clear, you most certainly shouldn’t be trusting your kids when they say they aren’t taking drugs and you sure as hell can’t trust doctors to be responsible in writing prescriptions. We already know you can’t trust your neighbors who are probably either terrorists or meth cookers. Let’s face it, an accurate picture of civilization would be you standing in the middle of a huge field surrounded by the entire population of the planet who are all out to kill you. And the only thing standing between them and you is the government.

Personally, I think if Michael Jackson died because of drug abuse, the only person at fault is probably Michael Jackson. But then, I can say preposterous irresponsible shit like that because I’m not running for public office and I don’t have vulnerable young children living in my house (and, for the moment, it’s still protected speech).

I know this is off-topic, but I had to blow off some steam before my head exploded leaving a slimy coating of skull fragments, brain matter, and blood all over my computer room walls.

I am just basing my belief on the antidotal evidence I have seen firsthand.

I only WISH we had some antidote to the stimulus bill…

The problem is that most people don’t understand what a lawsuit is about, let alone what the ruling says. I don’t mean that in a “lawyers-are-smart-and-everybody-else-is-stupid” sort of way. What I mean is that, in just about any profession, if a lay person sat in on an important meeting involving the top minds in said field, most people wouldn’t know what’s going on. Appellate opinions are often highly nuanced, relying on issues that are completely (or nearly completely) divorced from the facts of the matter. However, the media generally reports the results of a case based on its impact: here’s what party A did; here’s who the court voted for; here’s what happens to party A now. Thus, if people don’t like the end result of the opinion, many will leap to the conclusion that the judge is an idiot even if they would agree with the logic by which the decision was reached.

Despite the fact that most members of Congress are lawyers, they’ll approach Sotomayor’s decisions as would the uninformed layperson because it makes for better theater come the confirmation hearings.

Lawsuits are a great tool against corruption and intusions by the government, corporate abuse, contract breaches, etc. and it’s one of the only area where unconnected, normal people can get jsutice. Libertarians should hold as sacred the right to sue and defend in the courts, and judge claims on their own merits rather than as inherently bad.

It might make more sense to you if you read (and linked to) her actual and complete statements rather than the abridged and deliberately misleading version of them that CNS serves to their following.

Sure there is no way to prove that things would have been worse, but there is also no way to prove that they wouldn’t be. You can really support either side with the evidence we have. I am just basing my belief on the antidotal evidence I have seen firsthand.

And fees, of course.